How much a pound of culture?

An extremely relevant book, since it is about a crisis of self -identification of culture and cultural institutions, about the mismatch of their traditional forms of rapidly changing requirements of modern life and about the changes that are undertaken by cultural institutions for survival. The book was written in the genre of informational avenue and is called, according to the authors - a famous British specialist in the field of cultural policy and his respected American colleague - to cause a fruitful discussion on the aforementioned problem.

I will make a reservation immediately regarding the alleged audience of the book (according to the annotation): "For representatives of creative professions, employees of cultural institutions and administrative and managerial personnel of republican, regional and regional administrations." That is, for those who are a specialist in the described area and are immersed in the context of the problems that are discussed. This is important to keep in mind, because for humanitaria, not a professional in the field of culture, the book may seem somewhat confusing, first of all, from the point of view of terminology.

Despite the simple journalistic style of presentation, understanding is hampered by the uncertainty of the basic concepts of the book. The indisputable professionalism of the authors and their sincere desire to formulate the problem are somehow lubricated by the ambiguity of the use of two key terms - culture and cultural institution . Regarding the first, by the end of the book, it is possible to find out by the method of exclusion that the authors mainly limit the sphere of culture by art, literature and historical artifacts. Such a narrow interpretation is explained by the specifics of the use of the second term - cultural institutions , relative to which it is stated at the very beginning, that, "although they can be called many places - from schools and universities to publishers and web portals" , in this book, attention will be concentrated on "public spaces, where the expression and presentation of cultural values, such as the museum, library and stage platform" (p. 21). Thus, from the existing types of cultural institutions - educational, communication and those that preserve and represent a cultural heritage, only the latter was chosen, and the phenomena corresponding to the content of these institutions are chosen from the vast space of culture.

In connection with the "cultural institutions" several questions arise. Firstly, it is unclear why these latter translated are called “institutions”, although for the purposes of this book it would be advisable to call the established Russian term “cultural institutions”, because this term automatically allocates the type of institutions of interest to authors. This fact can, of course, be explained by the will of the translator - a professional in a museum business - who wished to update the Russian -language terminology in the field of culture and bring it closer to the English -speaking, in which Instition covers all three types of institutions. Secondly, it is not clear why the authors did not include cinemas, clubs and parks, which typologically belong to this category? It remains only to guess that either these places "do not express and do not present cultural values", or they have not affected the crisis. Thirdly, why, having highlighted for their own purposes a block from a wide list of components of the concept of “cultural institution”, the authors do not find this block of a special term, for example, a “traditional cultural institution”, and do not use it sequentially?

In fact, such a generalized usage is equivalent to reasoning like: “Vehicles are experiencing a crisis. By the way, we mean a cart, diligijans and an omnibus. So, the crisis of vehicles ..." The use of the collective term "cultural institutions" in the form of synecdoch acts as a rhetorical technique: despite the narrowing of the terminal referent "cultural" cultural "cultural The Institute "Before Museums, Theaters and Libraries, the effect of subconscious generalization, the sensation of the crisis of all cultural institutions as a whole is achieved, although there is not any crisis" as a whole ". On the contrary, it is obvious that some cultural institutions, especially communication, are incredibly actively and successfully evolved.

For the cultural worker, the above issues will most likely not arise. The terminology has long been updated. Those modern professionals in the field of culture (museum workers, funds of funds, librarians, etc.), whom I asked about the significance of the term “cultural institution”, answered without hesitation: “museum, library, theater”.

If we take into account the above terminological nuances, the content of the book turns out to be worthy of attention, although not always indisputable.

The authors believe that in previous eras, culture served various purposes (religious, secular, educational, etc.) and organically combined with social life and the spirit of time. Now, when "a market economy does not imply the study of higher human values ​​and aspirations" , it is unclear what is the role of culture and whether it can even find a place in this society (p. 23 - 24). Based on this, the "dilemmas of culture" are formulated - a number of provocative issues, which are designed to cause debate among specialists. These are questions about the connection of culture and democracy, the difference between cultural and sports event, cultural authorities, virtualization and globalization of culture, state and private financing of culture, etc.

