Politiques culturelles | Cultural Engineering Group

août 24, 2014 • 7:16 3

Capital of Culture : What is the impact of arts and cultural clustering on local productivity ?

This is the summary of a paper that was included in a National Endowment for the Arts/Brookings Institution volume published last year. We just uplodaded it to the Nesta working paper series – you can download the paper here.

In recent years, academics and consultants have argued that the arts and cultural sector can boost productivity in other sectors of the local economy, through two main mechanisms.

By creating urban environments that attract professionals with high levels of human capital and their innovative, high-growth employers.
By supplying other parts of the local economy – in particular, commercial creative firms – with new ideas and skills that enhance innovation.

Although these arguments have justified policies for creative place making, urban branding, and public investments in signature buildings and dedicated cultural districts, the evidence base underpinning them is still sparse, and mostly confined to the US. Additionally, little is known about the relative importance of different mechanisms and types of cultural clustering (occupational or industrial) in boosting local productivity.   In Capital of Culture, we seek to address these gaps in the literature by building an econometric model exploring the impact of cultural clusters on the productivity of English cities. In doing this, we draw on a well-established body of literature on urban wage premiums and human capital externalities.

Our model tests the impact of cultural agglomeration on worker wages (which act as a proxy for productivity) at the city level. We use three measures of cultural clustering (cultural sector employment, cultural occupations and cultural institutions), constructed from official labour force and business registry survey data, and a unique dataset of almost 5,000 UK cultural institutions from Culture 24. We control for important individual and city level characteristics.

What are our findings?

There is evidence that skilled workers sacrifice higher wages to locate in areas with strong cultural clustering

Our findings confirm that there is a positive relationship between cultural clustering and average wages in English cities: English cities in the 90th percentile of cultural employment clustering have average hourly wages of £12.48, £1.11 higher than the average wage for cities in the 10th percentile. However, once we control for individual characteristics (particularly skills as proxied by an individual’s qualifications), the coefficients for two out of our three measures of cultural clustering in our wage equations (cultural employment and institutions) become significantly negative, while the cultural occupations coefficient becomes insignificant.

This ‘negative cultural urban wage premium’ is consistent with there being a compensating differential. In other words, workers may, other things equal, be willing to take a wage cut to reside in cities with relatively more cultural amenities, as these contribute to its quality of life – its ‘livability’, and ‘lovability’.

Creative cities seem to be more productive

We also use our econometric model to examine the relationship between worker wages and measures of creative clustering (focusing on employment and occupations in commercial creative industries as compared to the arts and culture). In this case, we find evidence of a positive wage premium in ‘creative cities’ even after controlling for individual skills – this is particularly the case for cities with strong creative occupational clustering. Although caution is advised in the interpretation of this finding given the obvious potential for reverse causality (affluent cities attract creative industries), it lends support to those who advocate targeting occupations instead of industies to support urban development.

The is evidence of innovation spillovers from cultural clusters into the commercial creative economy

Finally, we test the impact of cultural clustering on the wages of workers in the local ‘commercial’ creative industries, bearing in mind the literature’s emphasis on knowledge spillovers across related – rather than distant – industrial domains. Here, we find some evidence that creative workers in cities with high levels of cultural clustering enjoy a wage premium, which suggests that not-for-profit arts and cultural sectors may generate knowledge spillovers for the commercial creative economy. Once again, these results should be seen as indicative at best, as the causality could work in the opposite direction (a vibrant arts and cultural scene may emerge in places with more productive creative clusters).

Our conclusions

The preliminary conclusion from our analysis is that, although English data support the view that there is a relationship between cultural clustering and urban development, that relationship appears to be subtler than is generally acknowledged. In particular, the economic impact of public investments in urban arts and cultural infrastructure may be manifest in improvements in the productivity (and wages) of creative professionals, and may not be associated with higher wages in the wider economy if cultural activities serve as a compensating differential.

Image credit: Handover of the European Capital of Culture from Liverpool to Vilnius and Linz via Eric The Fish at Flickr.

Filed under: Analyses, Evénements, Expériences, Gouvernances, Politiques culturelles, Ressources, Capitales européennes de la culture, Creatives cities, Culture et développement territorial, Culture et territoires, Métropoles créatives

août 24, 2014 • 7:13 0

Nesta calls for arts funding shake-up

Investment in R&D, venture funding, and crowdfunding are major missed opportunities for the arts sector, according to a new report.

Arts funders need to do more to support research and development (R&D) and bring the sector in line with the rest of the UK economy, according to a new report by Nesta. The research charity is calling on Arts Council England (ACE) to allocate at least 1% of its budget (£6m a year) towards R&D funding, to help organisations explore new operating models, audience engagement schemes, and ways of creating cultural value. The report predicts that this, along with a £10m a year pool for piloting venture funds, accelerators and supporting crowdfunding, could result in up to £72m in additional funding for the arts over three years.

Pointing out that the income profile of the UK’s main subsidised arts organisations – 40% funding, 50% earned income and 10% contributions – is little changed since the outset of the recession, the report claims that the arts funding system is no longer “adequate or sufficiently sustainable”. More needs to be done to “make public money work harder”, and capitalise on the arts’ ability to develop outputs with “substantial commercial potential” and engage investors “who want to combine financial, social and artistic impact”.

The UK spends 1% of its gross output on scientific and technological R&D and Nesta is calling on the arts sector to bring itself in line with this. Other recommendations include the establishment of an accelerator programme for the arts, to “develop the most promising ideas into new ventures”, and an impact fund, “to provide capital for the stage which comes after”. It also suggests that, in certain cases, public funding should be turned into investment, be it on a profit-share bases, or conversion into loans or equity, so that “some of the revenues can flow back into new grants”. To capitalise on the approximately £360m raised through crowdfunding in the UK last year, Nesta is calling on arts-funding bodies to pilot different models of matched–funded crowdfunding. However, it acknowledges that more research is needed in this area, to ensure adopted models do not unfairly favour particular groups, such as those with wealthy or technologically savvy networks.

In response to the report ACE Chief Executive Alan Davey pointed out that ACE is “already investing over £6m in R&D projects”, although this figure includes £5m given to the Digital R&D Fund, which is now closed. He added that ACE anticipates the launch of “a social investment programme to support arts activities which generate social impacts and outcomes” and is “exploring options for crowdfunding”, beyond its support for the National Funding Scheme.

The publication coincides with the launch of ACCELERATOR, a commission-free crowdfunding platform for creatives, run by IdeasTap. The charity will reward the “strongest” two projects – those that display “original ideas and strong pitches, backed up by a viable business model” – every month with a £500 grant.

By Frances Richens.

Source : Nesta.

Filed under: Analyses, Financement de projet, Gouvernances, Outils, Politiques culturelles, Financement de la culture, Ingénierie culturelle, Ingénierie financière, Politiques culturelles

août 24, 2014 • 7:05 0

Le festival du film de Sarajevo, miroir aux alouettes

Le festival du film de Sarajevo a célébré son 20e anniversaire. Or le glamour et les paillettes ne sauraient faire oublier l’état préoccupant de la Bosnie-Herzégovine, déplore le quotidien Večernji List : « Le tapis rouge hédoniste du festival du film de Sarajevo n’est qu’une imposture colorée, totalement en contradiction avec la situation déplorable de la Bosnie depuis des décennies. … Tout cela donne l’impression qu’il existe un Etat viable en Bosnie-Herzégovine, ce qui est loin d’être le cas ! … On oublie que les principaux établissements culturels de Sarajevo n’ont même pas assez de fonds pour assurer leur survie, et ainsi, ne peuvent pas dévoiler leurs trésors aux touristes. Même dans le cadre du festival, le tapis rouge vole la vedette aux films en compétition. »

Source : BpB.

Filed under: Analyses, Politiques culturelles, Aménagement du territoire, Culture et territoires, Politiques culturelles

août 24, 2014 • 5:35 0

Barcelona Olympic facilities to host a 66.000 m2 sports theme park in 2015

In 2015, Barcelona Olympic Ring will become the home of Open Camp Sportainment, the first theme park in the world entirely dedicated to sports. According to Open Camp S.L., the company responsible for the project, the 66.000 m2 theme park will offer a « unique » show involving technology, family and sports. The new attraction will occupy the current Olympic Stadium, the Palau Sant Jordi sports hall, the Olympic and Sports Museum Juan Antonio Samaranch, the Bernat Picornell swimming pool, the telecommunications tower designed by Santiago Calatrava and the INEFC sports faculty, which will only be accessed during the summer break when there are no classes. All these facilities will combine their regular activities with those of the theme park, which will be open from April to October, some 250 days per year. The regular entry will cost €28; one of the « cheapest » prices for a theme park in Europe said Barcelona Deputy Mayor for Economy, Enterprise and Employment, Sònia Recasens. The project expects 7,000 visitors per day and an annual economic impact for Barcelona of 52.8 million euros. It will also generate approximately 240 jobs, contributing for the local employment rates.

