globalization of culture. As suggested by the likes of Serge Guilbaut (1983) and
Duncan and Wallach (1978), any narrative account of New York’s Museum of
Modern Art (MoMA) cannot avoid its role in a wider ideological battle with
communism.
On the other hand, the redrafting of the (then West) German constitution follow-
ing the end of the Second World War made education and culture strictly state
(
lander
) and local matters. This highly decentralized system was established as a
means to deter the worst aspects of fervent nationalism. (Exporting German cul-
ture abroad is severely limited to organizations such as the Goethe Institute.) Post-
unification Germany has sixteen
landers
. Municipalities compete for civic stature
via the arts: each claims to be the most
cultural
. One result of this competition is a
widespread distribution of museums, orchestras, theatres – all kinds of arts activi-
ties throughout the nation.
Cross-national arts research has distinct political motives. In the absence of a
theory on the ‘right’ or ‘correct’ level of public subsidy (or government support)
for the arts, the level of arts funding in other countries continues to be used as a
yardstick against which one’s own country should be compared. As an example,
advocates for greater state support in the USA look across the Atlantic:
The European numbers have to be high enough to be worth working toward,
but not too high so as to be completely out of reach. The American figure has
to be low enough to indicate that something is going on, but not very much.
The ensemble has to coincide with the popular mythology of relative govern-
ment
generosity
vis-à-vis
the arts.
(Schuster 1987: 5)
For example, as a young nation, the American ideals of freedom and individual ini-
tiative, built on a strong suspicion of central authority, underlie the formation of
arts organizations in the USA following the Civil War, as private organisms man-
aged like business corporations. On the other hand, in Europe ‘a cultural continuity
has provided unchanging unity in the individual histories – support for things
which endure in spite of crucial changes’ (Dorian 1964: 433–4); the principle of
government patronage is an outgrowth of royal patronage in maintaining a com-
mitment to culture.
‘What can be done?’ is a related issue. Though commendable, at its worst, ‘this
type of research is the search for the extraordinary and makes little attempt to learn
from the ordinary’ such as
the awkward juxtaposition of arm’s length arts councils on top of highly cen-
tralized government structures, the implementation of matching grants in situ-
ations much more constrained than those where matching grants have been
most successful, and the adoption of tax incentives in systems where there is
little tradition of private support and little reason to believe that these incen-
tives will have much impact.
(Schuster 1987: 6)
18
Arts research
Defining conceptual boundaries of the field one is proposing to study is a critical
decision in cross-national analysis. Some of the perceived variation in arts support
can be explained by differences in the structure of arts support. At the same time,
part of the variation in funding reflects real, fundamental differences in arts poli-
cies. It needs to be added that the consideration of arts policy via a single funding
structure (e.g. comparison of funding levels of the central, government-funding
agency in each country) is not uncommon and problematic.
The per capita comparison has become the
sine qua non
of comparative arts
policy research. One can readily understand why per capita comparisons are
made: large numbers (such as total expenditure) are made comprehensible (by
dividing by the population of a country); and the calculation is the first step to
comparative analysis because it scales the result of expenditure calculations to
control for the relative size of the country. The political process also demands a
number
, which provides a focal point – possibly an attractive headline figure. In
short, ‘a per capita calculation is certainly a powerful summary: a simple, easy-to-
understand, portable distillation of a multidimensional problem into a single
measure’ (Schuster 1987: 24). However, care needs to be taken in making and
interpreting per capita comparisons. First, how are the numerators and denomi-
nators defined? It may be possible to alter what is included in order to obtain a
more favourable result. For example, per capita gross domestic product (GDP) is
a recognized figure used in cross-national analysis. As a headline number it is
used to indicate the level of wealth and economic prosperity the citizens of a
nation share. Other league tables – the United Nations Human Development
Index is possibly the most visible – have emerged to incorporate ‘quality of life’
attributes of a nation not captured by GDP/capita, such as forms of unpaid labour,
the level of disparity between the richest and poorest sectors of society, and level
of democratic participation available to citizens; moreover, the United Nations’
(UN’s) index views universal health care and the absence of capital punishment as
positive. Second, per capita measurements, as
indices
, are often better at
measuring change
within
a country over a period of time; this is distinct from the
‘static snapshot’ of measuring differences across countries at one particular point
in time.
Dostları ilə paylaş: