“Metropolitan Culture, European Policies and Art Universities”

Gerald Bast- “You know something is happening here, but you don’t know what it is.” Maybe some of you know this line from a song from Bob Dylan, long time ago, I think it was already in the 60’s. Like so often he also in this song described a certain atmosphere of uncertain changes. We all know that something is happening here in our quite different societies but who knows what it is, what will be happening within the next years, not to speak about the next decades. And probably the right answers to these situations are rather questions than answers and assertions. But isn’t art, aren’t universities in fact spaces rather to put questions than to find final answers?
I would like to start with a very significant assertion: “Europe needs excellence in its universities to optimise the process which underpins the knowledge society and meet the target of becoming the most competitive and dynamic knowledge based economy in the world”. Ladies and gentlemen this is what the Commission of the European Union stated as the role of the universities in the Europe of knowledge. Education becomes demoted to the mate of economy. Employability nowadays is declared to the topmost aim of the university programmes. Universities were and still are –it’s my opinion- more than engines for the economic development of our societies. Universities were, still are and hopefully will be places of critical reflection on the existing places of questioning so-called realities, of creating new realities. The main task of university was and is the production of change, the production of change by transforming men’s thinking and acting.
Creative industries is about to become the leading term in cultural policies not only in Europe. Of course it is a fact that cultural industries especially in urban areas are on the way to become the most important economic sector. This is not only an important but quite a good development looking to the past. But what does this mean if cultural policies more and more are allocated in the sector of creative industries? What does this mean for artists, for art schools, galleries, museums, concert houses, broadcasting companies and so on? Poets do not write books because they want to strengthen the printing industry. Architects do not plan buildings because they want to support the building industry. Painters do not create their works because they want to increase the economic impact of galleries and museums in the society. You see the problem is the perspective. The problem is the order. The problem is the hierarchy of orders and the hierarchy of values.
Universities are not important if and because they improve economy. Culture is not the heart of knowledge based economy as the European Cultural Parliament stated not long ago. Culture, art, science should not be the engine for the vehicle called economy which is moving on society. No, culture must be the vehicle which moves the society. If we look carefully it is like that. “It’s the culture, stupid!” we could shout, quoting a famous saying. The only question is which interests and even more whose interests are driving culture. If the social impact of a piece of art is not more than to be a prosperous share, we must not be surprised that cultural policies react to this trend. And the responsibility for that does not lie with the economy alone. I hate this talking about the chance in the crisis but I think that the economic crisis will lead to a change. Maybe the crisis will divide the system of the arts, the system of culture in a very small, exclusive, expensive area of arts and culture as a so-called value planned and as an excellent instrument of representation financed by the economy on the one hand and in an area of art and culture which has social impact again and therefore is financed by the society. This is not reprehensible, the arts always were with a power but the monopolisation of power by economy I think will decline while presumably the democratic state again will receive a role in the society in the social game of powers influencing the development of our societies. There will come changes in the distribution of power, changes in the role within the societies and changes also in the role of arts, of culture and all the institutions in the system. If we look at all these present discussions, the political discussions, we see something like a fear of changes. Quite different to not long ago situation and campaign in the United States. Cultural merge is a term which drives a lot of people, a lot of politicians into almost panic attacks. But culture means change, culture means development because development means change. Culture was nothing static and is nothing static. Yes, globalisation will change culture but that’s not the problem. That’s not the problem with globalisation. The problem with globalisation lies in the question “Who has the power to define the direction of change?” Do we, the artists, the art schools, the cultural community act sufficiently in this upcoming competition in our societies? A lot of questions, thank you.