In a similar analogy to Ludwig Wittgenstein’s remark on the meaning of a particular phrase I assert that scientific concepts and methods are not universal. Of course we use the same words – for instance “culture”, “markets”, “management”, “state”, “rationality” – but people’s cognition is always embedded in their particular experiences, that is to say in their social, cultural und political environment. Using the same words does not infer similar meaning. Thus the risk of misunderstanding is unavoidable as soon as I open my mouth to speak to a foreign audience or, to put it another way, when you come to hear and to discuss with a foreigner. I will therefore begin with an effort to explain the implicit preconditions of my conception of Culture Institutions Studies. Then I will go on to present our activities in Vienna and illustrate the implications for the course we offer in cultural management.

CRITICISMS

The concept of Culture Institutions Studies was elaborated in the 1990s. On the one hand Culture Institutions Studies (the English translation of “Kulturbetriebslehre”) represents a reactive response to some dominant concepts of cultural management and cultural economics; on the other hand we have come to recognize the necessity to develop a style of thinking and a way of working together that transcend mono-disciplinary boundaries.

Cultural Management aims to be applicative. It provides us with useful instruments and analytical methods for the performance of managers. Well, I am not opposed to the practical utility of cultural management but I would like to focus our attention on the fact that practitioners are not only confronted with the question of how to do something. Instruments and working tools are not useful if an individual is not able to define accurately a situation, to describe and analyze concrete problems, to identify its aims and goals, and to understand the actions of others. No matter if he or she is a practitioner or a researcher of the cultural field, both must develop some cognitive capacities and need some insights into their environment as a systemic whole. My criticism of the theory and practice of cultural management concerns therefore the notorious lack of interest in its own theoretical (that is to say epistemo­logical) framework. To put it in more general terms: Acting in a professional context forces us to develop an intelligent dialog with our social context. At the same time responsibility impels us to reflect on our own actions. This idea is not based on a “rationalistic” view of human nature rather on an anthropological conception of humans as “communicative and symbol inventing animals” who are constantly engaged in moral situations, that are defined by their symbolic order.

In contrast to cultural managers cultural economists are generally more interested in developing analytical approaches and theoretical models that describe and explain the cultural sector as a whole. Unfortunately most cultural economists perceive themselves more as economists than as social scientists, who investigate social constructions. (Here I would like to underline that economic categories such as effectiveness or efficiency are products of socially based discourses.) The economic aspects of the cultural sector cannot be ignored, but in my opinion they do not represent a constitutive element of culture. This is probably the most significant distinction of the cultural sector as compared to other sectors of our contemporary economy.

Thus, Culture Institutions Studies appears at the interface between cultural, social, and economic sciences.

CULTURAL AND POLITICAL BACKGROUNDS

For a deeper understanding of this position the structural differences between European societies and the United States must be considered. In the United States culture and cultural activities have always existed in the private sector. Cultures are ordinary in the sense that the various cultural formations are an integrated part of everyday life – think of the metaphor “grass roots”. At the same time cultural activities and especially particular artistic practices have been considered as exclusive, or even as a luxury, for people with time on their hands, or polemically speaking, for the so-called “leisure class”. To bridge the gap between everyday life and exclusivity, between the large masses and smaller cultural groups, mediators such as cultural managers and businessmen have, since the early 20th century, promoted the development of cultural and leisure industries. This has happened simultaneously to the on going professionalisation of the field.

Europe has a rather different history from the US. Cultures have been ordinary too but at the same time there was a specific dominant culture, the so-called high culture, which was administered and financed by the state, that is to say in the 18th and 19th centuries mainly by the royal courts, and later in the 20th century by the civil government. Of course the involvement of the aristocracy and later of the state was anything but altruistic. High culture was financed mainly for repre­sentative reasons and as a means to increase political legitimacy. Nevertheless, the main point is that culture in European continental countries has never been really “private”. The public status of culture and the eminent role of the state as a financing agent became even stronger after the Second World War and especially in the 1970s when in various counties – Germany, France, Austria, the Netherlands, and Sweden – social democrats came to power. In the following decades cultural policy became more intensive and more extensive, that is to say the budgets increased and the areas of activity became broader.

