One response has been to increasingly privatise these under-benefactors, companies or foundations. It is important to monetise work. Yet, it has historically been the role of public institutions such as museums, concert halls and theatres to make this available beyond the privileged few. What happens when what we show and who is shown is governed by commercial interests? What is the alternative? It might be worth asking oneself, how would a self-sustaining cultural sector look?
Historical precedent
Historically, there are many examples of artists organising themselves in self-sustaining groups. Some of these are communities around Black Mountain College and the Bauhaus, or more famously, the Bloomsbury Group of artists, writers, philosophers and intellectuals who lived and worked in close collaboration for 40 years. Many examples can be characterised as a sort of grassroots movement led by the people, some with a non-hierarchical structure or decentralised governance. They were often united around a common philosophy, practice or style, not seldom in opposition to a current tendency—a radical reimagining of how to live, work and create.
Many contemporary examples could be found among the collectives participating in 2022’s Documenta Fifteen in Kassel, Germany. This year centered on artists working together; by sharing ideas, collaborating on art and sharing funds, all under the ethos that artists working together can do more. The groups became part of a system of redistribution of resources—the exhibition’s budget was distributed to participating collectives and individuals according to a communal sharing model. Furthermore, there were initiatives that guaranteed support for development beyond the exhibition’s hundred days—the potential for a lasting impact. Among them was Gudskul, an educational platform focusing on collective study and grassroots ecosystem-building to provide an infrastructure for the contemporary art scene in Indonesia. Another participating group reimagining the future of arts funding and its implications, was The Question of Funding. They are described as a “growing collective of cultural producers and community organisers from Palestine. By producing, documenting, accumulating and disseminating resources, experience and knowledge with their wider community, it aims to rethink the economy of funding and how it affects cultural production both in Palestine and the world.”
Culture-first governance
What if we apply these ideas on a societal scale? We can imagine power structures in the cultural sector anew, maybe even dismantle historical paradigms and the more recent commercial sphere. A driver behind the need to imagine new futures for the cultural sector is the need for funds, so it would be natural to reconsider the distribution of resources in a future where culture is self-sustaining.
Would culture be a self-governing whole—an organisation or association—or would it consist of groups, communities and co-ops that govern based on collaboration, a board or even through election? Could it take the form of a decentralised autonomous organisation (DAO)—a bottom-up organisation with no central governing body—whose members unite around a common goal to act in the best interest of the entity?
One future outlook could be artists and creators producing self-governing groups that form around a particular concept, discipline, media, location or belief-system—sustainable living, sculpture, clay, techno futurism, spirituality, radical politics. The rising cost of living in densely populated areas is in many places driving artists to move to the countryside or seek alternative ways of living and organising. Could that be the beginning of new groupings and communities?
As we worship at the altar of individuality, it is not impossible to imagine that we will start to organise more and more around niche beliefs and causes, forging more complex systems of governance within micro-communities. How could these coexist harmoniously rather than be at odds with each other, polarised?
What would be the role of location and geographic belonging in this? As this scenario is based on an overhaul of current world order, we allow ourselves to explore two positions. Local vs. global. Local art communities self-organising on a higher level is, as previously mentioned, not a new concept. Living in a hyper-globalised world, many of us envision a future where geographic borders are less significant, allowing these types of communities to collaborate and support each other in more meaningful ways. So far though, this future has proven difficult to produce, especially as times of global crisis have driven us to turn our attention to more immediate surroundings and communities.
Resource consortium
Some imagine these paying a tribune—a percentage or otherwise calculated contribution—based on their collective resources, this being redistributed equally throughout the greater network. That could result in a completely new cultural institution that is networked, symbiotic and equally responsible for contributing to the financial health of the creative sector through a circular economy model. A new resource consortium with a novel institution for distribution of resources.
Taking the idea to the extreme, one could imagine a deeper cultural institution, an alternative institutional model encapsulating all aspects of an individual’s life. Drawing a parallel to religious institutions, one could form cultural churches united by an idea, learning from the history of religious groups creating a comprehensive framework for life, community organisation and participation, financial contribution and distribution—a symbiotic support system.
It is important to note the above scenarios speak to a growing tendency towards individualism in worldwide societies. They do not, however, make the assumption that individualism is necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps it is our next evolutionary chapter as human beings, and it is worth considering how this might affect the way we live and create, alone and together. Changing our assumptions allows other ways of seeing.
Creativity driving society
Art and its benefits for individuals and communities on development, learning, health, empathy and so on are well-established. Benefits that are long established but largely underexplored in the scheme of things or on a societal level. We imagined a future where creativity is prioritised above all, as a tool for healing the planet and people.
So, what if you extended the idea of self-governance of arts communities to society at large? Could you forge a society where you can create for the sake of creating throughout life?
Some imagine that a universal income policy—another method of income redistribution—could contribute to greater freedom and time for cultivating creativity for the individual, aside from the commercial market. This scenario assumes that other overarching factors will be in place to enjoy that freedom.
But what if we go about it the other way? Rather than separating the public sector from the arts and culture as above, what if creativity was the driver of our policies, our government and our public facilities? What if we assign value to the creative process and solutions above all else?
It is exciting to think of what could take place if we taught creative processes from age zero, nurturing that practice throughout life and in sectors we do not usually associate with creative output. Could we restructure society to learn in a completely new way? What if inbuilt collaborative creative frameworks could lead to more cross-sector collaboration—finally united by a common discipline or practice? Every institution would become a cultural one, with the creative tools to better communicate cross-silo and to citizens.
Would we still prioritise growth, as we do today? Or could it be a catalyst for a new way of seeing ourselves and the world we live in? Embracing creativity, in all its forms and complexity, could mean unlearning prevailing prejudices—creativity as being subordinate to production and output, as superfluous, silly. It would necessarily mean learning a new way of being.
This narrative is based on a scenario collectively conceived and developed by core group participants in a Collaborative Foresight cycle. The group's voice was captured and creatively expanded by the writer.