In 2012, Open Camp S.L. started promoting the Open Camp Sportainment; a business, scientific and technological initiative aimed to offer to millions of fans worldwide entertainment experiences related to sports, localized in specialized settings such as parks, stadiums, hotels and restaurants.

After analyzing different alternatives across Europe, Open Camp S.L. considered Barcelona to be one of the « best » destinations to base the first theme park in the world exclusively dedicated to sports. According to the project’s General Director, Francesc Medina, the infrastructure of the Barcelona Olympic Ring is « perfectly preserved » comparing to other Olympic infrastructures around the world. Yet, an investment of over 20 million euros will be made in order to rehabilitate and modernize the Ring for the future usage.

Open Camp Sportainment is expected to open in 2015 in the Olympic Ring, on top of Montjuïc hill. The public will be able to visit the Olympic Stadium, the Palau Sant Jordi sports hall, the Communications Tower designed by Santiago Calatrava, the Bernal Picornell swimming pool and the area surrounding all these facilities. The park will be opened from April to October and, during summer time, visitors will also be also to access the installations of the National Institute of Physical Education (INEFC).

According to Francesc Medina, « the main approach is to create a new category from sports tourism and entertainment and from trends that underlie the project, such as the viewer being the only protagonist. » Open Camp Sportainment aims to become a benchmark for innovation related to sport, allying it with technology. An example is the exclusive mobile application that will guide the visitor throughout the entire visit.

The park will include different areas such as, the Open Museum which will offer interactive sporting experiences and, the Open Play, where visitors will be able to experience the collective side of sports and the media coverage of many different sporting events. Francesc Medina emphasized that these areas « comprise » a proposal of « sports culture » with activities and attractions associated with elements such as the system of media coverage.

The project expects 7,000 visitors per day and an economic impact for the city of 52.8 million euros per year. It will create approximately 240 jobs, contributing for the local employment rates. The regular ticket will cost 28 euros; one of the cheapest prices in Europe for theme parks, said Barcelona Deputy Mayor for Economy, Enterprise and Employment of the City Council, Sònia Recasens. However, a range of different tickets will be available.

Source : VilaWeb / News from Catalonia.

Filed under: Evénements, Gouvernances, Politiques culturelles, Culture et territoires, Développement des territoires, Métropoles créatives

août 24, 2014 • 5:29 2

Appel à propositions Coopération européenne

L’Agence exécutive Education,Audiovisuel et Culture de la Commission européenne vient de publier un nouvel appel à propositions Europe créative pour des projets de Coopération. L’e-form n’est, à ce jour, pas encore publié.

Attention: la date de dépôt limite est maintenue au 1er octobre à midi.

Vous trouverez l’appel, les lignes directrices et le guide des participants grâce aux liens suivants (en français):

L’appel à proposition pour les projets de Traduction Littéraire a été reporté et devrait être publié dans le courant du mois d’août.

Pour plus d’informations, suivez ce lien vers le site de l’agence:

http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/creative-europe/actions/culture_en

Filed under: Expériences, Ingénieries, Outils, Politiques culturelles, Appels à projets, Coopération culturelle, Culture et coopération, Politiques culturelles

août 24, 2014 • 5:26 0

Here’s what a wise arts policy might look like

Arts Council England has just a tiny pot of money to distribute among arts organisations. The state needs to get a sense of perspective.

Yet again Arts Council England (ACE), which will this morning announce the new settlement for the organisations it backs, has struggled gamely to distribute a diminished pot of government funding in ways that are fair, wise and likely to help the arts world to flourish.

There will be (small) winners and (big) losers. Even the wisdom of Solomon could not satisfy everyone in the arts, not even those who truly deserve public funding.

The public political charade of behaving as if the size of the arts budget is a determinant of national prosperity has to stop. It is a lie; it is a diversion; it does more harm than good. A sensible arts policy is available and would benefit the nation and the economy rather than harm it. Its elements would go as follows …

A wise government, starting with a wise secretary of state for culture, would stop calling for the « arts to show evidence that they are value for money » and instead read any one of the dozen reports in recent years that prove that they are.

This is well-trodden ground. They could start with the letter to the Guardian in June 2013 from 20 economists from John Maynard Keynes’ Political Economy Club. They grossed up the sums attributable to the creative economy and tourism at 16% of the national economy and concluded: « These are the most obvious multiplier benefits of the arts to the economy. »

A wise government would not worry about a minimal part of the national budget. Total spending on the arts accounts for just 0.5% of government spending. Why does it attract such excessive scrutiny? The usual response is that the arts, « known » to be inefficient, self-indulgent and profligate, require intense questioning and supervision. Yet the evidence is that arts organisations run themselves and use their resources efficiently, effectively and for the wider benefit of society. They deliver the widely lauded « instrumental » benefits while never forgetting that only excellent art can do this. Cutting the tiniest parts of the national budget in ways guaranteed to do most damage across the nation is at best a displacement activity, at worst a diversion from the real issues of government.

Governments and ministers must widen their horizons and understanding of what the arts are. Too much focus is concentrated on a handful of prejudices around the major London institutions – the Royal Opera, British Museum, National Gallery and others – routinely castigated for being too rich, too expensive, too elite, too exclusive in their audiences. A priority for ministers must be to cast their understanding of the arts far more widely across the nation while giving up indulgence in cheap hits at the organisations on their Westminster doorstep.

These changes of approach and attitude aren’t costly and should be easy. The notion of « trust » in the arts underpins them and would benefit everyone. On this foundation, two policy changes can follow. First, ministers should admit and welcome that the « English » funding model based on the tripod of funding from box office, donors and the public purse is accountable, efficient and democratic. They must stop flirting with the myth that the « American » model of funding is in any way superior for the arts or society.

Second, ministers should ringfence the arts budget. If it is right for overseas aid, it is surely right for the arts at home. This is not just being « nice » to the « luvvies ». It would be to recognise and understand that the arts at their widest benefit people, places, ideas, curiosity and wellbeing. Nitpicking around the edges of a tiny budget is not an arts policy. It is bad politics too.

John Tusa, for The Guardian.

Filed under: Analyses, Financement de projet, Gouvernances, Politiques culturelles, Gouvernance culturelle, Nouvelles gouvernances, Politiques culturelles

août 24, 2014 • 5:21 0

Pompéi et l’Italie souffrent du même mal

Après la restauration du site archéologique de Pompéi, les parties de trois édifices antiques se sont aussitôt effondrées ; les experts en monuments historiques incriminent l’administration. Pompéi souffre du même mal que l’Italie entière, diagnostique le quotidien de centre-gauche Der Standard : « La jungle inextricable de tous les ministères est dominée par une caste fortement hiérarchisée qui grouille de directeurs généraux, de sous-secrétaires et de chargés de mission. Leur unique souci est de tirer parti de leur fonction le plus longtemps possible. Tant qu’on ne donnera pas un grand coup de balai dans les administrations publiques, tout changement de ministre ne sera qu’un coup d’épée dans l’eau. Les réductions de dépenses ne permettront pas de venir à bout du problème, sachant que ceux-là même qui y procèdent ne risquent pas de se mettre eux aussi à la diète. Si l’on veut sauver Pompéi et le pays de la catastrophe, la thérapie à adopter est la méritocratie. »

Source : BpB.

Filed under: Analyses, Politiques culturelles, Patrimoine, Politiques culturelles, Politiques du patrimoine

août 24, 2014 • 5:18 0

Evaluation of Cultural Policies and EU-Funded Programmes as Promoters of Cultural Diversity and Intercultural Dialogue in the Balkans/Southeast Europe

The two-year project entitled Evaluation of Cultural Policies and EU-Funded Programmes as Promoters of Cultural Diversity and Intercultural Dialogue in the Balkans/Southeast Europe (SEE) aimed to evaluate the impact of national and local cultural policies and EU funded programmes in the countries of the Western Balkans in promoting cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue as a part of the EU integration process. The project is implemented in partnership with Österreichische kulturdokumentation, Internationales archiv für kulturanalysen, Vienna, Austria and Udruženje građana Akcija, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina.

