Lives of the Great Arts Managers - Essay Example

Lives of the Great Arts Managers THE ARTISTIC PHILOSOPHY OF ARTS MANAGER ROY STRONG: IN CONTEMPORARY CULTURAL CONTEXT, ARTISTIC PROGRAMME AND POLICY INTRODUCTION Arts management began in 1945 with the creation of the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB), which was later used as a model in the establishment of art councils in other industrialized Commonwealth ment, there countries and in the United States of America (Chong 2002). In art management the artistic product to be managed is the outcome of the creative efforts of an individual or a small group. Successful art management depends on the fulfilment of the following four functions of management: “proper planning, good organization, creative leadership, and some control over the enterprise and its budgets” (Byrnes 2003, p.14). Sir Roy Colin Strong is well known in the field of arts management. Born in 1935, the English art historian has been the director of the National Portrait Gallery and the Victoria and Albert Museum in London. He has also served as “museum curator, writer, broadcaster, and landscape designer” (AbsoluteAstronomy 2009). Strong wrote several books on art, history, and other subjects, and published a set of diaries with humourous, critical evaluations of public figures in the art world and in politics. Thesis Statement: The purpose of this paper is to investigate the artistic philosophy of arts manager Roy Strong, as reflected in the contemporary cultural context, particularly in artistic programme and policy. DISCUSSION In art management there are various job titles according to specialized responsibilities in an institution. The arts manager plans, organizes, leads and controls, thereby fulfilling seven basic functions: planning and development, marketing and public relations, personnel management, fiscal management, board relations, labour relations and government relations” (Byrnes 2003, p.15). The main channel through which arts management is carried out is the media, which is used for the distribution and dispersal of the art work itself as well as information about the arts. With the emergence of new technologies such as digitalization, there has been a tremendous and unforeseen effect on artistic activities. Examples are virtual visits of museums and the distribution of music over the internet without personalized marketing or supports (Evrard and Colbert 2000). Arts management is a part of culture management (Chong 2000). It is made up of project management and innovation management. Other areas of arts management are finance and accounting with a distinctive connection to inherited concepts, and human resource management with its unique feature of intermittent workers and flexibility. Arts marketing is another aspect which has developed strategies based on direct communication or interpersonal exchanges through “street marketing” or “buzz marketing” (Evrard and Colbert 2000, p.5). CULTURAL POLICY IN THE SOCIAL, POLITICAL AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT Cultural policy formulation has to take into account the entire cultural sector composed of “a large heterogenous set of individuals and organizations engaged in the creation, production, presentation, distribution, and preservation of aesthetic, heritage, and entertainment activities, products and artifacts” (Wyszomirski 2002, p.187). The cultural sector is represented by the fine arts, commercial arts such as entertainment industry, applied arts such as achitecture, unincorporated arts for example amateur groups, and heritage arts. Extensive changes in the cultural sector are being brought about globally, hence requiring new skills in cultural administration. . Frey (2003) suggests a cultural policy issue based on constitutional choice. This includes using popular initiatives and referenda through direct democratic institutions and a combination of evaluation and decision. However, Cliché et al (2002, p.63) state that “traditional differences between the pure and the applied seem to fade”, quality being an elusive term in cultural practice. The traditional fine arts may be considered as more superior by a small minority, but the difference between fine and applied arts is decreasing since features other than artistic or technical expertise are involved. Perspectives on the quality of art change with the times and evolving circumstances. Three perspectives on art which have important outcomes for arts management and policy are: art as religion with “museums seen as cathedrals of our times” (Evrard and Colbert 2000, p.6), art as an integral part of the life of a good citizen and an essential area of his continuing education, and thirdly the entertainment value of art as enjoyed through free choice and personal preference in leisure activities. The religious and educational perspectives have particular common characteristics in that they view art as strictly autonomous and unchangeable. Further, they regard art management on a non-profit basis. On the other hand, the entertainment viewpoint considers art as being like any other economic sector, dependent on conditions of production and consumption, and operating for profit. The differences in