Puolueeton luottamustoimen hoitaja vai poliittinen toimija?

Kiista taidepolitiikan asiantuntijuudesta

Kirjoittajat

• Raija-Leena Luoma

Abstrakti

In this article I study the politics of Finnish cultural policy. This is a case study, in which I anlyse texts concerning the Finnish Arts Council system. One of my primary sources is a report by a working group set up by Ministry of Education in 1993. The remainder are statements by major art organizations and institutions concerning the above-mentioned report. The report was a suggestion for changing the bill on the Promotion of the Arts (328/67, 712,91). The main points in the proposed bill were changes in the organization and appointment system of the Arts Council. It also tried to give the Arts Council greater powers of decision. The proposed bill was never passed because it met resistance in art organizations and institutions. My aim was to study by means of text analysis what kinds of conflicts arose in that situation and what the selfunderstanding of the actors in the contemporary situation was. It appeared that the old ideological and party political constellations are no longer present. I suggest that the new political conflict is the argument between those who have established positions within the art field and those who are trying to get into such positions. Further, it is a conflict between two modernities. There is a thesis that the boundaries between different art forms are blurring. The thesis of change in art legitimates changes in the organization. The way to achieve reflexive modernity (Beck) would mean taking the new situation as the starting point for organization and not widening the organization along modernist order. The question is one of how to react to new challenges in the art field; should one slightly modify the old organization or change it radically?