![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
This article considers the role of public arts policy in producing societal definitions for “art” and “artists”. It examines administrative definitions generated and used by the Nordic system of state support for artists and reflected in its administrative categories and structures of decision‐making. Using the concepts of “artistic field” and “artistic classification system” as starting points, the article focuses on the regulated and institutionalized interaction of the state and artistic fields in decision making, and on the administrative categories emerging from this interaction. Through this interaction, professional and administrative definitions of “art” and “artist” are closely intertwined in the four countries discussed. The administrative categories examined show considerable variation between the countries related to differences in the nature of this interaction. The definition power involved in state support for artists is related to the nature of this interaction, as well as to such factors as the legitimating arguments, objectives and criteria for the support.
Notes
1. An earlier version of this article was presented as a paper at the Third International Conference on Cultural Policy Research in Montreal, 2004 (Heikkinen Citation2004a). I want to thank all those numerous people who have commented on my work on the topic and given valuable advice. Among others, my thanks are due to Peter Duelund from the Nordic Cultural Institute, Nils Johansson from the Arts Grants Committee in Sweden, Per Mangset and Dag Solhjell from Telemark University College, Turo Virtanen from the University of Helsinki, Torunn Willadssen from the Norwegian Ministry of Culture, the anonymous reviewers of the IJCP, commentators and discussants at ICCPR conferences and other occasions, and last but not least, my colleagues at the Research Unit of the Arts Council of Finland. I remain, of course, solely responsible for any faults and weaknesses in the article.
2. I am not going to discuss in this context the relationship between definitions of art and artists. For the purposes of this article, I have confined myself to the practical notion of art being what an artist produces, and an artist being someone who produces art. Circular as it is, it is more often than not the notion applied in day‐to‐day implementation of arts policy: if someone is accepted as an artist by the decision makers, his or her work is accepted as art, and vice versa. This notion and its applications and consequences for arts policy is, as such, a question calling for further research.
3. The study was part of a more extensive research project on Nordic cultural policy. Iceland has a similar system, which was covered in an article by Guðmundsson (Citation2003) in the final report of the Nordic project (Duelund Citation2003).
4. Listed in Heikkinen (Citation2003, pp. 157–158).
5. DiMaggio uses the concept of “art worlds” here in the meaning defined by Howard S. Becker. According to Becker (Citation1982, pp. 34–35), art worlds consist of the networks of all those people whose collective action is needed to produce a work of art. An institutionalized art world consists of people with shared conventions, which make their cooperation in the production of artworks possible. The operation of art worlds produces constantly changing definitions for what is considered art and who are considered artists.
6. The term “administrative classification” is, strictly speaking, somewhat misleading. DiMaggio uses it to refer only to classification created by the actions of state administration. The term could, however, be understood to refer to classification of art produced by administrative activities in a broader sense. In this broader sense, it would include, for example, classifications of art created by administrative practices of art institutions, private companies, non‐profit organizations and so on. I use the term here, however, in the narrower meaning applied by DiMaggio to refer to classification stemming from state administration.
7. A real‐life example with notable effects on the working conditions of professional artists, which has caused controversy between Finnish tax offices and artists (see, e.g., TAISTO Citation1995, pp. 22–23; TAISTO II Citation2000, pp. 72–73).
8. The subvention for the Disney magazine in the form of covered postal expenses (from the Ministry of Transport and Communication) was well over ten times the support received by the whole field of national comics from all forms of state support (including support from the Ministry of Education, which is in charge of cultural affairs). The subvention for postal expenses of magazines was discontinued in 1996.
9. In the four countries discussed, these bodies are Danish Arts Foundation, Arts Council of Finland, Committee for Government Grants and Guaranteed Income for Artists in Norway, Swedish Authors’ Fund and Arts Grants Committee in Sweden. The following statutes give the structural framework for these bodies: Forskrift om statens stipend og garantiintekter for kunstnere (FOR 1998‐09‐16, Norway); Förordning om Sveriges författarfond (SFS 1962:652, Sweden); Förordning med instruktion för Konstnärsnämnden (SFS 1997:1153, Sweden); Förordning om Sveriges Bildkonstnärsfond (SFS 1982:600, Sweden); Laki taiteen edistämisen järjestelyistä / Lag om organisering av konstens främjande (L328/67, Finland); Lov om Statens Kunsfond (LBK nr 220 af 19/03/1998, Denmark). Their structure and action are described in more detail in Heikkinen (Citation2003).
10. The broader expertise in Norway and Sweden is organized under bodies allocating support to cultural institutions and organizations (Arts Council Norway and the Swedish National Council for Cultural Affairs). The corresponding body in Denmark is the Danish Arts Council. In Finland, the functions of these bodies are divided between the Arts Council of Finland and the Department for Cultural Policy in the Ministry of Education.
11. Norwegian full‐time visual artists received 38% of their income as grants for artists and 34% as income from artistic work. For Norwegian writers, these figures were 42% as grants and 44% from artistic work.
12. For Finnish visual artists, the median of received grants was €6,300 a year, and the median of income from artistic work €3,500, For Finnish writers, the median of grants was €5,000 a year, and the median of income from artistic work was €4,200. For photographic artists, the figures were €3,400 as grants and €3,500 as income from artistic work.
13. There are also fields where state support for artists is relatively insignificant, but public support for institutions is decisive, as, e.g., regarding artists working in theaters or orchestras.
14. An example of the latter is offered by graphic designers, especially in the field of advertisement (Heikkinen Citation1998, pp. 117–123).
15. A good example is the case of circus, which is discussed briefly in the next chapter.
16. On nation‐building in the Nordic countries, see Sørensen & Stråth (Citation1997).
17. Mangset’s analysis was mainly directed toward regional cultural institutions, but Solhjell includes state support for artists in his analyses of the inclusive (cultural‐political) sub‐field.
18. The most recent government reports on cultural policy indicate, however, that in this respect the two countries are moving in opposite directions: the Norwegian report emphasizes the intrinsic value of art (St.meld. 48/2003) and the Finnish document has tones of instrumentalism (Valtioneuvoston periaatepäätös 2003).
19. With the exception of Finnish artists’ pensions, which, however, do not fall under the cultural budget.
20. Counted from Rensujeff’s (Citation2003) data on artists. The figures concern those who received state support for artists in 2000. The question was: “What was the significance of the support received from your own point of view?” Respondents could choose several alternatives. The most popular was “ensuring one’s livelihood”, which was chosen by 61% of the respondents, followed by “encouragement” with 58% and “having more time for artistic activity” with 51%.
21. Danish Arts Foundation, the Arts Council of Finland, the Committee for Government Grants and Guaranteed Income for Artists in Norway, the Arts Grants Committee in Sweden and the Swedish Authors’ Fund.
22. There have been several proposals for making the categories less detailed; e.g., in the latest report on cultural policy that the Norwegian Government gave to Parliament (St.meld. 48/2003).
23. The working group consisted of representatives of the associations of circus and vaudeville artists, plus the chairman and the general secretary of the Arts Council.
24. Other alternatives were an ad hoc subcommittee or representation in the already existing councils.
25. Minutes of the Arts Councils’ working group for evaluating artists’ support for circus and vaudeville, 13 April 1999; 12 May 1999. At this time, the question of the status of circus and vaudeville was also considered in Denmark, but since Danish artists’ support only covers creative artists (not performing), the question did not fall under the realm of artists’ support (Circus og artister i Danmark, Citation1998).
26. This does not, of course, rule out changes in the definition and classification of art and artists taking place within artistic fields and mediated through artists and their associations to the process of decision making.