Cultural Policy and Management Yearbook 2014-2015 ISTANBUL st. UMIVEESITY essCultura Policy and Management Yearbook 2013-2015 © Research Cente PY) Istanbul Bgl University Press 541 ‘Cukural Studies 13 Fst Eition anusry 2016 {SBN 978-605-399-431-2 Istanbul Big University ross ‘Address: noni Cad. No: 95 Kustepe Sl ftanbul Phone:Tel#90 ~(0) 212-311 52.62 wnwbiigiyay.com E.MAl yayinabilgiyay.com DISTRIBUTION dagitimatilgiyay.com, The Editorial Board Sethan Ada, Asu Aksoy, Christopher Gordon, Nina Obulgen Korte, Ferhat Ozgiy Kevin Robins, Deniz Onsal Burcu Yasemin Seyben, esu Var ‘Allright reerved; the opinions expressed inthis publication are the responsitility ofthe authors. ‘No part of the material protected by ths copyright may be reproduces or utized in any fram or by any means, electronic oF ‘mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owners, 0$sin eosroa Kevin Robins, Burcu Yasernin Seyben ‘eDTORAL cooRoNATOR Ahsea Erdogan COPYEOITINGKevin Robins TRANSLATORS Ay;eahl Toroser Atay, Ayge Lucie Baur, Ayga SabuncuodTu, Ozlem Karakls ‘DESIG COVER ANDLAYOUT BY Mehmet Ulusel tanbul Bigi Univesity ress) {ELECTRONIC PAGE MAKE UP BY Huss Abbas (Maraton Dizgiev- Istanbul) PRINTED ey Sena Ofset Ambala] ve Matbaacik San, Tie. id. $i Litros Yolu 2 Matbacar Sites B Blok Kat 6 No: 4 NB-7-9-11 Topkapy- Istanbul “el:4900212.613 0321 - 613 38 46 /Faks:+90-0212 613 38 46 Distribution ofthe Turkish version of his book by etanbul igi University Press, tonbul ISBN 978-605-399-430-5, {stanbul igi University Library Cataloging ia Publication Data ‘catalog record fr this book is available fom the Istanbul Bg University Library Cultural policy andi management yearbook 2014-2015 feitors Kevin Robins Sure Yasemin Seyben; wanslator Aygagil ToroserAtes, Aygo Luce Batur,Aysa Sabyneuodle 210 pages: 17 illustrations 1 charts; 19424 em, Includes bibliographical eferences and index 1s8N978.605-399-031-2 |. Europe Cultura Poy. 2 Cultural Policy ~Europe “Management 3, Cultural Polley Turkey -Management. 4. Coitural policy ~Case studies. 5, Crisis management -Poltical aspects 6, Cities ane Towns cultural Poly 7, Demonstrations “Turkey -Istanbul Taksim Meyer, 8, Demonstrations Turkey Istanbul -Gesi Pork, 9. Politics and culture “Turkey History 10. Istanbul (Turkey) Intellectual ie |: Robins Kevin I Seyben, Burcu Yasemin Il Toroser Ate AysegUL IV. Batu, Ayse Lucie V. Sabuncuoglu, Ayca. VI Karakig, Ozlem. (CB151.C85 2015,Table of Contents Foreword Focus: Cultural Interventions. 7 - Introduction: Cultural Policy and Cultural Politics in the Twenty-First Century Kevin Robins State ‘Transforming Cultural institutions: Searching for Viable Models as a Prerequisite for Independence, Artistic Excellence and Responsible Management Nina Obuljen Korzinek, ie 7 State of Confusion: Public, Commercial or Philanthropic? UK Arts and Culture Policy in 2015 Christopher Gordon. es aa eee Negotiating the Governmentality of Film in the UK Richard Paterson, Kazakhstan's Way - 2050: Multiculturalism, State Cultural Policy, and Post-Soviet National Consolidation Teny Sandell A Centralised Decentealisation: Outsourcing in the Turkish Cultural Heritage Sector Daniel David Shoup, Sara Bonini Baraldi and Luca Zan Storm Over Culture: Transformation of Cultural Policy in Turkey? ‘Asu Aksoy andl Burcu Yasemin Seyben State Support in Cinema and Censorship Pelin Basaran Civil Society The Past of ‘Commons’ Politics and its Political Potential after the Gezi Resistance Zeyno Pekan . Resources and Shortcomings of Pluralism in Today's Turkey: Gezi Park Protests in the Light of Pluralism Cengiz Aktar. 7 . The Failure of a Project: Gezi Park, and More Vasif Kortun ‘ ‘The Gezt of the Fans: ACAB, Anti-x and Politicisation Tan Bora 23 25 33 62 79 94 101 108 110 6 118Hoccupylove Rasim Erdem Avsar. : 122 Protesting into the Void: Bulgarian Citizens Discover Impunity Ivaylo Ditchey 130 Open Space : a 135 Crossing Borders: Cultural Policy Research and the Politics of Development Jonathan Vickery 7 oe i 137 Rules of Good Participatory Governance in the Allocation of Public Funds to Artists and Cultural Organisations: A Practical Guide Charles Vallerand and Azadeh Lessard. 7 144 Shopping Malls as Cultural Spaces Ozlem Canyurek. i 156 A Letter from Syria Liwaa Yazji 165 Obituary. 