perspectives between the religious/ educational and entertainment concepts of art is the key element of the discussions between Europe, particularly France and the United States of America, on whether cultural products should be included or excluded in general trade agreements. Cultural policy is being formulated on levels of activity which are expanding from the organizational level to include national and international policy implementation. This shift in focus is especially evident in areas such as cultural heritage and preservation, cultural diplomacy, international touring and presenting, and intellectual property rights issues (Wyzomirski 2002). CULTURAL POLICY IN ARTS PRODUCTION IN THE UK AND INTERNATIONALLY In Europe the 1990s brought challenges in relation to efforts to privatize arts organizations and to decentralize central policy. This resulted in an expansion of non-governmental support for the arts “such as corporate sponsorship and foundation grants” (Dewey 2003, p.8) in many European nations. The new cultural policy paradigm seems to be the important community role of culture and the arts towards education, community building, urban development, audience accessibility and generation of social capital (Weil 2002). The newly emerging concept of cultural administration explains the aspect of creativity governance and management. It goes beyond artistic creation to be the foundation of creativity and progress in economic, political, intellectual and social spheres. This wider concept of culture is the outcome of a range of managers and promoters responsible for the propagation of culture at all levels of society. It also implies a host of institutions and regulatory frameworks to support the broader system of governance (Cliché 2001, p.1). The nature of the emergent cultural policy paradigm in the United Kingdom, the United States and in other countries is not yet fully crystallized, and is still uncertain at present. However, it is clear that the paradigm includes organizational administration, national policy, and international diplomacy. Individual and organizational involvement is increasing to include all the three areas. This is found in proactive activities in “policy entrepreneurship, policy influence, heritage, national identity, cultural identity, social enterprise and cultural diplomacy” (Dewey 2003, p.7). THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ARTS AND CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS The Arts Council of Great Britain which gave rise to the domain of arts management, also contributed towards the development of arts management courses and an increased business involvement in the arts. In 1946 the ACGB was established as a branch of the Committee for the Encouragement of Music and Arts which emerged in 1939 “as a wartime programme to bolster morale” (Chong 2002, p.1). One of the main characteristics of the ACGB is an association with government and peer review for settling cases towards the awarding of funds. It has served as a model for other national arts councils. The issues of concern to them reflect wider cultural concerns. The birth of the International Association for Arts and Cultural Management (AIMAC) has strengthened the new discipline of Arts Management. It is further established as having an autonomous and separate identity from cultural economics which had served not only the scientific communities and cultural economists, but also researchers in arts management (Evrard and Colbert 2000). Roy Strong’s attempts to create greater popular attention towards the Victoria and Albert art shop which opened in 1986, “represents the most visible success of V&A Enterprises” (Chong 2002, p.82). He believed that the return to old Victorian ideals contributed to the commercial prowess of the retail outlet. This was based on the perception that the retail chain positioned itself towards exploiting the new traditionalism associated with the earlier Thatcher and Reagan administrations. Roy Strong’s directorship (1974-1987) ended with various strategies for increasing the appeal of the V&A by exhibiting Elton John’s collection of objets d’art before Sotheby’s auctioned them, and permitting retailers Sock Shop and Burberry to sponsor their own exhibitions. However, these attempts at the end of Roy Strong’s tenure as V&A’s director were unsuccessful in promoting the enterprises. “In contemporary arts there is a rising tension between the institutionalized and the non-institutionalized sectors” (Anheier and Isar 2007, p.91), based on the allocation of public subsidy, equity and access. The institutions claim to have the advantages of greater scale, higher professionalism and excellence, while the non-institutionalized operators criticize them for their bureaucratic style, feudal hierarchies, conservative and elitist approach with a mainstream commercial culture. The non-institutional sector strengthen their position on the basis of independence, freedom and radicalism, while they are perceived as being fragmented, inefficient in function, dependent on subsidy and indifferent to their potential public. The nature of cultural institutions that have prevailed in the last two centuries has become obsolete, however, non-institutionalized