Observations by Andreas Joh. Wiesand
Is it pure coincidence that, 5 years after the General Assembly of UNESCO adopted its Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, one of the cornerstones of this document is already put into question by many of the signatory states? I’m referring to their “sovereign right to formulate and implement cultural policies” that include, in particular, “measures aimed at providing public financial assistance” and “establishing and supporting public institutions” (Art. 5 and 6). To defend this principle – or “exception culturelle” – against the World Trade Organization (WTO) and others who insist on a pure free-market system without financial action or interference on the part of public authorities, may indeed become redundant if it is not invigorated by corresponding practice. Recent severe cuts affecting cultural budgets in a number of European countries seem to point in that direction.
In 2009, the CultureWatchEurope platform of the Council of Europe conducted a survey among Member States on funding trends for culture, asking also about possible strategies to safeguard cultural budgets in times of global financial crisis. Results of the survey, covering 21 countries, were summarized as follows:
“13 of 21 countries envisage an overall reduction of budgets for culture and heritage as a possible short or medium term consequence of the financial crisis, and one country partial reductions. 52 % (11 countries) envisage cuts in budgets of major cultural institutions, and nine mention reductions to subsidies of independent art and cultural organisations. Twelve countries envisage cuts to cultural infrastructure projects. On the other side, eight countries could imagine additional finance for infrastructure projects to stimulate employment, whilst only 17% (5 countries) could see an increase in the investment in creative industries to help generate employment.
The saving policy in cultural institutions may be implemented at the expense of reducing the number of activities and events, and diminishing quality, impacting on the consumption of culture and decreasing possibilities for Europeans to participate in cultural life.”
However, the trend does not seem to work in the same manner across Europe. The CultureWatchEurope survey demonstrated already that some countries, e.g. Finland, France or Slovakia, actually planned to financially stabilise the cultural sector. As described in the Report, “in Luxembourg some new projects will be launched earlier than initially envisaged, in order to strengthen the cultural sector during the crisis.”
At the 2010 CultureWatchEurope Conference in Brussels, Péter Inkei (The Budapest Observatory) sketched a broader picture [http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/cwe/Effects_Inkei_EN.pdf] of the effects that the economic crisis might have on the European cultural landscape, including on the different branches of the arts and cultural industries. For him, “the real issue is to find out whether the effects will lead to fundamental, lasting changes in Europe’s cultural environment.” He concludes:
“We can hope less and less for the simple re-establishment of the status quo. Is then the crisis evidence of a crucial, decisive period in the life of western civilisation, an end of an era, the phasing out of some of the basic features of capitalism, especially its liberal, postmodern variant? If this is the case, then the question is not just how culture will survive the transition period, but rather whether culture is an actor in these historic transformations.”
Back to the state of public budgets: The monitoring data that are available from the Council of Europe/ERICartsCompendium of Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe [Chapter 6.1 and 6.3 in the Country Profiles] are based – for methodological reasons and in order to sustain comparability – on official statistics, both from the national and regional/local levels. The inevitable consequence is that these are, in most cases, two years old. More recent data are, nevertheless, provided by some of the authors as indicators of latest trends: They show, for example in the Czech Republic and in Portugal (state level), that in some countries cuts came already into effect before the crisis really started to influence public budgets. Legally established arts funding bodies did not escape the current austerity measures as demonstrated in the country profile from Ireland, where the Arts Council now faces a 12% reduction of its budget.
Another, more descriptive overview of the situation in different European countries was published, in October 2010, by SICA, the Dutch Centre for International Cultural Activities. It arrives at a pessimistic outlook:
“None of the countries is currently in a position to provide a full picture of the impact of the economic crisis on cultural budgets. Cultural platforms, networks and observatories, including Lab for Culture and IFACCA, are monitoring developments, but much of the information available dates from the first half of 2009. Even then, prospects were far from positive, but the general expectation was that the subsidised sector in particular would see only limited effects. One year on, the situation appears to have worsened although hard evidence is still thin on the ground. What is certain is that cuts have been announced across the board, but these have not all been implemented so far. The sword of Damocles is threatening the whole of European culture and in some countries it is hanging from a particularly thin thread in view of the (impending) elections.
Cost-cutting can be direct or indirect. Almost everywhere, ministries are cutting their subsidy schemes for cultural institutions. At the same time, cultural budgets are threatened by cuts in the government funds used primarily by lower government authorities to finance their cultural policy, as is the case in the Netherlands with the Municipalities Fund (Gemeentefonds). Local government authorities face difficult decisions: should libraries stay open? If so, the swimming pool must be closed. For politicians, culture is just one of many areas where savings can be made. Those in favour of government support for the arts are few and far between and tend to keep their heads down when every vote counts.”
While cuts in public budgets for culture are, obviously, on many agendas, there are other countries which currently even report an increase, despite the financial crisis. For example, this is the case in Finland, where increased revenues from lotteries enabled an augmentation of the current budget of the Ministry. Less surprising is that the government of oil-rich Norway tries to maintain its self-proclaimed goal of spending 1% of its budget for culture – one of the highest per capita in Europe. One could add the German example where, at least on the national level, the Federal budget for culture has increased during the past decade and again in 2011, since the State Minister for the Arts and Media at the Chancellor’s Office succeeded to get a 27m Euro or 2.4% raise. Clearly, things look different in some German cities and on the regional level (Länder), which account for a much larger share of the overall cultural budget. In most cases, cuts tend to hit non-established activities harder than those that are budgeted regularly. On the other hand, as could recently be seen in Hamburg, prestige infrastructures such as the new Elb-Philharmonie – planned during the “fat” years mainly for the purpose of “city branding” – can have cruel effects also for the city’s major arts institutions such as theatres and museums.
Experienced observers [Christopher Gordon and Peter Stark in a supplementary report to the House of Commons inquiry into "The Funding of the Arts and Heritage", November 2010] describe similar negative tendencies from the UK, where the share of public resources attributed to culture – which has increased over the last 15 years, but now experiences dramatic 25-30% cuts following the last elections – focuses increasingly on major institutions and activities based in London, at the expense of the rest of the country.
If we are to assess the overall trends and proposed remedies, we cannot escape the conclusion that the outcome of the present crisis clearly depends on the backing “culture” is still able to get from larger parts of the population and, consequently, in political circles. Where cultural policy is not firmly rooted in the multiple demands of the public – or where the arts are still being conceived as “elitist” – and where the important role of arts, media and heritage activities for the social, educational and economic development of a society is not fully recognized, a change for the worse cannot be excluded, even after the current financial storm calms down. As Péter Inkei reminded us, a change for the better may only be achieved if artists and other culture professionals accept to play a more active role on the diverse political stages.
Andreas Joh. Wiesand – Executive Director, European Institute for Comparative Cultural Research - ERICarts
New Moon Cafe is hosting an exhibit of the artwork of Moldovan orphans from November 14th – December 5th, 2011.
Art therapy is a respected and effective method for dealing with childhood trauma. In the creative environment of art classes, leaders assess the psychological state of the children and work to build a sense of identity as well as hope and a future.
