Cultural Policy:

What Is It, Who Makes It,

Why Does It Matter?
by Caron Atlas

Cultural policy is connected to all the major issues of our society: economic stratification,
race relations, international relations, technology, education, and community development.
It happens at places ranging from a family’s dinner table to the boardrooms of national
foundations, corporations, and public agencies. The choice of a family to educate their
child in the language, traditions, and history of a particular ethnic group is cultural policy.
A grantmaker’s criterion for quality and excellence is cultural policy. A community develop-
ment corporation’s decision to focus on cultural tourism or historic preservation is cultural
policy. The convergence of television, Internet, and other digital media is cultural policy.
People often say we don’t have a cultural policy, when in fact we have many — we just
don’t talk about them. The challenge is to articulate a clear, pluralistic vision for cultural
policymaking that recognizes the integral connection between culture, art, and the rest of
our lives. This is the challenge the Blueprint is taking up for New York City.

Cultural policy is both a product and a process, a framework for making rules and decisions
that is informed by social relationships and values. It is not easily defined in the United
States. In fact, for much of our history our government has had an official policy of not
having a cultural policy, and has opted out of the international cultural policy dialogue led by
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization). But not calling
something a policy does not mean there isn’t any. Cultural policies — public and private,
implicit and explicit — are made all the time. In the United States, policy and policymaking
are more often implicit than explicit, and thus they are frequently invisible. This can be
viewed as a manifestation of how culture is embedded in other aspects of life, and it may
even at times protect culture that is vulnerable or at risk. But it prevents us, as a country,
from being able to have a conversation about the value of art and culture within our society.
And de facto or invisible policies can become undemocratic and unaccountable.

The United States has a history of connecting culture and public policy. Art and culture were
tied to foreign policy as a weapon of the Cold War. The public works programs of the WPA
(Works Progress Administration) in the 1930s and of CETA (Comprehensive Education and
Training Administration) in the 1970s supported workforce and community by providing
opportunities for artists to help rebuild the nation with their art. Over the years attitudes about
this public cultural policy have shifted. In the 60s an understanding of art and culture as a
scarce resource that needed proactive government support led to the creation of the National
Endowment for the Arts. In the 80s and 90s the culture wars positioned the arts and culture
as a lightning rod for debate on the increasingly diverse nature of America. The greater Susana Torruella Leval and Amy Schwartzman-Brightbill, two
professionalization of the arts through the years led to the emergence of a cultural hierarchy members of the Working Group for A Cultural Blueprint for New
York City at the New York Foundation for the Arts. Photo by Jaime
based on socially and historically constructed distinctions between high art and low art.1 Permuth.

Inset: Several members of the Working Group for A Cultural

People often think about policy as public policy, but cultural policy does not operate solely Blueprint for New York City at a meeting at the New York
Foundation for the Arts. From left to right: Norma P. Munn, Steven
in the public realm. The United States has a unique combination of support to arts and Tennen, Lillian Cho, Veronique LeMelle, Kathleen Hughes, Virginia
culture from the government (at all levels), private foundations, commercial sponsorship, Louloudes, and Randall Bourscheidt. Photo by Jaime Permuth.

65
 and individual donors (including a significant contribution by artists themselves). Government
dollars are often tied to leveraging private support. There is much talk now of the strategic
synergies among the public, not-for-profit, and commercial sectors. But a diverse cultural
ecology is threatened on the one hand by the privatization of culture and on the other by the
predominance of mass commercial media and culture. Technology, globalization, corporate
consolidation, and demographic shifts, including cultural diasporas, all add to the complexity
of a cultural policy that can no longer be understood solely in a local or national framework.

Most of us think cultural policy means spending money for a particular cultural purpose, but
much more is involved. Sometimes the cultural policy is embedded in decisions about other
issues in which culture is inextricable, such as education, health, environment, community
building, or economic development. This includes tax policies related to charitable deductions,
sales tax exemptions, and municipal development. Policies about copyright and intellectual
and cultural property have become more intricate with the development of new technologies
and with varying definitions of individual and community ownership in different cultures.
Cultural policy ranges from trade agreements to real estate subsidies, from freedom of
expression to transportation. Decisions about protecting public space on the broadcast
spectrum and the Internet are cultural policies. And, on another level, so are decisions
about what histories, languages, identities, and authorities are recognized and validated,
as well as what processes of cultural reclamation and reconciliation are offered to those
who have been ignored or silenced.

