Wilton Park Reports are brief summaries of the main points and conclusions of conferences. The reports reflect rapporteurs’ personal interpretations of the proceedings – as such they do not constitute any institutional policy of Wilton Park nor of those organisations associated with the conference, and nor do they necessarily represent the views of rapporteurs.

(A full Wilton Park Paper on the conference will appear in the Wilton Park Papers series to be published in due course).

Prepared by
Rod Fisher, Director
The International Arts Bureau, London
and Anthony Everitt, Writer and Visiting Professor
Nottingham University
October 18, 2000

1. Both ‘culture’ and ‘Europe’ need definition. ‘Culture’, for example, has multiple meanings. Three of these helped focus the conference discussions. First, ‘culture’ is the ensemble of a society’s values and the institutions through which it expresses them – in T. S. Eliot’s words, ‘the whole life of the people’. Secondly, ‘culture’ can be seen as the complete range of creative expression, including mass popular culture, the traditional or folk arts, amateur and community-based creative practice, design and the creative industries. Finally, in many European countries ‘culture’ has been narrowly defined as what are sometimes called the ‘high arts’ – the performing arts, painting and sculpture, the Western music tradition, ballet and contemporary dance and the literary arts.
2. Two important trends in governments’ arts and cultural policies are evident today: first, a shift from a preoccupation with the third to the second definition (albeit less so in Central and Eastern Europe); and secondly, a growing concern to articulate broad principles of governance in the context of the first ‘anthropological’ definition and to see the arts (i.e. the second and third definitions) as a means of realising them. These principles included the promotion of cultural identity, the celebration of diversity, the encouragement of civic participation and the fostering of creativity across the full scope of human endeavour.
3. ‘Europe’ is also a word which is employed with some elasticity. The 15 European Union states are frequently referred to as ‘Europe’, whereas they constitute barely one-third of European countries. The wider Europe represented by the Council of Europe is more accurate geographically.
4. The nature of European culture and European identity, and the relationship between them are key questions. It is difficult to say with accuracy what constitutes European culture, whether as a value-system or a tradition of creative expression. European politicians continue to refer to a common cultural heritage of Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals but ignore the reality that the culture of a community may reside in places which are geographically dispersed, e.g. the European diaspora in the Americas and Australasia. Moreover, a new dimension has arisen with the establishment of communities of non-European origin, who are citizens of EU member states. A definition of European culture which excludes them would be neither appropriate nor viable today.
5. It is equally unclear what constitutes a European identity. This is not helped by the fact that many governments invest in the arts and culture with a view to promoting their countries’ cultural identity, often on the assumption that this is a singular concept. However, in today’s world, identity is increasingly seen as being multi-faceted; also it is dynamic and evolving. The notion of homogenous populations, fostered by the stereotyped, often tourism-led imagery of national culture, does not reflect the reality of multicultural communities. Cultural policy should place a strong emphasis on the promotion of mutuality and tolerance. The danger of taking refuge in the cultural heritage of the past is to be resisted.
6. Samuel Huntington’s observation that the divisions that face our world today are played out less as a conflict between nations than a ‘clashing of cultures’ may have achieved the status of contemporary myth, yet culture can also be an effective instrument for development and conflict resolution. When values and allegiances are uncertain as a result of political or economic instability and rapid change, the arts and culture can be a factor for continuity, and a stimulus to participation in the development of a thriving civil society. This has special importance in the Europe beyond the European Union.
7. Diversity is increasingly seen as one of Europe’s strengths. The meeting of different cultures is energising the arts and leading to rich hybrid forms of expression. It is important for such diversity that there should be equality of opportunity for Europe’s many minorities, and also an equality of partnership between EU member states and the countries in transition in Central, and Eastern and South Eastern Europe, despite the current economic disparities between them.
8. The case for ensuring equality of opportunity for minorities, whether autochthonous or of non-European origin, by taking positive action for a fixed development period, is a powerful one. However, possible attendant difficulties such as the fact that the values of different communities might conflict either with one another or with a universalist view of human rights, have to be recognised by the policymakers.
9. Particular fears are expressed about the fragility of national, regional and local cultures as a result of the forces of globalisation – whether through the mass entertainment industry, the Internet or, more generally, through the operations of the global economy. Arguably, in Eastern and Central Europe, ‘Sovietisation’ has been replaced by ‘Californisation’. Globalisation should not necessarily be seen as a threat, however. It is creating new communities of culture, and indigenous cultures may be more resilient than is sometimes supposed. People do find it possible to maintain local and global identities at the same time.
10. Cities and regions for example, have responded to the challenge of globalisation by competing among themselves and sometimes with nation states by investing heavily in culture as a means of promoting themselves. However, the impacts of this on local populations has been mixed. Arguably, if urban planners adopted an interdisciplinary approach, linking culture to other areas of economic, social and urban development, it would be easier to engage all socio-economic groups in civic regeneration, and the specificity and variety of a locality would be more successfully projected.
11. High labour costs in post-industrial societies have meant the export of many conventional manufacturing jobs to developing countries. At the same time a growing value is placed on information and intellectual property. In the light of these developments, the ingenuity, creativity and imagination of its citizens are amongst Europe’s most important assets. ‘The new economy’ of the creative industries is contributing increasingly to wealth creation. Transformation of formal education is essential if Europeans are to make the most of the opportunities presented. Curricula should lay greater stress than at present on creative as distinct from academic skills and training.
12. The digital revolution promises great changes in the arts for which Europeans must be prepared. The new information technologies encourage greater interaction between the cultural consumer and the contemporary multimedia artist and will transform the relationship between the creator, curator, and the citizen. The digitisation of museum collections, for example, will enable the public to use, customise or comment on the cultural heritage in new ways which will have a profound effect on the way Europeans present and understand their culture.
13. Such developments challenge the policymakers. At European Union level there is a lack of enthusiasm for a common EU cultural policy, even if such a policy were on its agenda. Moreover, insufficient resources are available to the European Commission to implement effective cultural actions. The principle of subsidiarity, together with the difficulty in achieving consensus within the Council of Ministers on financial expenditure on European cultural programmes, clearly acts as a break on the role of the European Union. The Council of Europe is able to make a more active contribution to the development of cultural policy across the broader European scene.
14. However, if a common European cultural policy is both unattainable and undesirable a common European approach to cultural policy may be useful. In this regard, national cultural institutes such as the British Council, the Goethe Institute and Institut Français, while retaining their distinctive national profiles inside the EU, are increasingly offering a collaborative European front elsewhere in the world. This development, strongly influenced by economic necessity, is widely supported and likely to be an accelerating trend.
15. Cultural policies in Europe cannot be immune to the fundamental changes that are affecting society in our continent. Those involved in making and administering cultural policy should not be afraid of effecting synergies with other aspects of public policy and, where appropriate, of accepting that culture can serve non-aesthetic purposes. At the same time, arts policies, while they may be instrumental in achieving other objectives, must continue to embrace the inspiration and creativity of the artists themselves, and to be evaluated primarily for intrinsically cultural values.

home / who we are / what we do / how to join / contact us

International Society for the Performing Arts Foundation
305 7th Ave., 5th Floor
New York, NY 10001-6008
USA
tel 212.206.8490
fax 212.206.8603
info@ispa.org
http://www.ispa.org/