forces tend to seek access to the institutions for gaining stability, prestige and influence. New cultural organizations are required, that meet the challenges of globalization, that leave behind the ideology of the nation-state and national culture, also utilize the information technology revolution to appeal to and create an impact on a multicultural urban public. These requirements cannot be easily achieved. In Europe, experimentation on institutional profile is curtailed by the steady flow of subsidies to the existing clients. In other nations, market pressures make it unlikely to undertake experimentation. There is greater emphasis on leadership qualities in culture, rather than on institutional typology (Sesic et al 2005). RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ARTS AND CULTURAL POLICY The greatest patron of the arts in Britain, the Arts Council had until the early 1980s implemented policy to provide a high level of funding for a selected number of prestigious companies, to create centres of excellence. This leads to injustice for movements like community arts and other less known enterprises. Greater transparency in decision making as well as increased acccountability to the public is required, states Hutchinson (1982). According to Moir (2002), Roy Strong put in a distinctive tenure at the Arts Council, and is remembered as one of the luminaries of the organization. In order to avoid the dangers of prescriptive planning, the British Arts Council in its early years observed a policy of responding to local initiatives in the creation of arts, and to any related needs emerging from the production. At the same time the institution tried to maintain a stance of having no specific policies, which proved impossible to follow consistently. Very soon, the Arts Council began predicting people’s needs and giving them what they ought to have wanted. It became clear that all areas of public life needed planning and had to be accounted for in economic terms. “The cultural life of the nation was now termed the arts industry” (Pick and Anderton 1995, p.1980). The British Council was encouraged to redefine its activities so that its promotion of art would be commercially viable. Further and extensive attitudinal changes resulted in the adoption of business-like policies for culture, with prescriptive two, three and four-year development planning which was earlier found to be an objectionable feature in totalitarian regimes. By the mid-1980s, it was decided that Britain should formulate culture and arts policies, in the prevailing commercial environment of that time. Policies pertaining to other departments such as transportation or charges applied for using meeting rooms at local authority library or school can unwittingly affect an arts venue or the economy of a local arts organization. Therefore, one of the duties of the arts manager is to explain to all stakeholders including the local government, on the likely effects of particular legislations, and thus prevent any harmful policies from being formulated (Pick and Anderton 1995). COMPETING VIEWS ON CULTURAL THEORY According to Mercer (2002, pp.60-61), systematic indicator sets of links between culture and development are as follows: a) cultural vitality, diversity and conviviality, which refers to statistics regarding the health and sustainability of the cultural economy, through circulation and diversity; b) cultural resources and experiences can contribute to quality of life; c) cultural access, participation and consumption towards active cultural engagement; d) lifestyle and identity involving statistics on the extent to which cultural resources and capital account for specific lifestyles and identities; e) culture, ethics, governance and conduct with statistics assessing the extent to which cultural resources and capital contribute to individuals and collectivities. These indicator sets have been associated with the value production chain and its economic impacts by creation of both material and immaterial values, production and reproduction with the transformation of values into tangible and intangible forms; promotion of cultural or artistic product and dissemination of values, distribution of values into public and private domains, the use and consumption of values and products (Mercer 2002). While the above approaches to culture and development are beneficial, there are two main weaknesses in this conceptualization, according to Anheier and Isar (2007, p.339). First, the comprehensive nature of the indicator framework does not give the reasons or indicate the purpose. Hence, the indicator matrix is more like a stastical framework that can be put to different uses rather than an indicator and data system flowing from a conceptual framework to serve a specified purpose. Secondly, most of the data needed for the indicators suggested by Mercer (2002) are unavailable for most countries. Hence, an extensive data collection effort on a global scale is required, which exceeds the capabilities of The Cultures and Globalization Series. THE SOCIAL AND POLITICAL DETERMINANTS OF CULTURAL POLICY MAKING Cultural policy making is directly related to the social and political trends of the times. With