Decisions made by arts and culture institutions about whom they present, how they
represent them, and who has access to the work often have policy implications. Sometimes
this is explicit and purposeful, many times it is not. The National Task Force for Touring
and Presenting the Performing Arts is one example of a field-wide effort to take on some
of these issues. Associations and unions such as the National Writers Union and the
American Library Association are also engaged in policy discussions for their fields. Arts
service organizations, such as the National Association of Artists Organizations (NAAO),
the Alliance of Artist Communities, and the National Association of Latino Arts and Culture
(NALAC), have coalesced nationally to amplify the voices of artists and communities of color
in formal policy conversations.

Gigi Bradford, Executive Director of the Center for Arts and Culture, describes cultural policy
as “not a set of rules or recommendations per se, but an approach toward complex and
mutable relationships, a way to think about issues, a set of tools for a rapidly changing future.”
To make cultural policy involves the redefinition of terms and the questioning of assumptions
in order to effect change, and it begins with “clearly articulated values and a framework for
discussing those values.” 2 These values underlie the principles articulated in the Blueprint.
One of those principles is an “interdependent cultural ecology.” It is frequently invoked in
the national dialogue about cultural policy, as the definition of culture becomes more inclusive,
encompassing unincorporated and commercial groups as well as nonprofit organizations.
Concepts of “cultural democracy,” which promotes the participation of all people in both culture
and cultural policymaking, and “cultural citizenship,” which ties culture and identity to a vibrant
democracy, are based on the key values of equity, access, participation, and rights. In the
context of human and civil rights, the World Commission on Culture and Development states:

66
“the core cultural right is that of each person to participate fully in cultural life.” 3

The discussion of values and cultural policy does not happen in a vacuum. Issues of power
are very much a part of cultural policy, though an often unspoken element of it. At the Western
States Arts Federation symposium of 1999, Cultural Policy in the West, scholar and foundation
officer Tomas Ybarra-Frausto stated how in the United States of today “the politics of inequity,
asymmetry, and social exclusion persist.” 4 Equity issues in arts and culture cannot be
understood outside the context of the increasing gap between haves and have-nots. In this
country, arts and culture can engender a deeper understanding of prosperity, one that goes
beyond the Gross Domestic Product to assess the social, economic, and cultural health of
the democracy and to imagine an alternative to a system of social inequality. 5

The United States does not have a track record of systematic study and analysis of its
involvement in arts and culture. Cultural policy needs to be built on reliable and comprehen-
sive information, but the rigorous data gathering, collective discussion of data, and analysis
of its implications for diverse participants have not taken place in the arts. James Smith
writes in his preface to The Politics of Culture, “Decade by decade expertise has grown,
and data, theory, and analysis have improved policymaking and public understanding in
many fields. Yet Americans have been resistant to thinking about culture as a subject for
policy research and discussion.” 6 To help address this need for research, in 1994 several
foundations created the Center for Arts and Culture, an independent organization devoted to
research, communication, and policy development. Many other institutions have also taken William Aguado, Executive Director of the Bronx Council on the
up the challenge of conducting systematic research on arts and culture.7 Non-arts policy think Arts, at the Bronx Town Hall Meeting at the Lehman Center for
Performing Arts. Photo by Jaime Permuth.
tanks, institutions for the humanities, independent researchers, and government agencies are
involved in research projects as well. Foundations have played critical roles as partners in
these efforts in their search for more comprehensive information about the field.8 Grantmakers
in the Arts, the affinity group for arts funders, includes discussions of research and cultural
policy at its annual conferences. Research is also carried out by organizations in the field
of arts and culture to support advocacy efforts.9

Topics for research include, among others: an assessment of the existing information in “We have economic programs for
the arts, the landscape of arts and cultural activity and patterns of cultural funding, support moving the Fulton Fish Market
systems for individual artists, the social impact of the arts, the impact of arts education and
cultural involvement on children, cultural participation, the role of arts in civic dialogue, the to the Bronx but we don’t have
development of indicators to help measure culture as a dimension of community wellbeing, a program to help artists
intellectual property rights, and freedom of expression. Most of these topics are addressed
commercialize their work.”
in the Blueprint. What remains to be seen is how the results of this new research will be
— Bronx Town Hall Meeting
disseminated and used, and what steps will be taken, and by whom, to move this information
into the realm of policy and action. How will research focused primarily on the arts inform
and be informed by broader and multidimensional cultural and policy frameworks? Will
participatory research shaped by and involving the knowledge and experience of artists and
community become a more integral part of the research effort? Will it address the “failure
to confront, deal with, and broker the participation of the people studied,” 10 in the words of
Richard Kurin, director of the Smithsonian’s Center for Folklife Programs and Cultural Studies?

