2012University of the Arts London Research Online (University of the Arts London)Requires access

Art and counter-publics in Third Way cultural policy

Andrew Hewitt

Open publisher page 2 citations

Abstract

In the UK, over the past decade, the rhetoric of ‘Third Way’ governance informed cultural policy. The research sets out how the agenda for cultural policy converged with priorities for economic and social policy, in policies implemented by Arts Council England, in the commissioning of publicly funded visual art and within culture-led regeneration. Hence visual art production was further instrumentalized for the purposes of marketization and privatization. The practice-based research examines the problems issues and contingencies for visual art production in this context. Public sphere theory is used to examine ideas of publics and publicness in Third Way cultural policy context, in state cultural institutions and programming. Using Jürgen Habermas’ conception of the public sphere, the research proposes that cultural policy functioned as ‘steering media’, as publicity for the state to produce social cohesion and affirmative conceptions of the social order, i.e. the management of publics. In contrast, public sphere theory is concerned with societal processes of opinion formation, of selfforming, deliberating and rival publics. The research also applies theories of the public sphere to the theories of art and participation associated with socially-engaged art practice - theories that articulate art in relation to its publics. While socially-engaged artists have produced new modes of art practice that have shifted arts ontology, the research points to how Third Way cultural policy was quick to seize upon socially-engaged art for its own agenda. Public sphere theory informed the strategies and tactics of the Freee art collective (Dave Beech, Andy Hewitt, Mel Jordan) in the production of publicly-funded artworks. The artworks were a means to test the hypothesis and to find evidence by intervening in Third Way cultural policy with alternative ideas. Freee’s public spherian art proposes new modes of participative art to counter Third Way cultural policy - a ‘counter-public art’.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

In the UK, over the past decade, the rhetoric of ‘Third Way’ governance informed cultural policy. The research sets out how the agenda for cultural policy converged with priorities for economic and social policy, in policies implemented by Arts Council England, in the commissioning of publicly funded visual art and within culture-led regeneration. Hence visual art production was further instrumentalized for the purposes of marketization and privatization. The practice-based research examines the problems issues and contingencies for visual art production in this context. Public sphere theory is used to examine ideas of publics and publicness in Third Way cultural policy context, in state cultural institutions and programming. Using Jürgen Habermas’ conception of the public sphere, the research proposes that cultural policy functioned as ‘steering media’, as publicity for the state to produce social cohesion and affirmative conceptions of the social order, i.e. the management of publics. In contrast, public sphere theory is concerned with societal processes of opinion formation, of selfforming, deliberating and rival publics. The research also applies theories of the public sphere to the theories of art and participation associated with socially-engaged art practice - theories that articulate art in relation to its publics. While socially-engaged artists have produced new modes of art practice that have shifted arts ontology, the research points to how Third Way cultural policy was quick to seize upon socially-engaged art for its own agenda. Public sphere theory informed the strategies and tactics of the Freee art collective (Dave Beech, Andy Hewitt, Mel Jordan) in the production of publicly-funded artworks. The artworks were a means to test the hypothesis and to find evidence by intervening in Third Way cultural policy with alternative ideas. Freee’s public spherian art proposes new modes of participative art to counter Third Way cultural policy - a ‘counter-public art’.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 2 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

In the UK, over the past decade, the rhetoric of ‘Third Way’ governance informed cultural policy. The research sets out how the agenda for cultural policy converged with priorities for economic and social policy, in policies implemented by Arts Council England, in the commissioning of publicly funded visual art and within culture-led regeneration. Hence visual art production was further instrumentalized for the purposes of marketization and privatization. The practice-based research examines the problems issues and contingencies for visual art production in this context. Public sphere theory is used to examine ideas of publics and publicness in Third Way cultural policy context, in state cultural institutions and programming. Using Jürgen Habermas’ conception of the public sphere, the research proposes that cultural policy functioned as ‘steering media’, as publicity for the state to produce social cohesion and affirmative conceptions of the social order, i.e. the management of publics. In contrast, public sphere theory is concerned with societal processes of opinion formation, of selfforming, deliberating and rival publics. The research also applies theories of the public sphere to the theories of art and participation associated with socially-engaged art practice - theories that articulate art in relation to its publics. While socially-engaged artists have produced new modes of art practice that have shifted arts ontology, the research points to how Third Way cultural policy was quick to seize upon socially-engaged art for its own agenda. Public sphere theory informed the strategies and tactics of the Freee art collective (Dave Beech, Andy Hewitt, Mel Jordan) in the production of publicly-funded artworks. The artworks were a means to test the hypothesis and to find evidence by intervening in Third Way cultural policy with alternative ideas. Freee’s public spherian art proposes new modes of participative art to counter Third Way cultural policy - a ‘counter-public art’.

Key concepts: Cultural policy, Public sphere, Sociology, Context (archaeology), Political science, Public relations, Media studies, Law

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Art and counter-publics in Third Way cultural policy — Research Paper | ScholarLens