One can say that some of the Balkan countries have started to recognise that cultural diversity has become a starting point for the development and organisation of cultural relations, influencing and even defining the social positions of different groups and individuals. Intercultural dialogue, on the other hand, acknowledges the communication and the general interaction between different cultures as well as all types of exchanges taking place between them. The different interpretations or intonations do not prevent the basic comprehension of the term ‘interculturalism’ as a set of developed concepts and policies concerning the understanding and managing of cultural diversities. It is therefore necessary to analyse and discuss the dynamic change of cultural identities, not only globally but also in the context of cultural variety and cultural diversities which need to be managed in an overall democratic and modernising context.

The evaluation report tries to evaluate the cultural policies and EU-funded programmes in the countries of the Western Balkans which promote cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue as part of the EU integration process, as well as to give some positive examples from the EU in this regard. In this respect, the goal of the Evaluation Report is to enhance the regional impact of cultural policies and programs on promoting cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue in five countries of the Balkans/SEE (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia) and to present EU practices. The results of this research could serve as a resource of practical knowledge and experiences within the cultural sector in the process of re-thinking cultural policies and developing and enhancing the internal capacities of the cultural sector in the field of cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue in the Balkan/SEE countries.

The intention of the project partners was to produce an evaluation report which ultimately would produce recommendations for a more coordinated and EU-oriented policy making approach in the field of culture in the region as well as some recommendations for EU policy makers in the field of culture. The project can be seen as both a process and an output. Definitely, one of the products that came out of this particular project is the final report. The project`s web knowledge portal entitled kulturlogue.org/ explores the possibilities and capacities through which the impact of cultural policies on promoting cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue can be enhanced via a more systematic and comprehensive analysis and sharing of the existing data on cultural policies and programmes. The provided knowledge includes texts, analyses and evaluations on the impact of cultural policies and programmes on diversity and dialogue.

The project is financially supported by the EU Community Programme Culture 2007-2013, the Ministry of Culture of Macedonia, Open Society Foundation – Macedonia, and the Swiss Cultural Program for Western Balkan.

All inquiries should be sent to Lea Linin at lea@multimedia.org.mk

More information can be obtained from Violeta Simjanovska, Executive manager, PAC MULTIMEDIA, DTC MAVROVKA, lamela C 1/1, 1000 Skopje, Macedonia; tel./fax: + 389 23 111 570; www.multimedia.org.mk, kulturlogue.org/

Filed under: Analyses, Outils, Politiques culturelles, Développement culturel, Diversité culturelle, Europe, Evaluation des politiques culturelles, Politiques culturelles

août 24, 2014 • 5:09 0

Creative Transition towards Sustainability

3-day Interdisciplinary PhD Workshop from 3rd – 5th of November 2014 Design – Architecture – Engineering – Natural, Social and Cultural Sciences.

Sustainability is the main challenge of this century. How to deal with global crises like climate change, energy- and resource scarcity or related social conflicts? How is a good life possible for all people on a finite planet? Technological/industrial innovations or economic growth are not by themselves sufficient answers to such questions. What we need is a holistic and systemic approach in combination with a fundamental change of our production/consumption structures and behavioural patterns.

In a three day workshop, experts and PhD students from different European countries and disciplines will come together for an intensive exchange about strategies and specific possibilities of societal transformation towards more sustainable lifestyles. Through a dialogue between observers and analysts of the transformation on the one hand, and designers of the transformation on the other hand, the workshop promotes an intensive relationship between theory and praxis. The PhD Workshop therefore addresses different disciplines e.g. social, economic and cultural scientists, architects, product-designers, engineers. Best practice projects (e.g. living labs in Barcelona) will be presented and examined from an interdisciplinary perspective.

As the behaviour of individuals is strongly influenced by the design of the world we live in, the transformation of lifestyles needs a corresponding transformation of design, architecture and engineering together with a comprehensive re-definition of the concepts of ‚service‘ and of the production and ‚consumption system‘. Modern design is often object-oriented and underestimates the ecological, social and cultural environment. In contrast, this workshop looks for the complex interconnections between designed objects, products and services and their contribution to a creative transformation towards sustainability.

Call for abstracts:

We invite PhD students (and possibly some advanced Master students) from all disciplines conducting research related to the workshop theme „Creative transition towards sustainability“ and with a strong interest in scientific work, to submit an abstract in order to be selected for participation in this transdisciplinary event. As the goal is to hand in the final paper to a scientific peer-reviewed journal, the applicants are expected to have informed themselves about possibilities for publishing their paper drafts.

Venue

UPC- Barcelona Tech is the second biggest university in Spain. The ETSAV School of Architecture at Sant Cugat del Vallés (www.etsav.upc.edu) is a well recognized centre in the field of sustainable architecture and urbanism with a wide range of initiatives. This includes for example its Living Lab for Sustainable Architecture and Lifestyle (www.livinglab-low3.blogspot.com), which will also be the main venue of the workshop.

Applications:

Applicants should send an abstract (max. 500 characters) about their on-going research work together with a letter of application/motivation and a short CV. An expert committee will select the most suitable contributions according to their quality in relation to the workshop topic. A general explanation of the abstract and paper are included as an annex.

Methodology:

The workshop will combine theoretical sessions (presentations of research work, experts input, round table sessions) with practical work (living lab exploration, co-creation activities, group work) in order to create a lively atmosphere for a productive interdisciplinary exchange.

Expected outcomes:

Experts will assess participants in their research work to enable discussing specific aspects in small groups. The publication of papers will be prepared.

Recognition:

The Summer School committee will issue a certificate of successful attendance.

Deadlines:

Submission of abstracts and application letter: 15th of September 2014 Notice of acceptance: 30th of September 2014. Submission of full paper (draft) or presentation: 1st of October 2014

(see also template for paper and abstract).

Fee:

280€Euro (includes 3-day workshop, 3 coffee breaks, 3 lunches and 3 dinners). Not included are: Flight, accommodation, breakfast and further travel costs.

Accommodation:

Accommodation in Barcelona centre can be found individually e.g. through the following websites: http://www.booking.com, http://www.apartmentbarcelona.com, http://www.bcn-stay.com or similar. Student apartments might be available on short notice at the campus for 35€/night in a double room. Please contact us for further information.

Contact:

For all applications and contacts please write to: sustainablesummerschoolbcn@gmail.com

Filed under: Evénements, Expériences, Gouvernances, Ingénieries, Politiques culturelles, Arts et soutenabilité, Développement culturel, Développement soutenable, Industries créatives, Transformation sociale

août 24, 2014 • 5:01 0

Subventionner les musées en Anatolie

Le Conseil de l’Europe a décerné mardi le Prix européen du musée de l’année au Baksı Museum, situé à Bayburt, dans le Nord-Est de la Turquie. Le quotidien conservateur Hürriyet se réjouit de ce prix, mais réclame davantage de subventions publiques pour les petits musées situés hors agglomérations : « C’est une initiative exemplaire qui a donné aux habitants de la région une identité artistique, récompensée à l’étranger. … Dans les grandes villes, à Istanbul notamment, de grands musées privés ont ouvert. Ces initiatives n’ayant pas gagné l’Anatolie, on peut difficilement parler d’une culture des musées. L’Etat doit également soutenir les petits musées d’Anatolie. Il faut élaborer un potentiel créatif pour la région et pour les artistes qui y vivent. »

Source : BpB.

Filed under: Gouvernances, Politiques culturelles, Financement de la culture, Politiques culturelles

août 17, 2014 • 7:27 0

Robots explore Tate Britain’s artwork after dark

Nocturnal robots are set to tour the halls of London’s Tate Britain Museum, as part of a unique project aimed at allowing art lovers to explore the building after hours.

On Wednesday when the gallery’s door close – four remote controlled bots will be set free to roam through 500 years of art.

Each machine will live-stream its footage to the Tate’s « After Dark » website, where viewers will be able to take turns to control the robots’ movements.

If they manage to manoeuvre to a work of art, a team of live art experts will be on hand to provide live commentary.

The project is the result of the £70,000 IK Prize; a competition to encourage innovative digital uses of the museum.

Other shortlisted ideas were to make virtual versions of works of art in block-building game Minecraft, and to broadcast the stories behind art works over social networks.

The developers claim the robots can broadcast what they see in near real time. But if you want to see the works of art in full definition, you’ll have to visit the old fashioned way.

Find out how the robots were made in this weekend’s Click. If you are in the UK you can watch the whole programme on BBC iPlayer.