The challenge for cultural policymaking is to move from principle to practice,11 carrying a

67
 foundation of values, knowledge, and purpose into the improvement of people’s lives. This
is not always easy, as the power of creativity and the dynamic nature of culture often defy
the coherence and consistency expected of policymaking. Policymakers’ decisions need to
be thoughtful and open and structures need to be established to coordinate approaches to
common challenges if we want a more expansive and effective set of actions. The challenge
for cultural policy is to embrace its fundamental democracy — to make a policy of dialogue and
partnership, not fear and dogma — to make it possible for all citizens to participate in a diverse
cultural ecology. This is the potential of A Cultural Blueprint for New York City.

1 Lawrence W. Levine, Highbrow Lowbrow: The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in America (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
1988).

2 Gigi Bradford, “Defining Culture and Cultural Policy,” in The Politics of Culture, ed. Gigi Bradford, Michael Gary, and Glen Wallach (New York:
The New Press for Center for Arts and Culture, 2000), 12-13.

3 Our Creative Diversity: Report of the World Commission on Culture and Development (Paris: UNESCO Publishing, 1995), 240.

4 Tomas Ybarra-Frausto, “Mutual Recognition of Diverse Cultural Contributions,” Cultural Policy in the West Symposium Proceedings (Denver:
WESTAF, 2000), 97.

5 Ybarra-Frausto, “Mutual Recognition,” 99, and Fordham Institute for Innovation in Social Policy, The Social Report, A Deeper View of
Prosperity (Tarrytown: Fordham Institute for Innovation in Social Policy, 2001).

6 James Allen Smith, preface, The Politics of Culture, ed. Gigi Bradford et al., x-xi. For a discussion of the limitations of existing arts and
culture data, also see Christine Dwyer and Susan Frankel, “A Reconnaissance Report of Existing and Potential Uses of Arts and Culture
Data,” Spring 1997, a report prepared by the RMC Research Corporation for the Urban Institute on behalf of its Arts and Culture Indicators
in Community Building Project.

7 University-based centers include the Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies at Princeton University, the Arts Policy and Administration
Program at Ohio State University, the Social Impact of the Arts Project at the University of Pennsylvania, the Chicago Center for Arts Policy
at Columbia College, the American Assembly at Columbia University, and programs at the University of Chicago, Northeastern University and
others. The Center for Arts and Culture’s Cultural Policy Network includes more than 60 scholars from more than 25 colleges and universities.

8 Non-arts think tanks involved in cultural policy research include the Urban Institute and the Rand Corporation. The Getty Research
Institute approaches research from a humanities perspective. Independent researchers Don Adams and Arlene Goldbard write frequently
about cultural policy, and their Web site, “Websters World of Cultural Democracy” (www.wwcd.org), includes information about cultural policy in
the United States and abroad. The National Endowment for the Arts has a research division. Foundations supporting cultural policy research
include the Pew Charitable Trusts, The Rockefeller Foundation, John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, Ford Foundation, Howard Gilman,
Inc., and Wallace - Reader’s Digest Funds.

9 These groups include Americans for the Arts, National Assembly of State Arts Agencies (NASAA,) Western State Arts Federation (WESTAF),
and state-wide citizens for the arts groups and arts alliances. Service organizations also conduct research leading to advocacy on behalf of
their members. An example is a comparative study involving the Theater Communications Group, the American Symphony Orchestra League,
the Association of Performing Arts Presenters, Dance/USA, and Opera America.

For a summary of policy research nationwide, see Grantmakers in the Arts, Reader 12, no. 1 (Winter 2001), (Seattle: Grantmakers in the Arts,
2001).

I have also drawn on the transcript of a “Conversation on a Center for Art and Artists in Society” by Rachel Weiss, presented at a meeting
sponsored by the Art Institute of Chicago, May 5-6, 2000, and on “Cultural Policy: A Resource List,” prepared by Holly Sidford for the 2000
conference of the National Association of Arts Organizations.

10 Richard Kurin, “The New Study and Curation of Culture,” in The Politics of Culture, ed. Gigi Bradford et al., 349.

11 This phrase is drawn from Our Creative Diversity, 234: “The key challenge is to move from principles to practice.”

I would like to acknowledge the contributions to this essay of Maria-Rosario Jackson and Holly Sidford.

68