17 Ozgitr Uckan as an Intellectual Sethan Ada z ae - 173 In memory of Dr, Ozgir Uckan Erkan Saka, 7 pees Reviews = 7 ‘Strategic Analysis of the Design Field in Turkey within the Framework of the ‘Design Strategy Document and Action Plan’ Gokce Dervisoglu Okandan 7 179 To Each His Own Cinema Ares Shporta 184 Syriza’s Cultural Policy Theodora Tsitoura 187 Museum, Technology and Democracy: A Review of Democratising the Museum: Reflections on Participatory Technologies Elif Cigdem Aran 190 Methodology for the Inventory of intangible Cultural Heritage in Biosphere Reserves: the Montseny Experience Lluis Garcia Petit He a 194 ‘The 18th IFOAM World Organic Congress Bugday Association i ne 198 ‘They’ Nihan Dalbeler 201 Contributors, 203 4 Cultural Policy and Management (KPY) Yearbook 2014-2015Introduction: Cultural Policy and Cultural Politics in the Twenty-First Century Kevin Robins tn the (wo Sections included in this Focus zone of KPY’s 2014/2015 Yearbook publication, Cultural inter. ventions, we are concemed principally with political invasions into contemporary culture. Inthe first Section, under the heading of the State, we address the changing role of the political actor, considering the scope of measures being both developed and re-developed in the twenty-first century in order to secure the continuing management of cultural Ife. And, in the second Section, addressing the issue of Civil Society, we consider the Political challenges — we might think of them as agitations and interruptions ~ that are presently being mount, cd against the clever tactics of the state, Av the outset, we should make clear how we understand and use the term ‘culture’, Our interest goes be- yond the narrow and particular clefinition of ‘culture as arts’ In the broader sense that we mobilise the con. cept, culture incorporates far wider practices and, indeed, ways and dispositions of life. David Lloyd and Paul Thomas draw attention to a historical line of thought - their own focus is very much on a British ‘tradition’ ~ in which culture ts associated with civil and even civiising ~values: ‘Culture, accordingly, is not confined in its objects to the artistic... but aims rather at the harmonious cultivation ofall the capacities of the human sub Jeet! (1998, 2). The emphasis in this way of thinking cultute is on the ‘disposition of the subject. On the basis ofthis distinction, we makes certain differentiation between cultural policy’ and ‘cultural pol- ities’, The former we regard as the domain of public administration and policy-making that governs and regu- {ates activities specifically related to the spectrum of what are conventionally regarded as arts practices. Cultur- al polities, on the other hand, pertain to questions concerning the more fundamental social meanings and nhorms that underpin policy procedures and choices. Itis in the domain of cultural politics, then, that founda- Uional values are defined and struggled over (as we shall see in Section 2, particularly). (But. of course, we have to acknowledge the considerable overlap that may actually exist between policy and political dimensions.) Section 1: The State Cultural Intervention and Reason of State There has been much discussion in the recent period conceming the changing role of the state in the arts. and in cultural practices more generally. Recurrent economic crises, which have increasingly put financial pres sure on state resources, have certainly played a significant role in challenging the states capacity to directly i vest in arts and culture. The language of the market ~ deregulation, commercialisation, privatisation, sponsor- ship, etc. - which we frst became accustomed to from media and communications developments during the 1980s, has, since then, started to manifest itself in the wider world of arts and cultural practices. Much of the recent debate in aris and cultural policy has focused on the dynamics of neoliberalism and economic and cul- {ural globalisation, and has been drawn into its inflated rhetoric of market solutions to all problems. As we karow all 1o0 well, the prevailing cultural policy agenda has rapidly moved on to focus on what are now routine. ly referred to as the cultural economy and the creative industries. The discourse of enterprise and entrepreneur ialism has supplied an imposing new approach to matters of cultural policy. And, at the same time, of course, this has represented a significant challenge to the nation state and to the ‘traditional’ national frame of cultural policy-making. As ifthe imperatives of each were entirely opposed to each other: the expansive dynamics of cor- orate power being pitched against the grounded and bounded condition of the nation-state entity Kevin Robins Introduction: Cultural Policy and Cultural Politics in the Twenty-First Century 9The realty, however. is somewhat different, and more complex ~ that fs the argument being put forward in this section on State. Inthe domain of arts and culture, at least, the neoliberal turn has actually engendered hhew and proactive responses from the