Filed under: Expériences, Politiques culturelles

août 17, 2014 • 6:27 1

Les Bulgares n’ont pas accès à la culture

D’après le sondage Eurobaromètre le plus récent, seuls deux Bulgares sur dix ont assisté l’année dernière à un évènement culturel. Ce sont les Européens qui ont le moins été en contact avec la culture, ne dépensant en moyenne qu’environ sept euros par an pour aller au théâtre, à l’opéra ou acheter des livres. Le quotidien Pressa Daily fait part de son inquiétude : « Comment a-t-on pu en arriver là ? Où va notre peuple ? Il est plus aisé de répondre à la seconde question : on se dirige droit vers le vide, car un peuple qui ne ressent pas le besoin de se former et de se cultiver n’a pas d’avenir. … Si nous ne parvenons pas à éduquer nos enfants de manière à ce qu’ils ressentent la culture comme une nécessité, tout est perdu. … Mais s’il faut choisir entre amener son enfant au théâtre ou garder de l’argent pour la nourriture, la plupart des personnes choisiront sans doute la dernière solution, et on peut les comprendre. … C’est pourquoi nous devons tous ensemble, avec l’appui de l’Etat et de mécènes, faire en sorte de faciliter l’accès à la culture à un nombre plus important de Bulgares. »

Source : BpB.

Filed under: Politiques culturelles

août 16, 2014 • 6:14 0

Património e Território, a study to comprise an analysis and assessment of the state of Portuguese Heritage assets

This study aims to « underlie and monitor the measures which came to be outlined for investment in projects with cultural component in the programming of the Structural Funds 2014-2020 », and respecting two basic assumptions that, directly, shape the work to develop and encompass their scope. Primlarily, it tries to give an answer to the questions contained in the specifications: a) identify the lack of intervention in Portuguese Heritage assets under public management; b) Diagnose and appraise the state of Conservation of Portuguese Heritage assets; c) Prioritize the needs for intervention, signalling and valorization; d) Evaluate the importance of the Heritage in job creation and in structuring the Portuguese tourism demand; e) Formulate recommendations of strategic and operational nature intervention on the Patrimony, to implement in the new programming cycle of Structural Funds. Secondly, it is inscribed in the research and the lines of work carried out in Portugal over the last two decades, which has been reflected on the sector of culture and heritage to contribute for monitoring of public policy in this sphere. The proposal invests, thereby, in the mobilization of research experiences and in the capitalization of the heap of knowledge produced upon the cultural sector with a view to better understand their dynamics, mutations and possibilities. To this framework of knowledge, joins the existence of a diverse experience at European level that will serve as a counterpoint and touchstone for the construction of conceptual proposals.

In this field of assumptions, matters to allude, to the instruments of HIA (Heritage Impact Assessment), which has been used in many cases of patrimony dimension, with particular relevance to the cases of classification by UNESCO. This research will seek to adapt to a national and regional reality the methodological principles of HIA, aiming to propose a referential framework of analysis that enables the constant monitoring of the processes of classification, preservation and intervention in heritage. The universe of reference for the study are the 3836[1] Public Heritage assets included in the three existing degrees of the Portuguese classification: National Monument, of Public Interest and of Municipal Interest, regulated, in terms of supervision, accompaniment and intervention by the various state organisms: the four Regional Offices – North, Centre, Alentejo and Algarve – and the General Directorate of Cultural Heritage. The analytical corpus for this study is consisted by the set of support documentation and process collected from the Regional Directions of Culture, Committees for Coordination and Regional Development, General Directorate of Cultural Heritage and private entities, including, among others: a) legislation of reference; b) application documents (forms, decisions of juries, contracts and, when applicable, supplements of contracts – CCDR); c) reports of the state of conservation and registration (DGPC and DRC); d) activity and financial reports, when applicable. To complement the additional encoded information 5 case studies and a seminar were held, for more than inform, to shape this study towards the Portuguese operational reality and the level of current good practices in use in Portugal. Due to the high number of heritage assets that constitute the universe, both the case studies and the information gathered from stakeholders, or the one resulted from the seminar will not be used individually. Similarly, no specific analysis of each case will be made, as this would not be representative for the universe of national heritage, given the disparity of types found in the universe. All information has been treated so as to constitute a global comprehensive analysis of the classified heritage in Portugal.

Not being able to treat the Heritage sector without analysing the legal framework that marks it out and allows it to be put into practice, the Basic Law of Heritage, arising from the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic and the successive changes that it has undergone over time, defines a conceptual and institutional framework for the regulation and performance of both private and public entities, to which the management, classification, safeguarding and development concern. The Title II of the same law specifies administrative procedures, rights and duties for private and public entities, as well as its scope of intervention in partnership with the state, to obtain the goals previously cited. The DL (decree-laws) n.º 114/2012 and n.º 115/2012, both from the 25th of May, extinguish the Regional Direction of Culture of Lisbon and Tejo Valley, and redefine the allocation of assets under its management to the General Direction of Cultural Heritage, redefining, also the list of patrimony assets that are under the protection of this organism, as well as the existing Regional Offices – North, Centre, Alentejo and Algarve. Arising from the execution of the decree-laws, as well as the restructuration of the organizations with interests in the area of heritage belonging to the Central State, follows a dual role of the General Directorate of Cultural Heritage: if at a given level it has the same powers and obligations as the Regional Directions of Culture, on the other hand it assumes the role of regulator, or executor, depending on the ownership of the patrimony, the works of intervention in heritage, and evaluator of regional plans for priority intervention, as well as the programs and projects for the conservation, restoration and valorisation, in which has a monitoring role, as in sub-paragraphs d) and c) of the art. n.º 2 of the Decree-Law n º 115/2012. Although the analysis of the specific legislation that regulates the heritage is important per se, it is nonetheless illustrator of multiple layers of skills that organisms occupy, arising from mergers and register changes over the past few years in the organisms of guardianship, which is desirable from this point to build a stable macro structure, to become more efficient, with smaller degrees of overlap.

In International, European terms, and focusing on cases of England, the UK as a whole has its own systems for each nation, in France, Italy and Spain the legislative system resembles, in terms of organization, to the Portuguese system, where a general legislative document from foundation by the name of « code or act », provides the guiding principles by which state agencies and private organisms should govern themselves. The classification processes range from more complex cases, such as Spain and Italy, and simpler cases, such as France and England, ranging from two to three classification categories. Whilst, in terms of number of assets, are the simplest cases that reveal it progressively more and more standardization and, in a more explicitly way, the role of privates when it comes to management, qualification and heritage conservation. Occurs for the same cases a process of greater transparency, with the data related to heritage listed and classification instruments and management, available for direct consultation and, therefore, not mediated by an organism, Italy being the paradigmatic opposite case where neither the list of assets is public domain – despite being the country with the largest number of UNESCO’s ratings – neither the governing rules for the sector are explicit, presenting a constant overlapping of items and exclusions dependent on technical deliberations of bodies of guardianship or the respective ministries.

In terms of general characterization of the existing Heritage listed – 3836 heritage property, in the continental Portuguese territory – focuses on the percentage of 61% in the North and Lisbon and Tejo Valley, with an impressive range of regional variation, counting North, the highest number, with 1324 assets (35%), and the Algarve, the less representative, with only 149 assets (4%), making a variation of almost 900%. On the set of ratings on a national scale, « National Monument » and « Public Interest », represent about 87% and 76% of those classified as « Public Interest », leaving 13% for the assets classified as « Municipal Interest ». To these must be added 13 monuments or sites (the Alto Douro wine region, Cultural Landscape of Sintra, Border City and Garrison of Elvas and its Fortifications, Historic Centres of Porto, Guimarães and Évora, Coimbra University, Alta and Sofia) with the UNESCO classification has World Heritage Site. This distribution of ratings occurs on Portuguese territory on a semi stable way, with the Centre and Algarve regions registering parities of 84% -16% and Lisbon and Tejo Valley assuming values of 82% -18%, existing a bias in favour of assets classified as national category in the northern regions (93% -7%) and Alentejo (92% – 8%).

Being the classification process an administrative act that empowers certain asset of inestimable cultural value, and being this process the result of an analysis of specific amounts of the characteristics of the heritage properties, it should be noted that 55% of listed heritage is representative of the « modern era », with the « Medieval Islamic and Christian », « contemporary », « prehistory » and « classical antiquity » eras occupying the following positions with 16%, 12%, 8% and 5%, respectively. If the date or era of construction are decisive for the attribution of historical, aesthetic and scientific values, so too is the use, in most cases conditioned by architectural typology, with « civil architecture » to assume greater importance with 44% of expression, followed by « religious architecture » with 32% and with the typologies « archaeology », « military », « industrial » and « mixed » occupying the remaining seats, with 13%, 7%, 1% and 1% of expression, respectively.

