The Administration of Cultural Democracy: Three Experiments

The Administration of Cultural Democracy:
Intro | Maine | Minnesota | Washington

The activities and practices that power democracy and international diplomacy are not much different from the day-to-day work of some cultural organizations in the U.S. Three of these community-based arts organizations who are leaders in efforts to build and improve upon civic participation and cross-cultural relationships are profiled in this article. I hope to illustrate how the methods employed by these arts groups are at the forefront of advancing cultural and political democracy.

During the past two decades, ethnic and neighborhood-based cultural organizations and activities have grown significantly in the U.S. Because of their work, there is growing hope for the advancement of democracy and for a deeper form of social/political equity called "cultural democracy."

In brief, the term cultural democracy describes practices in which culture and artistic expression are generated, interpreted, controlled and exchanged on an equitable basis by individuals and communities rather than by institutions of central power. These institutions typically engage in colonial or imperialistic practices that privilege and even mandate acceptance of cultures and art forms that are favored by ruling economic, political or religious elites.

Cultural administrators who want to further community-based and other participatory cultural practices, and who espouse the principles and values of cultural democracy, are continually trying to perfect methods of implementing it. Most nonprofit cultural organizations are fashioned, out of habit and expediency, around institutional models that are dependent on multisector funding and the need to behave in ways to which boards, staffs, artists, audiences and funders are accustomed. But some are breaking new ground in how they engage a diverse mix of people in determining both the form and content of cultural programs and activities.

Their very work in building a new, "closer to the ground" cultural "industry" is in itself an enormous contribution to cultural democracy. Yet, while their grassroots work is important for its own impacts, their capacity to experiment (or conduct research) can have even greater value in its potential to influence the practices of their larger institutional cousins.

In this article I hope to share lessons I've gathered from visiting and examining organizations I've admired in various parts of the U.S., and lessons I' learned from my own practice as executive director of Intermedia Arts in Minneapolis for more than two decades.

Participatory Programming Practices

Many artists working in community art and public art have taken quite far their practices that blend the creative voice with "democratic" participation. Artist-run "alternative spaces" during the 1980s and '90s broke the museum-curator mold and developed standing and rotating committees of artists to make program decisions for their galleries, theaters and screening rooms. They also nurtured and trained a growing cadre of independent curators who would move among various organizations and advance a wider mix of ideas or curatorial themes.

But few cultural organizations have developed institutional programming practices that attempt to further cultural democracy and reach outside the bounds of arts professionals and into their communities. Sure, surveying audiences and truly listening to advisory committees are gestures in that direction. However, the question is, how far can the principles of cultural democracy be interwoven into the administration and delivery of cultural programs? And would such practices be applicable to other, especially larger, cultural institutions?

This article will look at three innovative, midsized organizations that have experimented with methods for putting diverse groups of people in their communities into positions as cultural programmers.

The organizations are the Center for Cultural Exchange in Portland, Maine; Intermedia Arts in Minneapolis, Minn.; and the Wing Luke Asian Museum in Seattle, Wash. Each has developed a unique approach to transferring the responsibility and authority for the determination of cultural representation to the diverse communities in which they reside. This includes the choice of topics (or curatorial constructs), selection of artists and presentational styles and formats.

They have all determined that participation of a large number and broad range of people who represent the diversity within their respective communities is crucial to the advancement of cultural democracy. They all operate on annual budgets hovering around $1 million and were founded since the late 1960s. They've matured and acquired their own facilities during the past 10 to 15 years, and they've all evolved their current versions of participatory or democratic programming practices since the early 1990s.

The fundamental, although generally unarticulated approach of each is that of "asset-based" community organizing or community development, a concept in wider use in some sectors of the community-organizing and community-development professions. As asset-based community organizations, these three cultural groups begin with the assumption that their communities are rich rather than deficient in culture, creativity and histories. They work to mine and empower these indigenous assets, as opposed to seeing their role as importers of art, culture and history. In other terms they are anticolonialist or anti-imperialist in their cultural practices.

Each of these organizations has struggled to define and establish its practices – approaches born of philosophy, circumstance and instinct. They had no road maps, yet they felt that to be responsible to their communities and to their values, they were compelled to operate outside conventional models. And while each organization had to contend with obstacles that included artist and public expectations and human and financial expediencies, each has achieved considerable success and recognition from its groundbreaking work.

The organizations also found that their distinct practices raised a new set of questions and challenges. At the same time, as a result of their methods, they have succeeded at building community both inside and outside their walls while conducting successful cultural programs. As a result they have instilled a far deeper sense of community and artist ownership in their institutions and blazed new trails for others to explore.

In a nation that espouses political democracy, yet demonstrates dubious concern for its actual practice – and shows even less regard for the value and practices of diverse cultures – these remarkable groups have found themselves as innovators in attempts to advance both civic engagement and multiculturalism. They have helped an exceptionally broad range of people bring their own cultural voices to the table and in so doing built their capacity for deeper and more expansive levels of both cultural and civic engagement.

Go to Chapter 1: The Center for Cultural Exchange, Maine

Go to Chapter 2: Intermedia Arts, Minnesota

Go to Chapter 3: The Wing Luke Asian Museum, Washington

Tom Borrup is a community activist, writer and consultant based in Minneapolis. He was executive director of Intermedia Arts from 1980 to 2003, and now works as a consultant to arts organizations, foundations and public agencies in several cities around the U.S.

Original CAN/API publication: September 2003