political realm, So, how, we ask~ and in very different contexts and mo- dalities, of course ~ are nation states responding to the overbearing drive of commercialisation and tmarketion, tion? And how are nation-state cultures being upheld and sustained in the turbulent contemporary petiod? Through the articles that follow, we alm to explore some ofthe changed dimensions ofthe state's political te- pacity and modes of intervention in cultural policy in the twenty-first century. A further objective is to con. sider = in anticipation of the issues to be addressed in the following section, titled Civil Society- what its that ss that may actually be problematical about the state's engagement in shaping and driving the cultural policy- making agenda The logic ofthe imagined community - In the modern period, and particularly through the nineteenth cen- tury~ the nation state assumed a strong role, with the clear objective of instituting, and then reproducing and Petpetuating the national culture ~ the culture of what has been termed ‘imagined community’. This entailed such practices as the establishment of a national canon in the fields of literature, fine art, theatre, music. ete: the assertion and protection of a national heritage and of national traditions (often referred to now by critical observers as ‘invented’ traditions); the provision of buildings and institutions to house cultural resources and events (archives, libraries, theatres, concert halls, museums, etc.); the promotion of the national culture in In, ternational forums, exhibitions, world falrs; and so on. Although other factors in cultural provision were pres- ent ~ notably, the beginnings of commercialisation and the flourishing of philanthropy ~ the state was the on. ‘chestrating agency, ensuring the coherence ~ the always-imagined coherence ~ of the national culture. In the twentieth century — particularly in the latter part, through the compelling logic of neoliberal and slobal economic transformations ~ there was a growing sense of new dynamics in play in the cultural sector, And these developments were associated with an awareness of increasing pressure on the role and the capaci, {ies of the nation state. With respect to the logic of economic neoliberalism, what became apparent was the mounting significance of the market and of commercial forces in cultural provision. The prevailing policy agenda turned in the ditection of cultural industries — namely cinema, media, entertainment software, etc. and their potential for mobilising the forces of corporate power, market commodification, and new teehnolog- {cal provision of cultural ‘services’, It was also recognised, and at the same time regretted and feared, that cu tural practices were becoming increasingly uansnational, and thereby threatening to exceed the capacities of nation-state agencies to regulate or manage them. ‘Transnational’ was associated, then, with the increasing po- rosity of national cultural borders, and, thereby, with the decreasing capacity of the nation state to dictate and cohere its people’ around the distinctive national cultural understandings and meanings.! The late wentieth centuty seemed, then, to be the era of the ‘decline of the nation state’ ~ che era of the re. {trenchment of the state as the overseer and regulator of the national public culture, The nature and diection of change in the cultural sector seemed both clear and inexorable: the logic of commercial andl market forces Appeared to present an iresistible challenge to the state's capacity to define anel manage its own national pub. lic eulture. Antagonistic logics at work, it was thought, seemingly irreconcilable logies; and the thinking was decidedly heediful of the ascenclant capitalistic side of what was happening, But perhaps now, into the 2010s, wwe may be able to achieve a more balanced understanding? For what is now more apparent is the tenacity of the nation state, and of its political order of business. As commercialisation and privatisation have. indeed. 