Regards to the monuments directly affected to central government organisms, these are distributed, as mentioned above, by the four Regional Offices of Culture and the General Directorate of Cultural Heritage[2] .The General Directorate of Cultural Heritage tutors 41 heritage assets, of which 1 of them does not have national classification and 2 are transferred to other entities, and therefore not affect, and corresponding to the classification of World Heritage of UNESCO, of which 22 recorded conditional entries. Of the 40 monuments classified as national scale, 28 are classified as « National Monument » and 12 as « Public Interest ». The number of visitors to the monuments with entry control reaches to, approximately, 2,920 million people, with the monuments located in Lisbon and Tejo Valley accounting for 2.286 million of entries. To these entries corresponds a revenue – including ticketing, gift shop income and space rental – close to 8 million euros, being the Jerónimos Monastery and Belém Tower together responsible for 47% of this value. In terms of net income[3] the General Directorate of Cultural Heritage presents, to the monuments with a conditional entry, a positive income in the order of 1.1 million euros, of which the quoted records set a value of 3.3 million euros of positive income. The values, substantially higher than all other directions, find a bias for classification with 4 monuments of UNESCO affected to this direction, all with surplus, balancing the insignificant or negative results of the other affected monuments. Regarding the Algarve reality, the Regional Direction of Culture of the Algarve is responsible for 8 monuments, of which only 5 are under the exclusive management of the organism, with the other 3 having a shared management with the local authority where they are situated. Of the 8 monuments 6 are classified as « National Monument » and 2 as « Public Interest ». The entries recorded to these monuments reach the value of 280 thousand persons, corresponding to a recipe – which includes other incomes such as stores and rental from spaces – of around 620 000 euros, being the Fortress of Sagres responsible for 93% of this value. The monuments provide, a net income of, approximately, negative 50 thousand euros, and the Fortress de Sagres is the only monument with a positive income, around 15 thousand euros. In the Centre region it states that the Regional Direction of Cultural of the Centre is in charge of 33 heritage assets, which 2 of them have no classification nationwide, and only 8 register conditioned entries. From the 31 buildings affected with the national order classification, 22 of them are registered as « National Monument » and 9 as « Public Interest ». In buildings with conditioned entrance, there were 130,000 visitors, representing total revenue of 190 000 euros, rummaging the Monastery of Santa Clara-a-Velha as the most significant, with about 45% of this value. In terms of net income it is impossible for us to present any results for the 8 assets here quoted, since the charges of 7 of them were supported by the General Directorate of Cultural Heritage. To the Monastery of Santa Clara-a-Velha the net income will be negative in approximately 137 000 euros. Regard to the Alentejo region, the Regional Direction of Culture of Alentejo has 41 heritage assets under its responsibility, 31 of them corresponding to the classification of « National Monument » and 7 to « Public Interest ». In the 16 monuments with controlled entry there were 60 000 visitors to the base year, corresponding to a revenue value of around 72 000 euros, with the Museum of Évora being responsible for 40% of this value. The net income in the case of this region is more difficult to assess, since only 7 of the 16 monuments with conditioned entry present values of costs, being incomplete, it is possible to infer a negative net income of around 32 000 euros per monument. The northern region that has the largest number of public heritage assets, 61, being 1 of them not listed, 40 classified as « National Monument » and 20 has « Public Interest ». In the 27 monuments with controlled entry, including 6 museums, the number of entries for 2012 was 1.5 million, with Paço dos Duques de Bragança being responsible for 1/3 of that number. This number of entries was reflected in a total revenue of, approximately, 1 million and 190 thousand euros, with a contribution of the museums near to 1 million, being Paço dos Duques de Bragança responsible for 88% of this value, and showing a net income, together with Museu Alberto Sampaio, of 300 000 euros. In spite of this value, the net income for the region, on average, and disregarding the museums, is, approximately, 31 000 euros negative per ward’s monument..

From the perspective of human resources employed in the heritage sector these are characterized by a specialization in technical areas related to the heritage tout court, lacking the professionals referents sector to other areas, such as management and communication, which leads to a multifaceted employment with skilled resources, since these, either by position or by practical knowledge, have to overcome the technical functions missing. On a medium and long term dimension, the heritage sector may struggle with the phenomenon of emptying the specific knowledge of each heritage asset, due to the hiring freeze in the public sector that makes it more difficult to pass along tacit knowledge. At the private level, and excluding individual cases, the economic size of holding an heritage asset does not allow to establish a well balanced team of human resources containing all the necessary areas to its fully profitability at medium-term, to which the choice between hiring resources with specific patrimonial knowledge and resources with knowledge of management and communication jeopardizes the average duration of the projects, thus, increasing the widespread perception that the heritage cannot have a private operating and that the private have no interest in doing so.

Regarding the dimension of the analysis of the state of heritage conservation in Portugal, there is a lack of systemic and structured data, tool enshrined in the legislation – Regional Plans of Priority Intervention (RPPI) – without which it becomes difficult to go beyond the sensory dimension about the same. However, not forgetting the programmatic interventions undertaken by the Estado Novo (dictatorial regime) and later, the arising of a new impetus given by the functions of the regime that succeeded it, the situation concerning the state of conservation of listed properties, although far from ideal, notes some significant changes. The allocation of EU funds for restoration works on monuments – even under the framework « tourism and culture » and although they hold a minority or, have been determined without any heritage policy framework consistently – allowed the opening of a new horizon and a more responsible, participatory and effective posture. Although it seems that the condition, in general form and according to the testimonies collected from players in the sector, it is admittedly fragile and the heritage affected to the State is relatively better, it becomes extremely onerous, if not impossible, wanting to generalize or particularize. At this level, we must offer expedited evaluation methodologies, such as the Evaluation Method of the State of Conservation, presented under the New Legal Regime of Urban Lease Law n.º 31/2012, of August 14th, method that could be introduced, albeit in processed form, in the analysis of the state of conservation of heritage, as well as the methodologies of the HIA. In an attempt to operationalize these methods, and including other contributions, we propose a frame of a methodology of evaluation and monitoring that could serve as a working basis for future field implementation of a new model which informs the RPPI’s and is able to provide an updated and reliable source of data. After analysing the only complete existing RPPI, of the Algarve, we note that from 67 assets that are registered, 46 are in need of intervention, of greater or less depth, 33 of which are public, with a budget of intervention of around 17 million euros. It is not for us, here, to extrapolate from these data a projection for the 3836 heritage assets listed of classified monuments, presenting the Algarve example only as an illustrator pointing scenario of what might be the national reality.

From an economic standpoint the Heritage is an absolute competitive advantage, for its difficulty to be replicated in another region with the same attributes, and as such is an important ally in regional development strategies, and its effect may be felt in multiple sectors, from tourism to contemporary creation, passing through Architecture and Cinema. We wonder if, without the rich heritage bequeathed by our ancestors and policies of conservation, would be possible for a country the size of Portugal to have two Pritzker awards, namely, aren’t the Portuguese architectural styles in some way dependent on the heritage that Portugal holds? In terms of measuring the economic dimension of heritage a calculation for the 3836 monuments is impossible for us to provide, due to the lack of data for all elements, or for a representative set of these that could allow an estimate that is not empty. Internationally, the value generated by the heritage sector lies in a duplicity that only between 10% and 30% of this value is directly related, worn or produced in the sector itself, the rest staying, between 90% and 70% of the value, in the adjacent or related sectors. For Portugal, we estimate that this value is situated on an equitable division, 50% – 50%, through the various state sectors of maturity, both from heritage as well from the sectors which are normally included in these categories of value appropriation. As an example, see the poor utilization of heritage assets to create products (tourist or not) and, almost, the absence of exploitation of the benefits that this can bring to corporate images. This division, in which a high percentage is not suitable for heritage, makes clear the need for State intervention, since the social optimum, which is always greater than these values generated, will only be achieved with adequate investment and, the private, for not being able to take ownership of most of the generated income, have a lower incentive to achieve this level of investment. To this factor joins the dimension of public heritage, non-exclusive and non-rival, and its inter-generational feature, which recommends its revenues and costs to be shared over time, something that a private body doesn’t have the possibility of doing. In terms of estimated value we can say that the state monuments, which provide elements of financial flow, may have an annual economic impact in a range between 18 and 108 million euros, and that the Internal Return Rate of a structured investment in a heritage asset with national public importance lies between the values of 10 and 16% for the appropriated income and between 15.5 and 26.9% for the overall value generated.

From the social point of view, the role of interposition between the present and the past, between history and heritage, it is undeniable, establishing itself as an important asset in forming a Portuguese identity and the construction of the European project that cannot, and should not, be straying from the specificities of the people who constitute it. On top of this, the training potential, of transmission of knowledge and culture, in short citizenship training, emanating from the legacy that constitutes the heritage assets.

