Demarginalizing Art

"Creative Community Building through Cross-Sector Collaboration, a European Mapping and Consultation Initiative," by Jennifer Williams, Cristina Losito and Joanna Cottingham (London: Centre for Creative Communities, 2004. 159 pp.)

Change dominates the beginning of the 21st Century. The rate of change is so rapid that it is no longer possible for professionals in the traditional sectors such as the arts, education, health work, social services and others to operate in isolation from one another.

So begins "Creative Community Building through Cross Sector Collaboration," a report that describes attempts to break down this isolation. Issued by the Centre for Creative Communities, U.K., in cooperation with the Melina Project, Greece, the publication focuses on exemplary cross-sector policies, theories and practices in nine European countries. The areas of collaboration include arts and education, arts and social cohesion, and arts and health.

The study draws on substantial research involving surveys, focus groups and face-to-face interviews. It raises issues that are familiar to those involved in community arts and cross-sector collaborations in the United States: language, terminology and definitions; quality as it relates to process and product; responsibility of policymakers for the sustainability of programs; evaluation; training; and the relationship between policy and practice.

The first part of the report maps out European governmental and intergovernmental policies related to cross-sector collaboration. I was immediately impressed by the principles informing the policies, such as the ones articulated by UNESCO’s "Declaration on Cultural Policies" that recognize culture as a human right, and acknowledge the integral and vitally important connection between art, culture and daily life.

I also noted the contrast with culture in U.S. policy, which is often marginalized, narrowly defined, invisible, market-driven or feared. Preoccupied with defending the few remaining liberal public policies that are under attack, progressives have left it to others to frame new cultural policies that respond to a changing world. As a result this country’s current version of government-sponsored cross-sectoral cultural policy looks more like culture wars, corporate culture and the confluence of church and state than a creative and humane policy for the common good.

In 1995 the Greek Ministries of Education and Culture launched the Melina Project, “a ten year initiative that aims to raise the status and improve the quality of the cultural dimension of education.” (In contrast, our “No Child Left Behind” policy has created significant barriers to integrating art and education, in spite of our growing knowledge about the educational value of the arts.)

In the area of health, some European policies reflect a holistic definition of health inclusive of art and culture. The U.K. has a National Network for the Arts and Health and the arts are included in Health Action Zones (HAZs), not only in relation to physical or mental health, but also to promote social well-being. The report quotes Arts Minister Alan Howarth as recognizing that “by its very nature Arts in Health work is inclusive — holistic socially as well as medically.”

This plays out on the ground in the successful Walsall Men’s Health Project, whose case study is included in the report. The HAZ recognized that men found it difficult to talk about health, visit the doctor and take positive steps to improve their well-being. If men felt uncomfortable talking to doctors, then health care and education would need to be brought to them — to their local pubs, community centers and working-men’s clubs. First comedians accompanied nurses, and later the project grew into participatory theater productions. Artists collaborated with local health steering committees to reach multiple communities. The initiative existed independently for a long time and was eventually validated through policy recognition and funding.

On an intergovernmental level, the European Union has addressed cross-sectoral cultural policy through treaties and resolutions. The Maastricht Treaty (1992) is a key example; paragraph 4 of Article 128 states that the E.U. must take cultural aspects into account in its action in other community policies. The E.U. actually merged departments to reflect the growing interaction between arts and education. The Council of Europe has been producing research and projects with the aim of influencing debates on cultural policy development. It published "In From the Margins" (1997) for UNESCO’s World Decade for Cultural Development. The premise of this report is that “if culture is left out, sustainable development will fail.” Its aim was “to bring the disposed in from the margins of society, and to bring cultural policy in from the margins of government.”

Translating this to the U.S. raises the question of whether in this moment of history we want cultural policy brought in from the margins of government. As an activist pointed out at a recent conference on media policy, perhaps it’s better not to have a unified national policy at this time, but rather multiple approaches that can fly under the radar. What happens when a government connects the dots? In the best of times we can hope for a progressive, holistic and responsive policy. In the worst of times, we can fear a monolithic policy that reinforces inequities and injustices, and conflates political ideology and culture, as in the current challenges to the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR). Even with the best of policies, government can be bureaucratic and rigid. Yet the work of crossing boundaries calls for flexibility, creativity and risk taking. (However, this should not relieve government of its responsibility to strive for a forward-looking, dynamic public policy.)

Which brings us back to Europe and "Creative Community Building Through Cross-Sector Collaboration." As exciting as the policies sound, there is a disconnect between the part of the report that maps the government polices and the part that describes community-based practice. The report asks if policy can keep up with new forms of practice, and we discover that this is often not the case. While the rhetoric may be inspiring, it does not always translate into reality. Government departments don’t always practice what they preach, as when they experience challenges in communicating with one another or in generating the resources to support their aspirations. The report argues for a greater connection between policy and practice, describing how “In many cases government initiatives are in the position of ‘catching up’ with the actual activities within communities. Eventually, as with the example of the HAZs, policy shifts provided funding for projects that were not new, but which had existed in their own right for years.”

As Max Fuchs, Director of Remscheid Academy in Germany, said: “Projects exist, but the problem is with the system. It is a system that produces a kind of frustration and this has to do with regulations even in education policy — it is the most regulated system… On the one side we have a programme for opening schools but on the other side we have a framework that makes it impossible.”

Also documented in the report is the thorny issue of quality, as in the Netherlands where the professionalism of community-based artists is questioned. The policy vision may be integrative between arts and other sectors, but the definition of art may be limited to “high art,” and the approach can be hierarchical and paternalistic. This topic was discussed in a focus group in Belgium in relation to the Kuunst en Democratie, an initiative that addressed the function of art and artists in society in response to the danger of an extreme right-wing society. A focus group participant noted the need for this program to accept different definitions of culture. Yet, she noted, most of its socio-artistic projects started with high culture and there is still no acknowledgement of pop culture.

I question the ultimate purpose of some of the programs described in the report. Are they about the transformative power of art and activism or about using art to maintain the status quo? As I read about government attempts to use art to address “social exclusion,” I noted how this deficit-based description contrasted with community building, an asset-based approach. Is the work intended to empower people or patronize them?

In Europe, as in the U.S., it is with artists and in civil society organizations where boundaries are crossed in the most innovative and transformative manner. They are often working with scarce financial resources and large amounts of resilience and creativity. The challenge for these groups is for their work to be recognized, validated and supported. As noted in the report, training is also a key issue, both for the arts and the other sectors with whom they are collaborating. There is a need for ongoing cross-training that can bring together people from different fields in an in-depth exchange of skills.

Immigration, growing economic inequities, sustainable development, technology and globalization all raise hard questions whose answers require multiple experiences and perspectives. "Creative Community Building through Cross Sector Collaboration" offers an encouraging look at the hybrid approaches needed to arrive at these answers. It reminds us that for this work to advance, the relationship between policy and practice needs to continually move in two directions, so that practice can inform policy as much as policy informs practice.

Caron Atlas is a Brooklyn, N.Y.-based consultant working to strengthen connections between community-based arts, policymaking and social change.

Original CAN/API publication: July 2005