What about Cultural Policy? Miikka Pyykkönen – Niina Simanainen – Sakarias Sokka (eds.) What about Cultural Policy? Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Culture and Politics SoPhi 114 Helsinki | Jyväskylä SoPhi 114 Toimitus: Yhteiskuntatieteiden ja filosofian laitos PL 35 (MaB) 40014 Jyväskylän yliopisto http://www.minervakustannus.fi/sophi Kustantaja ja myynti: Minerva Kustannus Oy Lastenkodinkuja 1 A, 00180 Helsinki Viitaniementie 13, 40720 Jyväskylä [email protected] © Kirjoittajat ja Minerva Kustannus Oy Ulkoasu Kalevi Nurmela 2. painos ISBN 978-952-492-320-0 Paino Kopijyvä Oy, Jyväskylä 2009 Contents Foreword 9 Miikka Pyykkönen, Niina Simanainen & Sakarias Sokka Introduction – O Culture, Where Art Thou? 11 1 Contemporary Questions in Cultural Policy Research Geir Vestheim 1.1 The Autonomy of Culture and the Arts – from the Early Bourgeois Era to Late Modern “Runaway World” 31 Risto Eräsaari 1.2 Representations and Logics of Cultural Policy 55 Pirkkoliisa Ahponen 1.3 Perspectives for Cultural Political Research: Keywords from Participation through Creativity and Alienation to Self-expression and Competition 75 2 Beyond the National Limits of Cultural Policy? Pertti Alasuutari 2.1 Art and Cultural Policy in the World Culture of the Moderns 99 Peter Duelund 2.2 Our Kindred Nations: On Public Sphere and Paradigms of Nationalism in Nordic Cultural Policy 117 Annika Waenerberg 2.3 How German Is the Finnish Art? The Definition of the ‘National’ and Gaps of Art History 141 3 Access and Participation in Cultural Space Marja Järvelä 3.1 Reclaiming Space as a Meaningful Place 161 Jenny Johannisson 3.2 A Sense of Place? Tracing a Spatial Approach to Cultural Policy 173 Dorte Skot-Hansen 3.3 Whose City? Planning for creativity and cultural diversity 193 4 Cultural Production, Organization and Consumption Martti Siisiäinen 4.1 New Voluntary Associations and the Representation of Interests 211 Saara Taalas 4.2 Notes on Fan Organisation – Organization of Consumption in Copyrighted Economy 233 Michael Quine 4.3 How Many People go to the Theatre? A Challenge of Evidence-based Policy-making 251 5 Arts Policy and Authorship Today Per Mangset 5.1 The Arm’s Length Principle and the Art Funding System: A ComparativeApproach 273 Joop de Jong 5.2 Art and Artists: Free Market or Government Subsidies? The Case of the Netherlands 299 Sari Karttunen 5.3 Internationalisation Shapes the Peripheral Practitioner: The Case of Young Visual Artists in Finland 315 Bibliography 335 Notes on Authors 365 Foreword Miikka Pyykkönen, Niina Simanainen & Sakarias Sokka Professor Anita Kangas celebrated her 60th birthday on March 2, 2009. We could not think of a better way to celebrate Anita’s distin- guished career as a researcher, teacher and developer of Cultural Policy than with this volume, which is, above all, a cultural policy text book. It is also aimed at researchers and professionals of the cultural fields, and for all those interested in culture and politics. Professor Anita Kangas is the Director of the Unit for Cultural Policy Studies at the University of Jyväskylä. Her professorship, established in 1996, was the first professorship in the field of Cultural Policy in the Nordic countries. Anita developed and directed the interdisciplinary Cul- tural Management Programme in 1991–2000. In 2000, she launched the Master’s Programme in Cultural Policy, and the Doctoral Programme in Cultural Policy followed shortly after that. Both the Master’s Programme and the Doctoral Programme in Cultural Policy have been – and still are today – unique in Finland. Anita Kangas’ main research interests have included local and regional cultural policies and planning, theory and history of cultural policy, cul- tural policies in the European Union, culture and the civil society/third sector, culture and technology and the role of women in cultural life. Indeed, many of these themes are also discussed in the articles of this book. Anita has published widely on cultural policy and cultural politics, cultural theory and action research methodology, and she has established and managed several research projects on cultural policy. 