European Conference

Access to Art and Culture throughout Childhood and Youth

19. april 2012

The Black Diamond, Copenhagen

Beth Juncker

A cultural policy in its own right!

1

Most of us gathered in this concert hall today live in countries who have signed UN’s Convention on Children’s Rights. Article 31 focuses on children and young people’s right to access to art and culture.

Slide 1

“Article 31

1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to rest and

leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate

to the age of the child and to participate freely in cultural life and

the arts.

2. States Parties shall respect and promote the right of the child

to participate fully in cultural and artistic life and shall encourage

the provision of appropriate and equal opportunities for cultural,

artistic, recreational and leisure activity.”

The keywords of article 31 are leisure, play, recreation, fully

participation, culture and art – and the keywords are linked

together telling us, that cultural life is an independent dimension

of our lives. Cultural life is leisure life, time to open and to

conquer all the possibilities for aesthetic experiences and

2

aesthetic activities offered by the cultural sector. Time to meet

these special productions of knowledge, which give access to all

our values and all our feelings.

Implementing article 31 we are compelled not to confuse social

policy or educational policy with cultural policy. As a

consequence we have to develop a cultural policy in its own right.

A cultural policy opening access to art and culture as a continuous

part of and inspiration to children and young people’s cultural

lives. Today’s conference calls it: the red thread!

Developing a cultural policy in its own right and ensuring the red

thread is the main challenge we are facing just now. We are – at

least in Denmark – standing at the end of a shift of cultural

paradigm. Since the late 1980’ties we have been on a move from

an educational cultural paradigm founded in theories of

developmental psychology to an aesthetic cultural paradigm

founded in theories of play and the meaning of aesthetics in

everyday life.

In relation to children and young people we developed

throughout the 20th century an educational cultural

3

communication tradition built on the notion of the child as a

becoming and the notions of art and culture as instruments

serving the aims of the social and the educational system.

This tradition was based on a thinking founded in oppositions,

contrasts – between cultural communication linked to cultural

institutions and the market, between fine arts and popular

culture, between literacy and entertainment. Market,

entertainment and popular culture were regarded as the bad

guys. Cultural institutions, cultural communication and fine arts

were seen as the good guys. Keywords connected to the qualities

of this tradition focused on the educational qualities of the

aesthetic products, on children and young people’s

comprehension and on their literacy.

During the last decades of the 20th century this educational

tradition, the monopoly of the cultural institutions

communicating it and the very thinking in opposites between fine

and popular, good and bad have been challenged. The radical

changes of the society due to new media, new technology,

changes in the structure of childhood, the development of a

cultural liberation transforming children and young people’s 4

private rooms into the greatest cultural institution of the country

play a main role. As cultural human beings Children and young

people are no longer just receivers, silent audiences - readers,

listeners, spectators – they are at the same time creators,

evaluators and communicators. Researchers have started talking

about the Gutenberg parenthesis and about social conditions

opening possibilities for new kinds of participatory cultures.

So metaphorical spoken these challenges are leading us from

Apollo to Dionysus. From an attendant culture with a silent

audience to a participatory culture with an audience keen to take

part in development, evaluation and discussion of the aesthetic

experiences offered by the cultural policy.

The key words accompanying this development have been

interactivity, creativity, dialogue, process, participation. We are

facing new kind of cultural users, new kind of audiences forcing

us to rethink, re-democratize, re-vitalize cultural policy: we call

them the omnivorous! They don’t respect the old oppositions,

they find qualities across fine and popular art and culture.

5

The American researchers, Henry Jenkins and Vanezza Bertozzi,

give us in an article on how and why young people create

( Engaging Art 2008) a description of theses tendencies calling for

a new kind of cultural policies and new forms of recognition. They

notice that the culture in the United States is moving away from a

world where a few gifted artists produced works that would be

consumed and admired by many to a world where many are

producing works that can be circulated among smaller niche

publics.

“More young people are producing media than ever before, yet

policymakers complain about a lack of participation in the arts.

What is wrong with this picture? Historically, arts policymakers

and scholars have defined participation in terms of attending so-

called high art concerts or museums. Currently, there is a growing

concern that members of the younger generation do not seem to

have much interest in these forms. This chapter argues

something different: youth are very interested in participating,

just not necessarily in the arts as they have been traditionally

defined. (…) These young people are passionate about emerging

forms of expression, which allow no fixed hierarchy, no 6

standardized criteria for evaluation, and little inherited canon.

[…]

Their warning is: ”Arts institutions (and cultural policy) need to

keep up with these changes or they will be left behind. “

In Denmark both cultural policy and arts institutions have faced

these challenges. We don’t yet have all the answers, but we are

working on them – both in theory and in praxis.

Culture for all – it’s the title of the cultural policy in Denmark just now. It addresses all of us – children, young people, adult. As part of this policy the Network for Children and Culture has developed a cultural policy especially addressing children and young people. It is built on a vision, which is quoted in the conference programme:

All Children and young people in Denmark must meet art and culture

All cultural institutions in Denmark must contribute

All art forms must be included

The main word in this vision is ‘must’.

This little ‘must’ means, that Denmark as a state is obliged to ensure an up to date, living and developing artistic production – theatre, literature, visual art, music, dance, films, media 7

addressing children and young people. Late modern arts experiences, children and young people can meet.

The ‘must’ also means, that all public supported cultural institutions in Denmark occupied with communicating culture and cultural heritage – museums and libraries for instance – have to address children and young people too – with exhibitions, installations, arrangements, performances as part of their daily work.

Why?

Because the heart of a cultural policy in its own right is the constant war, the necessary conflict between cultural tradition and artistic innovation. Without tradition no past no history, without innovation no present no future. You might say that the very meaning of cultural policy is to maintain this conflict, to ensure our possibilities both to meet tradition and to be part of innovation and thus making meetings and discussions with art and culture an integral part of our lives from we are born.

The conference we are attending today can be seen as a small demonstration of the kind of meetings with art and culture this cultural policy offers children and young people. We are going to meet some of them –in theory and in praxis.

The conference itself contributes as I mentioned in the beginning to this vision with a red thread ensuring access to art and culture for all ages, all over the country throughout childhood and youth.

8

A great vision! But - looking back on the tradition we have to rethink: also a dangerous vision!

Why?

Because the red thread in this conference is not a cultural red thread. It is an institutional red thread, combining and composing central social and educational arenas in children’s lives. So let me end with a correction and a warning.

Children’s cultural life does not start in day care.

It starts at home, in the special wordless communications in families - between babies, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, grandparents. Winnicut calls it the potential space. That’s the

9

correction – it is essential, if you want to understand the meaning of aesthetics in children and young people’s everyday life.

The warning is just as essential. Using day care and schools as arenas for a cultural policy in its own right are difficult. That’s what we have done in the 20th century. Art and culture were taken hostage – used as instruments for social and educational policies. So - what’s new now?

Day Care and Schools during the 20th century have used art and culture to their own purposes.

Today I ask:

How can day care institutions form arenas and contribute to children and young people’s cultural life?

How can schools form arenas and contribute to children and young people’s cultural life?

Why is it so difficult to make a genuine cultural policy in its own right giving children and young people access to theatres, concert halls, movies, scenes of dance, museums, exhibitions, performances, artistic workshops ?

I ask. And I hope this day and this conference will bring new kind of answers!

10

The red thread is composed of and combined with different kind of arenas: social arenas, educational arenas and cultural arenas.

Arena

I will end this key note with a small correction and a warning.

11