The consensus among American politicians of that time was that active state intervention in the cultural sector as practiced not only in Western Europe but also in eastern and at that time communist European countries was paternalistic. They tended to condemn this kind of policy as anti-liberal or even totalitarian. This critique was not comple­tely wrong but not always right. The Europeans saw the so-called “initiative culture policy” as a response to the experience of National Socialism. The modern German State for instance defines itself as a “Kulturstaat” (Cultural State). The idea behind this self-description is that culture stands for humanity which is considered as a value per se. Therefore the public promotion of culture has been recognized as a central goal of the state. According to this perception of statehood, promoting culture means the promotion of the concept of an open society, that is to say the spirit of humanity, tolerance and liberty.

Let me quote some figures to illustrate the importance of public commitment to the funding of culture. The City of Vienna – Vienna has 1.6 million inhabitants – spent in 2002 215 Mio. USD on cultural affairs. [2] (This amount represents almost 2% of the annual budget of Vienna City.) The Austrian Republic – Austria has 8 million inhabitants – spent in 1999 in total more than 2 Billion USD on cultural affairs. [3] (The statistic does not include any spending for sports.) The largest share goes of course to cultural institutions owned by the state (for example museums, theatres, libraries, art universities and music schools). I would be lying if I were to say that Austria has no cultural industries and that the private (profit and non-profit) cultural sector has no significance for the whole economy. By emphasizing the specific position of the state within the cultural sector I have intended to highlight the concrete structure of the cultural sector in European countries.

Now, allow me to repeat my criticism of the economic approach to the cultural sector. I have admitted that the economic aspects of the sector cannot be ignored, but they do not represent a constitutive element of culture and of cultural goods. The term “constitutive element” refers to the function of culture as a means of representing, constructing and deconstructing identities, as well as to the function of culture as a generative force, that develops symbolic forms, conveys and distributes meaning. Cultural goods are of course used as goods that are bought and sold. At the same time they are perceived as collective goods not only because the concept of authorship has now been philoso­phically criticized and partially rejected but first and foremost because cultural goods represent public issues. They are, as the ancient Romans used to call them, “res publica”. This is a normative thesis that serves as a foundation of the concept of culture within Culture Institutions Studies. We can discuss this interpretation of cultural goods and services later. However, defining culture as a “res publica” is not a question of truth or falsehood but a question of valuation of cultural goods in a social world.

INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH

The term “Culture Institutions Studies” includes the word “institutions” which suggests an institutional approach. It is right to admit that my colleagues and I focus our attention on the role of institutions as we have realized that the degree of regulation, organization and institutionalization in the cultural field is quite high. Since institutions are historical entities, we are aware of their formation. In the wake of the establishment of the civil society in the 18th and early 19th century, art and culture (production, distribution, conser­vation and reception) became less controlled by the clerical institutions or the royal courts and, as previously mentioned, increasingly imbued with meaning by markets and politics. Several social authorities and institutions have since exercised an influence on the formation of the cultural field. These main social authorities include:

·        the legal system and cultural policy;

·        the culture markets;

·        the conditions of professionalism and production (education, techno­logy, organization and fragmentation of labor);

·        media, public discourse on cultural affairs, art criticism, cultural fashions; and finanlly

·        institutions which display, mediate, and convey understanding of cultural goods and services.

As noted above, we have to consider the functions of the various social authorities in order to understand their interrelationships and inter­dependencies. The extent of the influence of each authority varies. I can find neither a methodological nor an empirical reason to establish a hierarchical ranking of various institutional authorities. None of the authorities can be adequately studied in isolation from the others. All authorities and institutions are polymorphic bodies; in other words, they change their form, appearance, and effects. This implies two conclusions: first, the formation of cultural sector is not a linear causal process, and second, this process is contingent (that is to say accidental, fleeting, and maneuverable).