9 Between 1986 and 1991, Anita Kangas served as the chair of the Arts Council of Central Finland. In 1992–1997, she was the vice chair of the Arts Council of Finland and a member of the Consultative Board for Popular Science and Committee of Media Arts. Anita has been consulted by numerous Finnish local and regional authorities on cultural policy and cultural planning. Since 2002 she has been the chair of the Advisory Board of the Foundation for Cultural Policy Research (CUPORE) and the Regional Cultural Foundation for Central Finland (Finnish Cultural Foundation). Anita Kangas is currently the dean at the Faculty of Social Sciences, and she is a member of various boards and committees of the University. She is also a docent at the University of Joensuu, Finland. With this Festschrift, we wish to congratulate Anita and celebrate her outstanding career as a developer of cultural political research and education in Finland, as well as her significant role in shaping cultural policies both in national and international contexts. We wish to thank all the authors of this publication, the Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy at the University of Jyväskylä, CUPORE (Foundation for Cultural Policy Research), and Tuija Modinos for proofreading the articles. 10 Introduction – O Culture, Where Art Thou? Miikka Pyykkönen, Niina Simanainen, Sakarias Sokka Cultural Policy as a Discipline and a Policy Sector Policy, as a concept, refers to the “regularizing aspects of poli- tics” that [as an outcome of contingent action; cf. ‘politicizing’ and ‘politicking’] imply the coordination of acts, and measure and regulate the inclusion and exclusion of activities (see Palonen 2003). When the concrete, regularizing aspect of organizing things and acts is indicated by policy, ‘culture’, as an abstract concept, has to be reified in some sense for analyzing it on that same level. This, in short, seems to be the first theoretical challenge in cultural policy research. Esa Pirnes (2008, 40) has stated that the late 18th and early 19th cen- turies (in Western societies) witnessed a rebirth of the concept of culture. Due to modernization process, nature and man were ever more frequently seen as separate entities, a new secular world view was propagated, and ’culture’ was adapted to new contents. In Raymond Williams’ (1988, 88) words: “[c]ulture as an independent noun, an abstract process or the product of such process, is not important before IC18 and is not common before mC19.” During the 19th century – in addition to the development of the broader definition, which meant attaching ‘culture’ to the level of the col- lective development (e.g., Daniel 1993, 74)1 – it became commonplace 11 to identify ‘culture’ with art and poetry. This was due to thinkers such as, e.g., Schiller, Wordsworth and Coleridge. As a consequence, art as the most advanced level of the ‘culture’, indicating the societal evolution, was seen produced by remarkable individuals. To “understand” the creative, sentimental characteristic of aesthetics, many upbringing capabilities were longed for from the receivers of art, too (Pirnes 2008, 40–65). In a great deal of the cultural policy research and other studies ob- serving the political aspects of culture, culture has been approached from within the national framework. This is quite understandable, whereas, for long, the policies under scrutiny were also limited to the national framework, and international effects were not significant or they were not recognized as such. Also, the regional and local policy institutions and activities were mainly seen as somewhat subordinate to the central- ized national policy, both in policies and in research (Häyrynen 2005, 135–145). This joint descending of the nation state and culture led to the ho- mogenization on an ideological level. The mushrooming of the printed material was important here: the idea of the nation under the umbrella of one culture disseminated to all stratums though novels, travelogues, ethnographies, newspapers, population studies and education. The dis- semination of national culture was concealed in symbols, many of which were also pieces of art (national flags, songs, paintings, literature, etc.). Although the people inhabiting a particular territory did not actually know each other, they shared the feeling of belonging to the same group through sharing the same symbols, language, conceptual maps, and other cultural features (Andersson 1982; Hobsbawm 1990; Hobsbawm & Ranger 1983). The above mentioned framework relates to the development in which cultural policy was strictly connected to the formation of the nation- state and the civilization of its citizens in many European countries – for example, in the Nordic countries – in the late 19th century and during the first half of the 20th century. Organized forms of culture brought together diverse elements of the societies. This required the existence of apparatuses and experts securing the “correct realization” and the “right 12 direction” of culture. However, this did not mean quelling the artists, their organizations or other actors, who practiced cultural activities in the sphere of civil society and had functioned as the backbones of the state centralization, but a new kind of regulation and selective resourcing of their activities. In most of the Nordic countries this “nationalization of the culture” took place through the state