common ground: cultural action as a route to …
TRANSCRIPT
Matarasso,F.,2017,CommonGround:Culturalactionasaroutetocommunitydevelopment(Revised03/17).Thispaper
isanupdatedversionofatextoriginallypublishedinAugust2007intheCommunityDevelopmentJournal,(2007)42(4):449-45.Original text©2007OxfordUniversityPressandCommunityDevelopmentJournal.2007This text ©2017FrançoisMatarasso:thisworkisdistributedundertheCreativeCommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives4.0Internationallicence.Youarefreetocopy,distribute,ordisplaythedigitalversiononconditionthat:youattributetheworktotheauthor;theworkisnotusedforcommercialpurposes;andyoudonotalter,transform,oraddtoit.
COMMONGROUND:CULTURALACTIONASAROUTETOCOMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT
FrancoisMatarassoRevisedandupdatedversionofatextoriginallypublishedin
TheCommunityDevelopmentJournal,(2007)42(4):449-458.
Abstract
Culturalactionhasbeenusedtopromotecommunitydevelopmentforatleastforty
yearsintheUK,oftenwithgoodresults.Duringthatperiod,thetheories,values,and
approachesofprofessionalshavevariedandevolved,buttherehasbeenanoticeable
shiftinfocus–particularlyinculturalpolicy–fromcollectivetoindividualoutcomes,
inlinewiththegrowingindividualizationofpolicysincethe1980s.Yetthepotentialof
culturalactiontobringpeopletogetherandtobuildafoundationforlastingcommu-
nitydevelopmentworkremainsimportant.
Thisarticleconsiderstheprocessesbywhicharts-basedcommunityprojectscanlead
tothedevelopmentofbothinformalandformalcollectiveorganization,andtheirpo-
tentialinempowerment.Centraltothisprocess,itisargued,isculture’sfocusonpeo-
ple’scapacitiesandinterests,ratherthanonexternallydefinedproblems.Thepaper
drawsontwocontrastingexamplestoshowthecontinuingimportanceofculturalac-
tioninverydifferentsocialandeconomicsituations:myresearchintovoluntaryarts
developmentinruralEnglandandWales,andmyexperienceofcommunitycultural
projectsinsoutheastEurope.
CommonGround:Culturalactionasaroutetocommunitydevelopment 2
Introduction:therecenthistoryofcommunityartsEuropeanideasaboutthesocialfunctionofart,whichcanbetracedbacktoClassicalGreece,
forman intellectualhistory thatsaysasmuchabouthowpeoplehaveviewedsocietyas
about theirconceptsofart (BelfioreandBennett,2008).That isparticularlyclear today,
whentheartshaveacquiredanunusuallyprominentpositioninpublicpolicy.Theyarepro-
posedasameansofpromotingurbanregeneration(Gateshead),tourism(Bilbao),andthe
creativeeconomy(Singapore);theyhavealsobeenseen,particularlyinWesternEurope,as
awayofachievingvarioussocialobjectives.
InBritain,thelatestversionofthisapproachwassparkedbysocial,cultural,andpolitical
changesinthe1960s,andledtotheemergenceofnewformsofsocially-engagedtheatre
andcommunityarts.Whilethelatterwas,andremains,ahighlyvariedfieldofpractice,in
the1970sandearly1980sanimportantstrandwasconcernedwithcommunitydevelop-
ment.Practitionerssoughttostrengthencommunityactivismandorganizationwiththeaim
ofenablingdisenfranchisedgroupstorepresenttheirintereststothoseinpower,especially
localgovernment.Characteristicformsatthetimeincludedmurals(inspiredbyworkinChi-
cagoandMexico),printshopslikePaddington,SeeRedandBasement(Kenna,1986),and
communityfestivals(Crummy,1992).Someprojectsbecameinvolvedincampaigns:Corby
CommunityArtssupportedresistancetoclosureofthetown’ssteelworks,andotherswere
involvedinworkaroundthe1984–85miners’strike.Butbytheendofthe1980s,suchdirect
politicalinvolvement(thathad,inanycase,beenoneapproachamongseveral)waswaning,
alongwithdirectengagementwithcommunitydevelopmentpractice.Therewere,andre-
main,exceptionstothistrend,suchasthedisabilityartsmovementthathascontinuedto
useartspracticetoarticulategroupperspectivesandpoliticalpositions(Hevey,1992).
Theindividualizationofcommunityartsinthe1990s
Althoughthesectorgrewsteadilythroughoutthe1980sand1990s,itdependedlessonArts
Councilfundingthanonarangeofothersources,amongwhichlocalgovernmentwaspre-
eminent.Thesefundsoftencamefromyouth,education,andregenerationbudgetswitha
rangeofovert,ifvague,socialobjectiveswhich,whilecompatiblewithcommunityartsprac-
tice,focusedonpersonalratherthancommunityoutcomes.Healthandsocialcaresimilarly
emphasizedtheneedsofindividualsratherthanthecollectiveinterestsofgroups,soarts
projectsfundedthroughthesesourcestendedtobedrawnawayfrombroaderconcerns;
asever,therewereexceptions,suchasthehealthpromotionworkofGatesheadCouncil
communityartsteamorEastMidlandsShape’sworkwithmentalhealthserviceuserson
careinthecommunity(Cullen,1991).Sincefundingwasusuallygrantedonaprojectbasis
–atrendthatincreasedwiththearrivalofNationalLotteryfundinginthe1990s–itwas
oftendifficulttosustainitandtoworkonlonger-termcommunityobjectives.