As conclusion allow us to strengthen the urgent need for a reliable, systematic and systematized production of data in all of the dimensions addressed, as well as to improve the mechanisms of internal and external communication, which will value the central dimension of the heritage guaranteed authenticity and thus ensures a differentiator and active central factor in economic growth , in the context of a peer strategy as the European reality shows us nowadays.

[1] Date of consult of the database of the Directorate General of Cultural Heritage: 23/12/2013

[2] All data presented comprises the year 2012, except when a different year is refereed, and are approximate figures, many of them derived from financial calculation assumptions.

[3] Here, Net Income is equivalent to the Operating Income, by similarity of values and specificities of affected monuments.

Filed under: Expériences, Outils, Politiques culturelles, Ressources

août 16, 2014 • 6:05 0

Património e Território

The present study is to comprise an analysis and assessment of the state of Portuguese Heritage assets, from national level in Portugal, based on inventories and data produced by the entities that oversee them. The study is commissioned by the Office of Strategy, Planning and Cultural Evaluation (GEPAC), with the higher coordination of the Office of the Secretary of State for Culture – under the ERDF Operational Programme of Technical Assistance – priority axis « Strategic Coordination and Monitoring of the NSRF « – Heritage and Territory.

Thanks to our member Ricardo Moreira*, the abstract of this study will be published on cultural-engineering.com very shortly.

*Ricardo Moreira is an economist, with an innovation masters and doing a PhD crossing arts and business, that from an early stage in his career has focus his work in the cultural sector. He has done consultant work for small to big cultural entities, from art associations to national museums, creative industries companies and cultural heritage institutions and has done master classes in the major Portuguese universities regarding arts and business. Simultaneous he has taking part in research projects in the same field studying the impact of management in the cultural sector and the impact of art mind cognition in business. At a national level Ricardo Moreira has coordinate three national studies, two for the national government and one for the Portuguese dance network, in the fields of contemporary art and cultural heritage.

Filed under: Expériences, Gouvernances, Outils, Politiques culturelles, Ressources

juillet 12, 2014 • 1:56 1

Culture and Museums in the Winds of Change: The Need for Cultural Indicators

A recent and fascinating conversation with our member Douglas Worts* reminded me how important his contribution is to the world of museums. So I wanted to share with our members and our readers some of his contributions, starting with this exciting article where the road to a different sustainability for museums is clearly shown.

Culture and Museums in the Winds of Change: The Need for Cultural Indicators

Abstract: How individuals live their lives, within the context of personal and collective values, expresses their living culture. Societies may be made up of people with different ethnocultural backgrounds, socio-economic profiles or spiritual orientations, but they share certain common cultural frameworks (e.g., democratic governance, rules of law, conventions of business, principles of equity for all, etc.) of what is increasingly a globalized, pluralized, and urbanized present. Culture is often thought of as either the historical traditions of a group, or else as certain types of activities (e.g., dance, theatre, celebrations, rituals, etc.) and objects (e.g., art, artifacts, clothing, etc.). Meanwhile, cultural organizations are characterized as specialized places of expertise that provide selected kinds of experiences and services to the public – normally available for consumption during leisure time. This article argues that the heart of living culture is to be found not in specialized types of objects, leisure-time experiences, ethnocultural traditions, or cultural organizations but, rather, in its processes of human adaptation in a changing world. The author uses the lens of culture to examine how humanity understands and attempts to manage change within its sphere of influence. How can we best measure the cultural well-being of our societies, our organizations, and ourselves? The overarching notion of global/local sustainability provides the grounding point for considering how best to foster a ̳culture of sustainability‘.

Keywords: Museums, cultural well-being, culture and sustainability, adaptive renewal, cultural indicators

You can read and download the full article here.

*Douglas Worts (pronounced Werts) is a culture & sustainability specialist, with WorldViews Consulting, a Canadian consulting firm, and an Associate of The AtKisson Group, which is a global network of sustainability planners, educators and consultants.

He holds a specialist degree in History of Art (University of Toronto) and a Masters Degree in Museum Studies (University of Toronto).

For over 30 years, he has worked in and around museums (Art Gallery of Ontario – 25 years) – specializing in experimental exhibit design, education programming, community engagement and audience research, where he explored the potential of artworks and heritage materials to stimulate viewer creativity and ‘meaning-making’. He has spoken and published widely, including activities in North America, Europe, South America, Australia and New Zealand on a range of museum, culture and sustainability-based topics. In 1997, Douglas was invited to join Leadership for Environment and Development (LEAD International), which is a global, cross-disciplinary network of over 2500 professionals from more than 80 countries, who have been trained in and promote local/global sustainability. Douglas’ particular focus these days revolves around the belief that, regardless of technological innovation, new economic policy and governance frameworks, human beings will only achieve a sustainable future if there are foundational shifts at the cultural level. This is no mean feat given the impacts of globalization, pluralization and urbanization on all cultures. However, there is great potential for artists and organizations within the cultural sector to stretch beyond the leisure-time economy and become significant players in stimulating deep reflection, dialogue and action related to fostering a ‘culture of sustainability’ across all sectors of our society. Critical to achieving this will be the development and use of cultural ‘measures of success’ that provide meaningful and effective feedback loops to ensure the work of artists and arts organizations are directed at individual and societal leverage points that produce greater public awareness and engagement.

Douglas lives in downtown Toronto.

Personal Website: http://douglasworts.org

Business website: http://worldviewsconsulting.org

Filed under: Analyses, Expériences, Gouvernances, Ingénieries, Politiques culturelles, Ressources, Gouvernance culturelle, Musées, museums and sustainability

février 19, 2014 • 10:25 3

Pour reconstruire les masters de médiation culturelle

Nous venons d’apprendre que la médiation culturelle vient d’être effacée de la liste des diplômes universitaires. D’un coup d’un seul ce sont 20 ans de travaux liant étroitement citoyens, artistes, professionnels et universitaires qui disparaissent. 20 ans d’une bataille qui a réussi à inscrire les publics au cœur de l’action culturelle. 20 ans d’efforts pour réconcilier les théories et les pratiques portées par l’Education populaire et celles des professionnels de la culture. Pas seulement de la culture instituée et défendue par le ministère du même nom, mais la culture au sens large, celle portée par les citoyens, le monde associatif, les amateurs qui œuvraient tous ensemble à ce que chaque culture soit reconnue, travaillée appropriée.

La médiation a su trouver sa place aussi bien dans la reconnaissance de cursus diplômants que dans les cadres d’emploi tant des collectivités territoriales que de l’Etat. Aux côtés des artistes, des administrateurs, des conservateurs, des chargés de communication, les professionnels de la médiation sont devenus ces spécialistes des populations visées par le projet de démocratisation culturelle. Nous avons réussi à faire reconnaître qu’il était essentiel pour toute institution patrimoniale et de création (musées d’art, de sciences, d’histoire et de société, monuments historiques, bibliothèques, archives, centres d’art, centres de culture scientifique et technique, centres d’architecture et d’urbanisme, théâtres, centres chorégraphiques, orchestres, etc.) que des professionnels accompagnent les publics dans leurs démarches d’appropriation.

Ce n’était pas simple ! Nous avions constaté que la démocratisation culturelle ne pouvait être laissée aux producteurs des œuvres, des créations, des savoirs, car ceux-là ont déjà fort à faire pour inventer, chercher, créer. Nous savions aussi qu’il ne s’agissait pas seulement de communication ni de marketing et qu’il fallait veiller à ne pas assimiler les œuvres à des « produits » commerciaux. Nous savions qu’il y allait de la justice et de l’égalité entre tous si l’on voulait éviter que seuls ceux qui étaient déjà dotés d’un fort capital culturel se sentent concernés par les arts, les savoirs scientifiques et la culture. Nous avons voulu former des spécialistes qui auraient pour tâche d’intéresser les personnes à ce que produisaient les artistes et les chercheurs. Nous avons inventé et développé la « médiation culturelle », un ensemble de métiers qui travaillent à diminuer l’écart entre les publics et les œuvres, qui font cet indispensable travail de transmission. Ce travail ne relève pas seulement de l’école mais de toutes les institutions de culture, petites et grandes, qui maillent le territoire national et aujourd’hui le territoire immatériel de l’Internet.