1 Atthe same time as these market imerventions, moteo i was also the case chat supranational organisations ~ he European Union ‘and the Counc of Europe ~ were increasingly inlrceing in mates that ha previously been the exlusve or pity cavern of ne ional bedes. These pan-European inssulons were secking to systemaile and regulars cultural standards and prontces anrocet bender continents space» to establish common European standards in cultural poliey and governance, tht iso sy, Dua ths ie ee {anise that we can go ito in this Focus zone 10 Cuttural Policy and Management (KPY) Yearbook 2014-2015‘made headway in culture and the arts ~ and with even formerly sacrosanct activities (theatre, classical music, ‘museums, libraries, for example) facing the prospect of so-called ‘marketisation’, we suggest that what we are Seeing s not thatthe state is diminishing insignificance, but actually repossessing and revisioning its capact- lies and strategies for cultural intervention. The state-market relationship may well turn out to be often more accordant than discordant (even if discord may admittedly always be a present factor). New primordialism in Eurapean culture? - In a short text directed to the Council of Europe, Peter Duelund (2011) notes the way in which that the logics of globalisation, Europeanisation and migration are giving rise to new nationalist sentiments, To what extent, he asks, ‘does this new trend in cultural policies reflect an in creasingly primordial approach to national identity formation? National governunents in Europe, Duelund ob- Serves, are now ‘giving priority to revialising the national dimension of their cultural policy by, for example Puiting greater emphasis on the protection of national heritage, the export of national cultural products, cul, {ural tourism and, last but not leas, support for the creative industries asa means of promoting a nationally. centred profite for the country in European and global contexts.’ This reversion in many European countries ~ occurring in different ways on the Western and the Eastern territories of the continent (in the latter, most governments’ cultural policies emphasise the dominant national cultures in primordial and essentialist terme) ~ is clearly a very serious concern indeed. Unfortunately, the politics of collective identities are of interest to both conservative nationalists and, in a very different way, certainly, to liberal cultural thinkers also ~ the ‘de. mon of belonging’, as Paul Audi (2014) puis i What we are seeing at the present time, then. are clearly many examples of what would appear to be ‘tever- sion’ in cultural policy-making — thus, to take but one example, Duelund notes, of his own country, that Dart ish cultural policy aims to create a new nationalism and intensily a primordial sense of Danish belonging and Danishness, with ‘the aim of rooting national identity firmly among ethnic Danes and assimilating new Danes into a single national culture conceptualised in static terms.” In the case of Eastern parts of the continent, Where the formation of the nation state was relatively ‘delayed’ (Ellmeier and Rasky, 2005) we may see differ ént logics of late” national assertion ~ equally primordial, though. We should take note, moreover, not only of these long-established forms of ideological projection, but also of the ongoing and extensive mobilisation of cultural disciplinary and censorship practices. In one respect, then, it seems that many nation states may now be adopting an autocratic and absolutist stance, in order to protect what they regard as their right to cultural integrity and sovereignty. ‘State-of-the-art’ cultural policy - In fact, the contemporary reassertion of nation-state cultures is more com plex than we might gather from Peter Duelund’s properly concerned account of cultural nationalism, The state manoeuvres, as circumstances demand, and it constantly invents new justificatory rhetorics for is continuing {interventions in the cultural arena. Thus, at a time when the case for continued state support ofthe arts was no longer o be taken as self-evident, due to the budgetary effects ofthe 2008 financial crisis the argument for the cornrnitinent t0 state funding for the ats had to be reinvented . What is important to acknowledge now is how this ‘commitment’ has been changing its legitimising rationale in the recent period. No longer can it be in terms 2 Inthe context of increasing ransnational and iransultural mobilities and flows, there isa now a vital neces to invoke the cosmo Pollan herugs of Europe, ater than iurtung to the imagined purity of national patimonies and hertages (Fora fll dlscorion se: Robins, 2006 Robins and Aksoy, 2015) The efor by the supranational European insttons and by NGOs to huredser eo tural diversity agends er therfore exremelyimporanc. To oppose the notion of imagined community, ahd te pus presse lone governments acknowledge he heerogeely,complesty and value ofthe different populations ving within tet eroes Again Ahi isan sue that we will ot go into at this time 3. nEngland fr insiance. at dine of major economic strings sll 36% (The Week, 2015). ys the ets in the Arts Counei’s government grant amounted to an over- Kevin Rebins Introduction: Cuttural Policy and Cultural Politics in the Twenty-First Century If