Itisarguablethatthesechangeswereunderpinned,evenmadenecessary,byashiftinBrit-
ishpublicpolicyover25yearsfromthecollectivetowardstheindividual.Theprivatization
CommonGround:Culturalactionasaroutetocommunitydevelopment 3
ofresponsibilityforchangehasaffectedcommunityartspractice,asithasothersectors.
Thus,althoughtherehasbeensignificantinvestmentincommunity-basedartsactivitysince
1997,notleastthroughincreasesinfundingtoArtsCouncilEngland,policyexpectationsof
theworkcentrearoundarangeofpersonaloutcomessuchastheacquisitionoftransfera-
bleskillsandconfidence-building(ACE,2005).Itsartisticpurposeandvaluegetsinadequate
attentioneven fromarts fundingagencies. Innovativepolicyworkon theartsandsocial
inclusionwasundertakenintheearlyyearsofthenewLabourGovernment(DCMS,1999),
butitsimplementationhastendedtofallbackonsimplisticconceptsofpracticeandper-
sonalchangethatareofdoubtfullastingvalueandquestionableethicalintent.
Thesechangesaretosomedegreesymbolizedbythegradualabandonmentoftheterm
‘community arts’ in favour ofmore seemingly neutral alternatives such as ‘community-
basedarts’or‘participatoryarts’.Thewordempowermentisrarelyusedandappearstobe
regardedbymany,perhapsunawareoftheconcept’splaceincommunitydevelopment,as
naiveorsuspicious.Today,althoughsomeartists inBritainareusingnewapproachesto
collectiveissuesinacontemporaryparalleltothepracticedescribedabove,thesectoris
moregenerallycharacterizedbyaconcernwithindividualratherthancommunitydevelop-
ment(Matarasso2013).
CommunitydevelopmentpracticeandartstouringinruralEngland
SpiersandBodenatCalvertonMiner’sWelfare2003
Twothingsarenotableaboutruraltouringinthepresentcontext:howtheyworkandthe
However,theuseoftheartsandculturalactiontosupportcommunitydevelopmentre-
mainsavalidpracticeandtheideasthatemergedfromtheBritishcommunityartssector
CommonGround:Culturalactionasaroutetocommunitydevelopment 4
fromthelate1960sonwardshavebeenasourceofinfluenceandinspirationtoartistswork-
inginmanydifferentcontextsinBritainandabroad.Thedevelopmentofruraltouringnet-
works illustrates how the community artsmovement’s values andpracticehave shaped
workinseeminglyverydifferentfields.
ThefirstruraltouringnetworkswereestablishedinLincolnshire,Hampshire,andSouthEast
Walesin1980,withtheintentionofimprovingaccessbypeoplelivinginruralareastopro-
fessional arts performance (Matarasso, 2004). The work grew slowly at first, with six
schemesestablishedby1989and12by1994.Sincethen,however,therehasbeenarapid
expansion,partlyassistedbythecreationof theNationalRuralTouringForum(NRTF) in
1997.By2007,therewereabout40suchschemesinEngland,mostlyorganizedonacounty
basis,anationalschemeinWales,andthree inScotland.1Themodelalsoexists inother
countries,includingFrance,NewZealand,Australia,andIreland(O’Leary2006).
RuralTouringaudienceinLincolnshire,2003
IntheUK,despitevariationsofpracticeandvision,theschemesessentiallyfollowthesame
approach, acting as a link between (mostly) rural communities and professional theatre
companies,musicians,andotherperformers.Asaresult,tensofthousandsofpeoplehave
accesstoarteventsincommunityvenues.In2003,theEnglishtouringschemessupported
3168performancesand588workshopsforacombinedaudienceofnearly195,000people,
1 In2017,thereare25schemesinEngland,fourinScotlandandoneinWales,asaresultofcost-savingmergersandcutbacksinpublicfunding.Seehttp://www.ruraltouring.org/members(accessed14.03.2017)
CommonGround:Culturalactionasaroutetocommunitydevelopment 5
atatotalcostof£2.3million(Matarasso,2004).2Theschemesthemselvesarefinancedby
localgovernmentandtheArtsCouncilsinEngland,Scotland,andWalesandsoareableto
offervolunteerpromotersshowsatreducedrates.In2003,1664promotersputonshows.
