Manuel Barroso, President <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>European</strong> Commission, was speaking – see previous page – ata conference which marked <strong>the</strong> first <strong>of</strong> a series <strong>of</strong> events 96 ga<strong>the</strong>ring top intellectuals and<strong>European</strong> policy-makers to discuss <strong>the</strong> future <strong>of</strong> culture in <strong>the</strong> <strong>European</strong> Union.I agree fully with Barroso. What, ho<strong>we</strong>ver, does <strong>the</strong> term, `proper attention’, mean? After all, asmy study has indicated after analyzing <strong>the</strong> effects <strong>of</strong> <strong>EU</strong> enlargement on culture in nearly all <strong>the</strong>countries which joined, culture was ignored in that process. Not only that – <strong>the</strong> link bet<strong>we</strong>enculture and economy was not established directly, only indirectly, and no mechanisms have beenput in place to examine any possible future interaction bet<strong>we</strong>en <strong>the</strong>se two. It is not at all clear how`proper attention’ will be manifested.In o<strong>the</strong>r words, what is <strong>the</strong> future <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> treatment <strong>of</strong> culture in <strong>the</strong> <strong>EU</strong>? In my view, <strong>the</strong>re are onlytwo possible scenarios. The first one continues an approach towards culture which can best bedescribed as <strong>the</strong> concept <strong>of</strong> `l’exception culturelle’. This mostly focusses on <strong>cultural</strong> identity and<strong>the</strong>refore should be dealt with by <strong>the</strong> government which is closest to that culture. Its concern isto preserve national cultures and existing <strong>policies</strong>. This is <strong>the</strong> concept that has so far dominated<strong>European</strong> <strong>cultural</strong> policy-making.Cultural diversity: <strong>the</strong> way forward?The alternative would be to move towards a more dynamic and contemporary view <strong>of</strong> culture.It would be both about commercial and non-commercial culture, and about cultures growingand interacting with each o<strong>the</strong>r. This approach to culture perhaps could be best described as<strong>the</strong> concept <strong>of</strong> `<strong>cultural</strong> diversity’. In my view, adopting this approach would require <strong>the</strong><strong>EU</strong> member states agreeing to pursue more proactive <strong>cultural</strong> policy-making. This is essential, todeal with issues such as all aspects <strong>of</strong> culture being liable to be turned into products with a price(commodification), and conceptual issues such as `<strong>the</strong> horizontal and vertical integration<strong>of</strong> <strong>cultural</strong> markets’. Issues such as this have been much affected by developments in thosesectors which have long been on <strong>the</strong> <strong>EU</strong> agenda and where member states have agreed toshared <strong>policies</strong>.And if policy-makers turn away from this strategy, what <strong>the</strong>n? Then <strong>the</strong>re will be a <strong>need</strong> for evenmore `exceptions’ for culture, to protect it from <strong>the</strong> <strong>impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> measures which indirectly impingeon culture. Indeed, for those concerned about <strong>cultural</strong> policy issues this would be <strong>the</strong> only way toinclude culture on <strong>the</strong> agenda.70Part 3 What will <strong>the</strong> future bring?
Alongside this, Community funding programmes, such as Culture 2000 and its successors, willremain <strong>the</strong> most visible structures for shared <strong>cultural</strong> effort in <strong>the</strong> Union. There will be even morepressure to increase <strong>EU</strong> funding for culture. Given <strong>the</strong> growing costs <strong>of</strong> <strong>EU</strong> administration, <strong>the</strong><strong>need</strong> to find money for those areas which are firmly <strong>the</strong> current business <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>EU</strong>, as <strong>we</strong>ll ascalls from member states to reduce spending, it is not realistic to expect significant increases in<strong>EU</strong> budgets for culture. We all know that when budgets are tight or declining, spending on cultureis <strong>the</strong> first to be reduced, because <strong>the</strong> arts are seen as a frill and not central to <strong>the</strong> economy.Cultural policy will more <strong>of</strong>ten appear on <strong>the</strong> agenda only indirectly, ei<strong>the</strong>r when <strong>the</strong>re isresistance to regulations that might have a negative <strong>impact</strong> on this field such as happened with<strong>the</strong> so-called Bolkenstein Directive on services,97 or when <strong>the</strong>re is a legal dispute.One <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> main characteristics <strong>of</strong> <strong>cultural</strong> goods and services is <strong>the</strong>ir dual nature – <strong>cultural</strong> andeconomic. If culture remains outside <strong>the</strong> <strong>EU</strong> agenda, a rift will deepen, and <strong>cultural</strong> matters willbe dealt with at a national level, while economic matters will be dictated more and more by rulesadopted at <strong>EU</strong> level.98 Ho<strong>we</strong>ver, a proper development <strong>of</strong> culture can be ensured only if bo<strong>the</strong>lements are treated as equally important; this view was put forward strongly by <strong>EU</strong> memberstates and <strong>the</strong> <strong>European</strong> Commission during negotiations in 2005 in UNESCO about <strong>the</strong>Convention on <strong>the</strong> protection and promotion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> diversity <strong>of</strong> <strong>cultural</strong> expressions.99The recent division <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> responsibilities <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>European</strong> Commission, in which audio-visualmatters <strong>we</strong>re transferred to <strong>the</strong> Directorate for Information Society and Media, is ano<strong>the</strong>r exampledirectly linked with <strong>the</strong> debate about <strong>the</strong> <strong>impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> convergence on culture.100 According tothis logic behind that transfer, <strong>the</strong> <strong>cultural</strong> field has been divided bet<strong>we</strong>en those elements whichwill be largely digital, and those which will remain produced in traditional media and distributed ina more traditional way.From a <strong>cultural</strong> point <strong>of</strong> view this distinction is highly problematic; <strong>the</strong> main concern <strong>of</strong> <strong>cultural</strong>policy is to support artistic creation as <strong>we</strong>ll as participation, <strong>cultural</strong> consumption, and providinga choice <strong>of</strong> <strong>cultural</strong> events and products, regardless <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> technology or media used in <strong>the</strong>irproduction. Yet now <strong>we</strong> have <strong>the</strong> definition and boundaries <strong>of</strong> <strong>cultural</strong> <strong>policies</strong> being changed asconsequence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> fact that some <strong>cultural</strong> contents are becoming largely digital. A significantpercentage <strong>of</strong> creators and <strong>the</strong>ir works primarily those creating in new media, remain outside <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> reach <strong>of</strong> national <strong>cultural</strong> <strong>policies</strong> simply because it is impossible to confine <strong>the</strong>m to nationalborders. The area where <strong>the</strong> overlap bet<strong>we</strong>en <strong>cultural</strong> and audio-visual <strong>policies</strong> is obvious is <strong>the</strong>field <strong>of</strong> artistic expressions, which is why <strong>the</strong>re is a constant <strong>need</strong> for link-up and fine tuning <strong>of</strong><strong>cultural</strong> and media/audio-visual <strong>policies</strong> both at national level and at <strong>EU</strong> level.The second scenario replaced `l`exception culturelle’, which has always been just a politicalconcept anyway, by a strategy <strong>of</strong> <strong>cultural</strong> diversity. The protection and promotion <strong>of</strong> <strong>cultural</strong>diversity requires adoption <strong>of</strong> specific <strong>policies</strong> on different levels, both nationally and internationally– an approach follo<strong>we</strong>d with <strong>the</strong> elaboration <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> UNESCO Convention. Although <strong>the</strong> conceptCultural diversity: <strong>the</strong> way forward?71
- Page 1 and 2:
Why we need European cultural polic
- Page 3:
06081116171822252829313737404343454
- Page 6 and 7:
Prologue When I decided to research
- Page 8 and 9:
If I had the opportunity of startin
- Page 10 and 11:
Measures directly referring to cult
- Page 12 and 13:
obstacles encountered during the pe
- Page 14 and 15:
Part 1Theconceptualframe ofthe stud
- Page 16 and 17:
argument referred to identifying ex
- Page 18 and 19: Gray called for comparative researc
- Page 20 and 21: The Council of Europe and comparati
- Page 22 and 23: a broader understanding of culture,
- Page 24 and 25: The first one is a `macro’ dimens
- Page 26 and 27: Part 2European Union,culture andcul
- Page 28 and 29: narrow sense - still remains exclud
- Page 30 and 31: Niedobitek (see page 29) drew atten
- Page 32 and 33: Even though the author thought that
- Page 34 and 35: In spring 2005 two founding members
- Page 36 and 37: I am focussing more on the technica
- Page 38 and 39: while enlargement negotiations were
- Page 40 and 41: ights.56 Since the mid-1990s, the E
- Page 42 and 43: This included information about Cha
- Page 44 and 45: Gradual development and introductio
- Page 46 and 47: of the background presented earlier
- Page 48 and 49: `Eventually, a solution was found,
- Page 50 and 51: In regard to other taxes, opinions
- Page 52 and 53: meet the recently introduced regula
- Page 54 and 55: introduces the possibility of makin
- Page 56 and 57: One of the recommendations in the F
- Page 58 and 59: IPR legislation into line with Worl
- Page 60 and 61: Preliminary assessmentof the impact
- Page 62 and 63: Changes in taxation policies were n
- Page 64 and 65: policy areas and the ensuing transf
- Page 66 and 67: Part 3What willthe futurebring?68 P
- Page 70 and 71: has been embraced by the European m
- Page 73 and 74: Instead of a conclusionThe aim of t
- Page 75 and 76: 1 The French term acquis communauta
- Page 77 and 78: 14 When deciding on the methodology
- Page 79 and 80: 30 OJ C 336, 19/12/1992.31 1st Repo
- Page 81 and 82: 45 After the signing and entry into
- Page 83 and 84: 65 See Annex 1 for a copy of theque
- Page 85 and 86: 81 32001G0731(01) Council Resolutio
- Page 87 and 88: culture, which needs to be exempt f
- Page 89 and 90: Aubry P, (2000)The `Television with
- Page 91 and 92: Draus F, (2001)`Est-Ouest, le dit e
- Page 93 and 94: Futo P, Cuculić J, et al (2002)Met
- Page 95 and 96: Laher L, (2001)Trapped in the notio
- Page 97 and 98: Puchala D J, (1971)`Of blind men, e
- Page 99 and 100: Weidenfeld W, Wessels W, (1997)Euro
- Page 101 and 102: 2. In your opinion, have the cultur
- Page 103 and 104: 13. Have there been any changes in
- Page 105 and 106: Annex 3List of CPRA jury membersMil
- Page 107 and 108: Political Economy Cultural Economic
- Page 109 and 110: Annex 4GlossaryAcquis communautaire
- Page 111 and 112: Cultural marketsA term used to desc
- Page 113 and 114: Third countriesEU documents sometim
- Page 115: Author: Nina ObuljenEditor: Janet H