Cette fonction s’est imposée au point que les musées ont reconnu son utilité en l’inscrivant dans la loi « Musées » de 2002. Alors que les besoins sont immenses, pourquoi supprimer aujourd’hui ces formations qui savent préparer les professionnels, dans tous les champs disciplinaires, aux enjeux et aux pratiques de transmission informelle ? Comment faire aboutir la réforme des rythmes scolaires et l’instauration d’un parcours d’éducation artistique et culturelle pour tous les élèves sans faire appel à ces professionnels qui savent faire converger les besoins de l’école et les ressources des équipements culturels ? Faut-il cesser de former des médiateurs alors que se multiplient les dispositifs de sensibilisation et de transmission pour lesquelles les artistes ou les scientifiques ne sont nullement préparés ? Va-t-on laisser seuls les enseignants face à ces missions, alors qu’ils ont pu constater l’utilité et l’importance des savoir-faire de ces nouveaux professionnels? Va-t-on purement et simplement abandonner d’immenses territoires dans lesquels n’existent que de petits équipements culturels aux moyens affaiblis par les restrictions budgétaires ? Où vont pouvoir se former tous ces jeunes qui veulent mettre en place des projets culturels, auprès des publics « empêchés » parce qu’ils sont dans des établissements fermés (l’hôpital, la prison), sont enfermés dans la maladie ou le handicap ou parce qu’ils n’y ont jamais eu accès et n’ont pas de famille pour les y inciter?

Sans doute cette jeune profession, qui figurait sur la liste des « nouveaux métiers, nouveaux emplois » soutenus par l’État en 1997 (autant dire au siècle dernier) était-elle encore à préciser dans ses misions, ses compétences, ses savoir-faire et ses références (sociologie, histoire de l’art, communication, psychologie sociale, etc.). Mais c’est précisément par cette ouverture, cette faible institutionnalisation qu’elle pouvait affirmer son rôle d’interface et d’attention pour tous les publics, d’intermédiaire efficace.

Plus encore, elle préfigure de nouvelles façons de transmettre, car elle a été le lieu où pouvaient se construire de nouvelles pratiques de formation, d’éducation, de sensibilisation. Les lieux culturels, petits et grands, non contraignants, ouverts à tous, mettant à la disposition de tous les savoirs et les productions de toutes les populations (pensons aux écomusées ou aux orchestres amateurs) reposent sur ces compétences variées qu’il est indispensable de maîtriser pour que fleurissent les projets culturels qui sont indispensables à la construction de chacun, dans le souci de l’autre.

Est-ce faute d’avoir pris conscience de l’importance de la médiation culturelle que le ministère de l’enseignement supérieur a pris la décision de supprimer ces diplômes ? Jusqu’où fallait-il simplifier ? Les professionnels de la médiation et les chercheurs ont-il pu se faire entendre ? C’est pourquoi nous demandons tant au ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur qu’au ministère de la Culture de reconstruire les mastères de médiation culturelle. La liste parue au Journal Officiel du 11 février 2014 page 2414 – texte n° 21 – Arrêté du 4 février 2014 témoigne d’un repli sur les disciplines traditionnelles, oublie des champs culturels importants (la photographie et le design par exemple), et positionne la médiation du côté des sciences, en la mêlant à l’information. Or la médiation n’est pas de l’information.

Si la médiation culturelle reste absente des nomenclatures de formation, comment sera-t-il possible de former les professionnels des services des publics dans les secteurs du patrimoine et de la création ? Comment seront formés ceux qui mettent la science en culture ? Va-t-on assister à un retour en arrière, avec des publics qui ne seront plus accueillis ? Oublie-t-on enfin que la qualité des médiations dans les institutions culturelles est pour beaucoup dans leur réussite et dans leur rayonnement, auprès de nos concitoyens et auprès d’un public plus lointain, celui des étrangers qui viennent en France ?

Tous les pays développés ont de tels professionnels, et ils sont souvent au même niveau de responsabilité que les conservateurs (les scientifiques) et les gestionnaires. C’est loin d’être le cas dans notre pays. En restaurant les mastères professionnalisant et de recherche à la médiation culturelle, la France pourrait affirmer qu’elle ne renonce pas à mettre les publics et les populations au centre du travail des institutions culturelles. Elle donnerait ainsi un contenu à l’affirmation toujours répétée et jamais concrète de la dimension culturelle de sa démocratie.

Pour signer la pétition, cliquez ici.

Filed under: Analyses, Financement de projet, Gouvernances, Politiques culturelles, Education artistique et culturelle, Méditation culturelle, Politiques culturelles

février 5, 2014 • 11:18 0

A peer funding model for the arts?

A recent paper by five mathematical computer scientists at Indiana University (published in EMBO Reports, a forum for short papers in molecular biology) proposes a clever new model for science funding that makes use of collective allocation (peer-funding) rather than expert-panel-and-peer-review funding mechanisms. I want to consider whether this might also work for arts and cultural funding.

Public science and research funding in Australia, as in most of the world, is based on a process that has remained largely unchanged for 60 years. This begins with calls for submissions of reasonably detailed project proposals. These then pass through expert panels (e.g. the Australian Research Council) and then on to the peer review process in which carefully selected “peers” evaluate the proposals and write detailed reports, before passing these back to the panels for final judgement. The high-level of process and accountability makes this the gold standard for taxpayer-sourced public funding of research (philanthropic trust funding often mirrors this architecture).

But it is expensive to run, and onerous to all involved. Perhaps one in ten projects proposed will be funded. The amounts of time and effort invested by all those seeking funding will tend toward the expected value of the grants, meaning that once overhead costs to panels and reviewers are added in, these function to a considerable degree as a redistribution mechanism. Rob Brooks wrote about this on The Conversation last year.

The new model the computer scientists propose bypasses this expert-panel-and-peer-review system altogether by simply taking the whole public lump of funding, and allocating it unconditionally (yes, unconditionally) to all “eligible” scientific researchers. It would thus function like a kind of “basic income”.

They calculate that if the National Science Foundation budget in the US were divided among all who applied for funding, it would deliver about US$100,000 per scientist. The problem with this, apart from an expected blowout in the number of people who claim to be scientists, is that we’ve just lost oversight, accountability and peer review.

So here’s what the computer scientists propose: everyone who receives funding gives some fraction (say 50% of their previous year’s funding) to other scientists whose work they like or think particularly interesting and valuable. That fraction can be distributed among one or many. The idea is that this works as a collective-allocation mechanism that basically crowd-sources peer review, and with the added advantage that it funds people, not projects. It also gets the incentives right for scientists to concentrate on clear communication of their findings and the value of research.

This method replicates the good parts of the previous model: those with higher peer regard will receive more funding; and those same people will have a larger say in the overall allocation (the pledge is a fixed fraction of the previous year’s funding). There would, obviously, still need to be confidentiality and conflict-of-interest avoiding mechanisms, along with careful monitoring to ensure that circular funding schemes are identified and punished.

But it also avoids the bad parts: in providing a guaranteed basic income, it liberates researchers from continual wasteful cycles of grant-writing by furnishing autonomy and stability of funding; it avoids the overheads associated with process and review; it enables a continual updating of funding to reflect the preferences and priorities of the scientific community, without getting caught in legacy priorities or political cycles.

Now might this also work for public funding of arts and culture? The main reason to think it might is that the same inefficiency arguments apply in arts and culture as they do in science: namely that those seeking grants spend considerable time and effort writing and preparing grants; face high uncertainty about funding outcomes; proposals tend toward conservative trend-following of agency preferences; projects, not people, are funded; and all the while arts funding bodies and panels (and the peer review process) consume sizable overhead.

On the flip-side, it’s not as neatly obvious who would be eligible. Research scientists can be reliably identified by the high-hurdle of having PhDs, prior publications, and full-time appointments at accredited institutes. But let’s suppose we can come up with an acceptable solution to that long-list problem. (I’m not suggesting this is trivial; just that that’s not what I want to focus on here.)

I think that this would, potentially, be a substantial step towards a more open and effective funding model (peer driven, not bureaucratically or politically driven). It would enable creative resources to be more directly spent on artistic production and public communication, with less time and effort wasted on endless rounds of grant-writing and reviewing.

And while still some distance from a decentralised and fully-incentivised market ideal of “consumers voting with their own dollars”, it is at least closer to that model in reflecting the preferences and judgements of the actual community of practising producers of culture (which is not always identical to appointed “expert” panels). Like the Oscars, in a way.

Might collective allocation of arts and cultural funding be superior to expert-panel based solutions? What do we think: crazy or not?

Jason Potts, Professor of Economics at RMIT University.

Source : The conversation

Filed under: Analyses, Expériences, Financement de projet, Gouvernances, Ingénieries, Politiques culturelles, Culture et innovation, Economie de la culture, Financement de la culture, Financement participatif, Politiques culturelles

février 5, 2014 • 11:16 0

La fabrique artistique des imaginaires de la métropole parisienne

Le 8ème cycle de rencontres-débats art [espace] public sera consacré à La fabrique artistique des imaginaires de la métropole parisienne, chaque fin de semaine, de 19h à 21h, du 7 février au 14 mars, dans divers lieux de l’Île-de-France.

