Anarcakes

Together we are reaching for a dream: cultural production at low or no cost to the consumer while maintaining artistic integrity and financial sustainability.  However, the current age of European Austerity and slow economic recovery of the United States since the 2008 financial crisis has darkened that dream through budget cuts at the national, regional and local level that directly subsidize arts and through reduced private spending on leisure time activities. 

By and large, the greatest difference between the European and American systems is a question of where the money comes from.  The 2011 National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) budget was $146.255 million and is always under attack from conservative Republicans.  Compare to the Creative Europe initiative that is being discussed now and may give away 1.8 billion euros!  Indeed Italy’s Ministry of Culture spends ten times the amount the NEA does for a country that is one-sixth the size of the United States.

As a result Americans turn to a strong culture of philanthropy.  According to Americans for the Arts, the average arts non-profit earns 50-60% of its income from fees and 25-35% from contributions of private citizens.  The difference in philanthropic giving between America and Italy is striking.  According to the Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society, Italy’s private philanthropy to all non-profits was 0.11% of GDP compared to 1.85% for the United States from 1995-2002.

The right to culture is enshrined by Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948: “Everyone has the right to freely participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.”  The Italian constitution also enshrines the right in Article 9: “The Republic promotes the development of culture and scientific and technical research.“

Unfortunately, there is no right to government subsidy or philanthropy or earned income.

Italian cultural organizations have a peculiar situation.  Because private philanthropy is almost non-existent, the blow to government subsidies, with a strong probability of never returning, is causing a structural crisis.  Meanwhile, the call to arms to build private philanthropy is met with strong resistance and a lack of success.  After all, just because a model works in one country, does not mean it will work in another.

Over the last year, we have studied Independent Cultural Centers in Italy and Europe.  These spaces are unique in that they rely almost entirely on earned revenue to cover operational costs.  The Self-Managed Social Centers in Italy are an extreme case of rejecting any kind of private or public contributions.  What distinguishes these kinds of spaces from traditional cultural organizations is not only their financial model, but also their diverse and inter-disciplinary cultural offering.  They also are characterized by prosumption, where the consumer of the cultural good is also its producer.  In social centers, the audience is manager, financier and producer.  Most importantly, some have been doing it for over 30 years.

The work of art is open.  As Umberto Eco once wrote, “in it an ordered world based on universally acknowledged laws is being replaced by a world based on ambiguity, both in the negative sense that directional centers are missing and in a positive sense, because values and dogma are constantly being placed in question.”  In this moment of crisis, it is time to continue to put our values and dogma into question.