FOCUS OF SCIENTIFIC INTEREST

Coming then to our particular interests, Culture Institutions Studies is concerned with

(1) the formation of cultural goods as meaningful symbolic entities and their transformation into cultural commodities, i.e. the process of production, distribution, reception and consumption of cultural goods;

(2) the analysis of cultural practices and their institutional frames which constitute and regulate the formation of cultural goods and services;

(3) the examination of specific characteristics of cultural institutions as organizational settings; and

(4) the social organization of cultural labor and other cultural activities (for example cultural policy, funding systems, legal aspects).

COURSE CURRICULUM

Here, I have come to the end of the presentation of the concept of Cultural Institutions Studies. I will now discuss its implementation in our academic program. I will show you our curriculum and explain its basic intentions. Finally I will try to illustrate the implications of our conception for didactics.

Since 1976 the Institute for Culture Management and Culture Studies at the Vienna University of Music and Performing Arts has offered courses in culture management. The aims of the course are geared to the needs and desires of our students and to the local structures of the Austrian cultural sector. Over the years both the curriculum and the contents have changed several times.

The course we offer is a graduate course that lasts 2 years. It starts once a year and we accept only 24 candidates. The students are mostly between 25 and 35 years old. 75% are female. Half of them have a degree in cultural subjects (art history, theatre studies, musicology or literature); the other half is divided into three almost equal groups. We have people who have completed further education in the arts (most of them are musicians or actors), and students with a degree in Business Studies or Law. Most of the students work in the cultural sector, and of course the majority of them is just beginning their professional careers or wants to improve their vocational situation. As they already have had a higher education and acquired some specific qualifications in a particular subject we try to offer them a general view of the cultural field and introduce them to various areas of activity within cultural management and cultural administration. The first goal is to convey understanding of the different sub sectors as coherent fields of practice. The second goal is to enable them to keep on a comprehensive dialogue with others, that is to say, if they are managers and admini­strators to keep on a dialogue with the artists and content producers and vice versa.

Almost 30% of the courses cover economic and admini­strative topics – [see curriculum at the end of this paper]. If we add the courses "soft skills in management" and “legal issues in culture management” we cover 50% of the curriculum. Studies in cultural subjects and aesthetics account for 17% of the total. The rest is covered by courses that explicitly refer to particular aspects of the professional field. Through case studies we offer a variety of insights into the professional reality of culture managers. The students end the course with a thesis usually on a subject related to their professional interests.

As you see we offer 35 different courses. We have 28 different teachers. A quarter of them are from the academic field, while the rest are practi­tioners in senior positions. On the one hand the curriculum has an academic profile, on the other we try to stimulate a conversation between theoretical analysis and practice though we do not offer an explicit (or distinguished) professional training.

We try to assess continuously the professional development of our graduates. Last summer we questioned almost 70 individuals who had attended the course between 1992 and 2001. 2/3 of them are working as cultural managers or in an activity related to it – for instance musicians who have managerial responsibilities in their ensemble. 75% of the graduates interviewed are employees. They are employed in the public sector (culture admini­stration at different levels), in institutions under public law (that is to say state-museums, state-theatres that operate autonomously but are owned by the state), commercial enterprises in the cultural sector, and in non-profit organizations (mainly small associations in this field). I would like to show you some other details, too. We wanted to know more about the qualifications they need for their current job. The answers show clearly that from their subjective point of view they had referred to qualifications that imply formal knowledge and analytical capacities – that is to say hard skills. [4] This aspect is interesting with regard to the following question: Is a formal professional education necessary or is it better to learn on the job and gain competence as culture manager through practical experience? Generally speaking both are feasible but I detect a trend: In professional areas where complex theoretical know­ledge and highly developed analy­tical competence are demanded – for instance in large organizations – I would tend to recommend an academic background though it does not guarantee practical competence. No doubt there are other professional fields in cultural management where an academic education is less needed. Further, we wanted to know the level of job satisfaction. The answers show that the employees feel they have very little influence on the policies and strategic development of their organization. This is due to the hierarchical structure of large organizations and the deep gap between the directors and middle management – at least in Austria.