Frayant entre partisans et adversaires, la métropole parisienne se construit pas à pas et pourrait voir le jour dès 2016. Alors que le contexte électoral soulève de nombreuses questions quant au devenir de Paris et la première couronne, le 8e cycle art [espace] public souhaite interroger la façon dont la création en espace public aborde et met en débat les enjeux métropolitains. En prolongement des questions initiées lors de l’édition 2013, il consacre sept rencontres à la fabrique artistique des imaginaires du Grand Paris. Ces conférences débats seront l’occasion d’explorer la relation ténue entre interventions artistiques et culturelles et territoire métropolitain. Cette relation, en tissant à travers l’espace du Grand Paris une vaste toile de projets artistiques, permet de multiplier et de décentrer le regard, d’interroger les enjeux d’un territoire en mutation pour en libérer l’imaginaire et pour révéler la valeur symbolique et poétique des lieux.
Organisées par les étudiants du Master Projets culturels dans l’espace public de l’université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne et l’association Objet(s) Public(s), sous la direction de Stéphanie Lemoine et Pascal Le Brun-Cordier, ces rencontres sont ouvertes à tous. Elles se nouent autour d’immersions dans les différents projets artistiques partenaires du Master et de temps de convivialité.
Au programme : Quelle place pour la création artistique dans la construction métropolitaine ? le 7 février, au Pavillon de l’Arsenal, Paris ; Les flux métropolitains au coeur de nouvelles pratiques artistiques, le 15 février, aux Eurosites – Docks de Paris, La Plaine Saint-Denis, ; Le Grand Paris nous appartient ? le 16 février, au Théâtre de l’Échangeur, Bagnolet ; La culture, 4ème pilier de la ville durable ? le 21 février 2014 au 6B, Saint Denis ; Identités en chantier et action artistique, le 28 février, au Théâtre El Duende, Ivry-sur-Seine ; La fabrique de la ville à l’épreuve des projets partagés, le 7 mars, au Théâtre des Frères Poussière, Aubervilliers ; Et si la métropole était un rêve collectif ? le 14 mars, à la Ferme du Bonheur, Nanterre.
Un programme détaillé est téléchargeable.

Filed under: Evénements, Expériences, Gouvernances, Politiques culturelles, Action artistique et culturelle, Culture et développement territorial, Gouvernance culturelle, Grand Paris, Politiques des territoires

février 5, 2014 • 11:15 0

Lottery cash spares English arts groups from big cuts

Alan Davey, chief executive of Arts Council England. Photograph: Eamonn McCabe for the Guardian

Public money available to England’s arts organisations in 2015 will fall by 2.24% – far less than expected because it includes a substantial increase in lottery cash that will, for the first time, be used as regular funding.

The application process to be part of Arts Council England‘s national portfolio in 2015-18 opened at noon on Tuesday.

Organisations from big opera houses to small theatres now have 10 weeks to apply for the money from a £334m pot that will be available in 2015.

The organisation’s chief executive, Alan Davey, said they recognised « that these remain austere times. » He added: « We must continue to invest in a way that ensures a healthy cultural ecology all over the country.

« We must keep the sector resilient and ensure art and culture retain their central place in this country’s way of life, and continue to enhance the quality of life for all. »

ACE is managing to avoid dramatic reductions because of a big increase in lottery money which had previously been diverted from the arts to the Olympics.

It will now go directly to fund arts organisations, a move that represents a big change of approach.

For example in 2014/15, £327.5m grant in aid went to arts organisations and £28.3m lottery money went to touring and children and young people projects.

In 2015/16 there will be a total budget of £334m – that includes a dramatically reduced £271m of grant in aid and £62.5m lottery money.

ACE acknowledges that some arts organisations will be funded totally by the lottery and some by grant in aid.

The question is whether that breaches the « additionality principle » established in 1992 which says lottery money has to be for things which would not happen without the additional support. ACE says it does not believe the principle is breached.

Davey said there had been an ongoing debate as to what the principle is and how to test it.

« We have listened to the current debate and we are confident that the approach we’re taking does not breach the additionality principle.

« The biggest proportion of our portfolio funding will still come from grant in aid. In using lottery funds to support additional activity, we believe we adhere to the principle that government funding should be maintained and is an essential part of a mixed funding model. »

In opening the application process, arts organisations were warned that funding can only be confirmed for 2015/16 with the following two years dependent on the settlement reached with government.

Source : The Guardian

Filed under: Analyses, Expériences, Financement de projet, Gouvernances, Politiques culturelles, Economie de la culture, Financement de la culture, Politiques culturelles

février 5, 2014 • 11:14 0

Un nouveau référentiel pour la culture ? Pour une économie coopérative de la diversité culturelle

Les mutations de ces dernières décennies sont autant culturelles que strictement économiques et sociales. Les modes de production et d’échange de nos ressources symboliques s’en trouvent profondé- ment transformés et notre conception d’un art émancipateur, héritée du xxe siècle, largement questionnée.

En s’appuyant sur des expérimentations souvent peu connues, l’ouvrage illustre cette situation et analyse la question centrale de la construction de nos identités culturelles. La problématique de la diversité culturelle forme désormais le nouveau socle d’une pensée et d’une action politique publique de la culture. Elle est néanmoins confrontée à des inégalités et des fractures culturelles aujourd’hui croissantes.

Dans ce nouveau contexte, de nouvelles modalités collaboratives peuvent être repérées qui plaident pour la prise en compte d’une économie coopérative dans le champ de la culture, au même titre que pour l’affirmation d’une gouvernance participative.

Au final, l’ouvrage développe une approche volontairement généra- liste et didactique de mise en perspective des rapports qui se renou- vellent sous nos yeux entre l’art, la culture et la société. Avec pour visée de vouloir inventer un monde moins insoutenable et plus humain.

L’auteur

Philippe Henry est maître de conférences HDR à la retraite de l’Université Paris 8 – Saint- Denis. Il poursuit ses recherches sur la spécificité de l’économie des biens singuliers dans le domaine artistique. Il a notamment publié en 2009 Spectacle vivant et culture d’aujourd’hui. Une filière artistique à reconfigurer aux Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.

Un nouveau référentiel pour la culture ? Pour une économie coopérative de la diversité culturelle

Collection la culture en questions

Parution janvier 2014

Prix public 17,50 €

Format 12,5 x 19 cm

Pagination 256 pages

ISBN 978-2-916002-28-6

Filed under: Analyses, Evénements, Expériences, Gouvernances, Ingénieries, Outils, Politiques culturelles, Ressources, Coopération, Gouvernance culturelle, Nouvelles gouvernances, Politiques culturelles

« Précédent Suivant »

Cultural Engineering Group

Capital of Culture : What is the impact of arts and cultural clustering on local productivity ?

Nesta calls for arts funding shake-up

Le festival du film de Sarajevo, miroir aux alouettes

Barcelona Olympic facilities to host a 66.000 m2 sports theme park in 2015

Appel à propositions Coopération européenne

Here’s what a wise arts policy might look like

Pompéi et l’Italie souffrent du même mal

Evaluation of Cultural Policies and EU-Funded Programmes as Promoters of Cultural Diversity and Intercultural Dialogue in the Balkans/Southeast Europe

Creative Transition towards Sustainability

Subventionner les musées en Anatolie

Robots explore Tate Britain’s artwork after dark

Les Bulgares n’ont pas accès à la culture

Património e Território, a study to comprise an analysis and assessment of the state of Portuguese Heritage assets

Património e Território

Culture and Museums in the Winds of Change: The Need for Cultural Indicators

Pour reconstruire les masters de médiation culturelle

A peer funding model for the arts?

La fabrique artistique des imaginaires de la métropole parisienne

Lottery cash spares English arts groups from big cuts

Un nouveau référentiel pour la culture ? Pour une économie coopérative de la diversité culturelle

Search

Audience stats (year nine)

Network map today : 3020 experts members and contributors

Email Subscription

Themes

Share this:

WordPress:

Share this:

WordPress:

Share this:

WordPress:

Share this:

WordPress:

Share this:

WordPress:

Share this:

WordPress:

Share this:

WordPress:

Share this:

WordPress:

Share this:

WordPress:

Share this:

WordPress:

Share this:

WordPress:

WordPress:

WordPress:

WordPress:

Share this:

WordPress:

Share this:

WordPress:

Share this:

WordPress:

Share this:

WordPress:

Share this:

WordPress:

Share this:

WordPress:

Search

Audience stats (year nine)

Network map today : 3020 experts members and contributors

Email Subscription

Themes