Offering a brief historical overview of the culture of the XX century, the authors divide it into several stages. In the post -war era of reconstruction, culture was used to restore the psyche of people after the horrors of World War II, and the interest of people in culture was stimulated. In the 70s and 80s, the era of participation took place when people ceased to be passive recipients of culture, but began to participate in its creation, and the boundaries between a high and low culture were erased and cultural processes themselves were clearly politicized. In the mid-80s, there was a turn to the economy , and people turned into consumers of cultural products, which began to be perceived on a par with other goods and services.

According to the authors, in our time there is a turn to culture , for it begins to influence politics and economics. This conclusion is made on the basis that "in the field of economics, the cost is increasingly determined by symbolic factors and cultural context" (p. 50). This refers to the design of goods, services or a trading floor and related cultural associations. It seems unexpected that on such a basis the conclusion is made about the influence of culture on the economy as a specific feature of our time, because at any time the manufacturer sought to decorate the thing, make it not only functional, but also attractive. However, these days this phenomenon is an unprecedented scope. So, according to the Stockholm Economic School, the market price of the car only 30% consists of its true cost and by 70% - from its design.

Talking about the reaction of politicians to the onset of the modern "era of culture", the authors distinguish five types of such a reaction. They are the essence: a policy based on knowledge and employment (providing jobs for artists in various industries), image policy (using cultural institutions to increase the rating of cities in the international arena), organizational modernization policy (exit from the financial crisis), protective policy (preserving cultural heritage) and the use of culture in wider contexts. What is actually depressing the authors is the instrumental attitude to culture, they complain that in these reactions there is no sympathy for their own goals of the artist, art or cultural institutions.

As noted in the preface, an alarming atmosphere has now reigned in the world of culture, which is most clearly manifested in the crisis of financing. According to the authors, confidence in cultural institutions has currently been staggered, because "they cannot offer visual, easily measurable criteria for their success." And if earlier the ideas of education suggested that any cultural experience leads to the improvement of a person, now, “in a world where everything is amenable to measurement, it is not so easy for them to justify their existence” (p. 16). The position of the authors, offered as a possible exit, is somewhat discouraged: “The quality should be measured. The problem is to translate qualitative indicators into quantitative ones” (p. 87).

So, the purpose of the book with the intriguing name “Culture at the crossroads” is to cause a large -scale discussion that cultural institutions are in danger, and culture is in the crisis stage. A trial preliminary discussion with the participation of authors and a number of other competent persons took place with the support of the Getty Foundation in 1999. At first glance, the essence of the discussion and the originality of the problems posed in the book look very prosaic. For these problems were formulated by the mid-1990s even in Russia, not to mention Western countries that have encountered them much earlier. It seems that there is nothing original in discovering the obvious: the role of theaters, museums and libraries has changed under the influence of other, no less “cultural” mass communication institutions such as television, radio and the Internet. To a large extent, the decline of these institutions is associated with a decrease in state funding, that is, with the transition to a market economy. Practice shows that in these conditions only the institution that offers the visitor a high level of service can survive, which makes him spend money and remain satisfied with himself, go home with an enriched culture. That is exactly what many Western ones do today, and recently - domestic museums. But just this lies the deep essence of the problem that the authors try to find - the general commercialization.

From the point of view of art and culture proper, this problem is clearly formulated in his works by a professor of political philosophy and social theory of the University of Cornelsky Susan Bak-Mord.

"Over the past decade, the museums have survived the real revival ... Museums have become the axes of urban reorganization and entertainment centers, combining food, music, shopping and communication with the economic goals of the city revival. The success of the museum is evaluated by the number of visitors. Museum experience is important - more important than the aesthetic experience of artists . It does not matter - it may even be so that the exhibitions are exhibitions It turns out that the fashion and art merge that museum stores transform experts into consumers (I was allocated - A.Sh.) ” (Susan Morsa Mors. Global counterulture? // Blue sofa #3 , 2003).

Thus, the book in the book is not so much about the culture itself, but about the forms of its representation to people, which, according to the rules of the market, should be considered exclusively as consumers. The authors are emphasized on this, gently proposing their decision, unequivocally expressed in the axioms - "commercialization of culture, democratization and erosion of borders" (p. 40). Honestly, there is a feeling that, although such axioms are advancing in the text under the guise of formulating problems, however, a rhetorically competently built narrative of this pamphlet, implicitly leads to the idea of ​​the only inevitable outcome: to calculate everything ... Let everyone be able to come to the museum or theater and say: weigh me a pound of culture.