growing numbers of arts managers educated at prestigious business schools, there is an increasing conviction that “art can and should be sold like the production and marketing of other goods” (Chong 2002, p.2). This new breed of arts managers neither consider such a belief to be wrong, nor do they have any romantic notions about the art works. This attitude is not looked upon favourably by the older school of arts managers. However, the new arts managers’ perspectives which lack both delusions as well as aspirations, do have a definite impact on the state of the industry. Having been trained as technocrats, they have little emotional association with the unique nature of the product they promote. Consequently, this attitude impacts the type of products or art works (Haacke 1986, pp.60-61). The Country Economic Memorandum (CEM) intervention in the 1990s sought to deal with uncontrollable political, historical and business forces, towards regaining the health of the country’s culture. The idealism of the CEM based on Habermasian principles tried to “achieve media reform on a consensual basis among very different interests and tendencies without advocating censorship” (McGuigan 2004, p.59). Its aims are as follows: building a new coalition and constituency, opposing domination, extending international cooperation for integrity and independence in cultural decision making, combining efforts with creative forces in the media, promoting media education efforts towards media literacy, awareness, critical awareness and information, and dealing with cultural policy issues as a part of social and political aspects. CONCLUSION This paper has highlighted arts management, and the impact of the artistic philosophy of arts manager Roy Strong in the contemporary cultural context, artistic programme and policy. Cultural policy has been contextualized through an analysis of the social, political and historical issues involved, the significance of cultural policy to arts production in the United Kingdom and internationally have been examined, the relationship between the arts and cultural institutions and between the arts and the generation of cultural policy have been determined, competing views on cultural theory have been critically evaluated, and the social and political determinants of cultural policy development have been identified. For the effective implementation of complex arts administration practices, arts policies and evidence-based practice, integrated team work is promoted among numerous arts managers with specific areas of expertise. BIBLIOGRAPHY AbsoluteAstronomy. (2009). Roy Strong. Retrieved on 13th December, 2009 from: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Roy_Strong Anheier, H.K. and Isar, Y.R. (2007). Conflicts and tensions. London: Sage Publications. Byrnes, W.J. (2003). Management and the arts. Edition 3. The United States of America: Elsevier. Chong, D. (2002). Arts Management. The United Kingdom: Routledge. Chong, D. (2000). Re-readings in arts management. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 29 (4): pp.290-303. Cliché, D., Mitchell, R. & Wiesand, A. (2002). Creative Europe on governance and management of artistic creativity in Europe. Bonn: European Research Institute for Comparative Cultural Policy and Arts (ERICarts). Cliché, D. (2001). Culture, governance & regulation. In Recognising Culture: A Series of Briefing Papers on Culture and Development. Ottawa: Department of Canadian Heritage. Dewey, P. (2003). From arts management to cultural administration. Occasional Paper # 27. Presented at the 29th annual Social Theory, Politics and the Arts Conference. Retrieved on 14th December, 2009 from: http://arted.osu.edu/publications/pdf_files/paper27.pdf Evrard, Y. and Colbert, F. (2000). Arts management: A new discipline entering the millennium? International Journal of Arts Management, 2 (2): pp.4-13. Frey, B.S. (2003). Arts and economics: Analysis and cultural policy. Edition 2. Germany: Springer. Haacke, H. (1986). Museums, managers of consciousness. The United Kingdom: Wallis Publications. Hutchinson, R. (1982). The politics of the Arts Council. The United States of America: Sinclair Browne Publications. McGuigan, J. (2004). Rethinking cultural policy. Great Britain: McGraw-Hill International. Mercer, C. (2002). Towards cultural citizenship: Tools for cultural policy and development. Stockholm: The Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation. Moir, J. (2002). “I gave everything. Is that silly?”. Interview of Roy Strong in The Telegraph, 24 May 2002. Retrieved on 14th December, 2009 from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/3577997/I-gave-everything.-Is-that-silly.html Pick, J. and Anderton, M.H. (1995). Arts administration. Edition 2. The United Kingdom: Taylor and Francis Publishers. Sesic, D., Milena and Dragogevic, S. (2005). Arts management in turbulent times: Adaptable quality management. Amsterdam: European Cultural Foundations. Weil, S.E. (2002). Making museums matter. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Wyszomirski, M.J. (2002). “Arts and Culture”, in L.M. Salamon (Ed.). The State of Nonprofit America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, pp.187-218. Read More