IMPLICATION FOR DIDACTICS

Let us move to didactics, that is to say to the teaching methods and strategies used in various subjects concerning cultural management. I would like to present a particular case in order to exemplify the didactical considerations.

A central issue for cultural workers concerns the interrelationship between the state and the arts. The state acts as both a benefactor and a regulator of the arts field. Supportive activities take place at legislative level but mainly within the policy-making process of federal and provincial government. In the course we focus on the categorization, documentation, representation and analysis of public spending in the arts field: What categories and concepts are used in Austrian cultural statistics and in other European countries? Whose interests are represented by using a particular conceptual structure? Are these categories adequate for contemporary artistic practices? What are the specific problems we meet when we try to compare cultural statistics between various years or even between various levels of government? Still, even if we succeed to compare various data and to generate a picture of the development of public spending, we must be able to identify the changes and its causes. This means that we have to extend the analysis of the financing structures of public spending and of its output. Then we can start to compare public spending on culture to other areas of public spending. For instance, how has cultural spending developed compared to spending on defense during the last 5 years? Is this not an interesting question – especially in the US? All these issues have been discussed by my colleagues Otto Hofecker and Peter Tschmuck.

The other aspect I have mentioned concerns the regulative function of the state. Through legislation and jurisdiction the state defines the rules of action within the cultural sector. Personal rights determine the protection of creative work. Copyright and contract law determine the economic rights of the participants. The criminal law marks the limits of artistic freedom. Income tax regulations and social security law influence the economic situation of people who are involved in this field. Some of these regulations overlap with the role of the state as a benefactor of arts and culture. Other regulations, especially those that refer to freedom and protection of creative work, are linked with the definition of the modern state of itself as a liberal political order.

As we all know censorship has played an ambivalent role throughout history. On the one hand every political community is obliged to defend some goods and values that are considered to be constitutive for its smooth function. On the other hand censorship has had an instrumental character. Sometimes it has been used as a means to exercise political pressure, to isolate and criminalize critics. The analysis of public conflicts around the arts and the interpretation of jurisdiction may therefore reveal a picture of the political quality of public life. This can be gained out of systematically studying of various particular cases.

By now, democratic countries have quite liberal laws, so that censorship can no longer easily be misused successfully as a tool of oppression. Nowadays it is mainly economic pressure that jeopardizes artistic freedom and cultural diversity. The continually growing dependence on the will of sponsors and financing institutions and the progressive commercialli­zation of the sector exercise pressure on the processes of conceptuali­zation, realization and distribution of cultural goods and especially of contemporary arts. As long as the political community considers sponsoring and financing the arts as a voluntary action that takes place within the private autonomy of the sponsors, we cannot demand any regulations that would guarantee fair allocation and distribution. That is one reason why sponsoring activities are not usually mentioned in public debates about artistic freedom. However, public funding has a different status from private sponsoring. The state is never “a private actor”. We therefore investigate whether public funds are systematically or even deliberately used and misused to put pressure on critics. If we can state that this sometimes happens, then we can conclude that there is some kind of secret (or “tacit”) infrastructural censorship. To put it in general terms: The whole subject of cultural democracy, artistic freedom, pluralism and the state’s obligation to remain neutral toward arts and culture is concerned with the political and moral quality of state actions. This is a normative discourse that I start with my students.

I hope the presentation of this particular example – the role of the state as a benefactor and regulator of the arts – gives you an idea of how we try to convey understanding of complex subjects, and to investigate and discuss the implications from various perspectives. Our students develop general capacities for contextual analysis. They come to realize that some of the problems that appear in a professional setting are complicated and cannot be solved by applying managerial techniques. Such problems force us to develop analytical competence, cooperative and strategic attitudes that enable us to act collectively. Culture management is therefore sometimes more than a job; it implies obligation and commitment; and ultimately it may take the form of political action.

Curriculum of the Postgraduate Course in Culture Management

WG = Working-Group, POC = Practice Oriented Course, SE = Seminar, L = Lecture, L/Pr = Lecture with integrated Practice. Underlined courses include exams or seminar-papers.