Arts & International Affairs: Volume 2, Issue 1 | Page 109

projects that may have very interesting results, or may fail. Professionalism
is rarely seen as a value; instead, inspiration, and approval of outcomes that
may shock are valued. In this respect the actors of independent culture
rely increasingly on co-creative projects (e.g., in film industry). A visible
orientation to an eventual policy approach is focused on co-production,
cooperation, and communication among involved actors.
Market-oriented culture is clearly governed by the rules of the market. The
“invisible hand of the market” organizes cultural and artistic professionals
and creators and follows just one rule: profit making. Artistic and cultural
creativity produces quick results, and there are no limits to either
professional or value considerations. The interaction with various audiences
is intensive and momentary, rapidly negotiated, and responsive to all kinds
of sensitivities. Cultural policies only relate to temporary projects with
limited content, and to technological innovations that may support cultural
consumption. In practical terms, cultural policy appears to be a policy of
response to market interests, which also includes the attempt to adapt or
even change the structure and character of cultural markets.
The interactions among the identified cultural strata and cultural policies
developed within them are not clearly visible. It is not entirely clear what
links could be established among different strata, and how. Processes of
cultural policy making do not provide for better communication and
interaction among different cultural strata, and cultural policy making
remains strongly connected to the role of the state (Hartley et al. ����:��–��)
within the institutional culture. Policy actors within the independent and
market-oriented culture are less transparent and less interested in defining
any cultural policy.
A certain proliferation of cultural policies is, however, visible at the level
of cultural organizations, associations, networks, cultural industries, and
cities and regions. They each formulate some kind of cultural policy for
themselves and their needs, and there is no visible interlinking of such
policies. Even if, and when, the state offers some support to the activities
of these organizations as part of the defined aims of cultural policies, this
does not lead to processes that may help to standardize or systematize a
large number of specialized cultural policies. In this respect, cultural policy
has been reduced to an instrument (often identified with “cultural strategy”)
that may eventually be useful, but that may serve very different aims. The
development of such an instrument may be supported by national state
108