Mostareconstitutedcommunitygroups–typically,thevillagehallcommittee–withper-
hapsonein10promotersbeinganindividualworkingwithinformalsupport.
resultstheyobtain.Eacheventisapartnershipbetweentheartist,theschemeasagent,
andthevolunteerpromoters,whichevenlydistributespower,risk,andreward.Promoters
areofferedaselectionofworktochoosefromandthegroupstreatthisprocesscarefully
anddemocratically,oftendecidingbymajorityvote.Oncethebookingismadepromoters
takeonresponsibilitiesrangingfrommarketingtheeventtohostingtheartistsandpaying
anagreedfeeattheendofthenight.Thiscanbefinanciallyriskysincethevenuemaynot
accommodatelargenumberswhileastrongcommitmenttoinclusionkeepsticketprices
low.Promoterssometimeslosemoneybut, iftheydowell,theywillmakeasurplusthat
offsetspastlossesorhelpswithvillagehallrunningcosts.Thereisalsoasignificantsocial
risk,sincesomeshows–whichthepromoterswillhavepubliclyendorsed–maybedisliked
orprovokecontroversy.However,theessentialpoint isthatthismodelgivescommunity
groupsahighdegreeofcontrolofwhattheydoandhowitisfinanced:iteffectivelyplaces
decisionsabouttheuseofpublicsubsidyintheirhands.
Theimportanceofthisforcommunitydevelopmentshouldnotbeunderestimated.Apart
fromtheirownvalueassocialandculturalevents,puttingontheseperformancesdemands
weeksofplanningandlocalcooperation.Afterwards,thememoryofsharedexperiencesis
key to community cohesion. There is a genuineequalitybetween thepartners– artists,
agency,andpromoters–thatisfarfromthepatricianrootsofmoststateculturalprovision.
Theeffectsofthatempowermentcanbeseeninthosecommunitiesthathavegoneonto
promoteotherperformancesindependently(e.g.Lowdham,Nottinghamshire)and,more
unusually,thosethathavedevelopedotherculturalandsocialactivitiesasaresultofthe
experience,confidence,andskillsgainedthroughruraltouring(Ashbrittle,Somerset;Bergh
Apton,Norfolk;orTerrington,NorthYorkshire)(Matarasso,2004).
Communitydevelopmentandculturalactivisminsouth-eastEuropeRuralEnglandfacescomplexproblems,but it isrelativelywell-endowed intermsofeco-
nomic,social,andculturalcapital.Cancommunityartspracticebeaseffectiveinmoredis-
advantagedsituations?Experienceinsomeofthepoorestruralcommunitiesofsoutheast
Europesuggeststhatitisindeedtransferabletotheseverydifferentsituations.In1999,I
2 Despitecutbacksinlocalauthorityfunding,between2004and2015,thenumberofpromotinggroupsinEnglandincreasedby44%to2,407.Audiencesroseby43%andnownumber278,000.Theproportionofavailableticketssoldhasrisenfrom67%to76%,andtherehasbeena15%real-termsincreaseinboxofficeincomeoverthepe-riod.(Matarasso2015:23).
CommonGround:Culturalactionasaroutetocommunitydevelopment 6
wascommissionedbytheKingBaudouinFoundation(Belgium)tohelpdevelopanewpro-
grammeaimedatsupportingcommunitydevelopmentthroughlocalculturalprojects.The
‘LivingHeritage’programmewastobedeliveredinsouth-eastEuropewherethefoundation
wasalreadyactive in childprotectionandethnic relationswork.Basedon research into
community-basedheritageworkintheUK,Ireland,SwedenandBelgium,aswellasBritish
communityartspractice,aseriesofprinciplesweredevelopedtoguidetheprogramme:
- Demonstratinglocalbenefit;
- Sustainableeconomicdevelopment;
- Supportingvoluntarycommitment;
- Anincrementalapproach;
- Flexibilityandresponsiveness;
- Leadershipandaclearvision;
- Accessiblemanagement;
- Opennessandhonesty;
- Makingfriendswiththemedia;and
- ‘Digwhereyoustand’.
ThelastprinciplewasborrowedfromtheLivingArchiveProject inMiltonKeynes(UK). It
wasintendedtoconveythateverycommunityhasheritageorculturalresourcesthatare
importanttothem,andinrespectofwhichtheyhaveuniqueexpertise.LivingHeritagetook
averybroadviewofwhatconstitutesheritage:folklore,buildings,oralhistory,thenatural
environment,contemporaryarts,musicanddancetraditions,festivals,foodculture,muse-
umsandcommunityeventswereallconsideredvalid.Overtime,itbecameclearthatthe
essential criterion was that the people proposing the project cared about it and could
demonstrateasimilarcommitmentinthewidercommunity.
LivingHeritageGroupinByalaCherkva,Bulgaria2004
CommonGround:Culturalactionasaroutetocommunitydevelopment 7
Theprinciplesprovidedguidanceaboutactionthatshouldnotjustleadtosuccessfulout-
comes,butdosothroughaprocessofcapacityandconfidencebuildingthatequippedpar-
ticipants to undertake further self-directed work. They were concerned as much with
clarifyingvaluesandwaysofworkingaswithtechnicalaspectsofprojectdelivery.Aboveall,
theprincipleswereintendedtoguide,nottoprescribe–atoolforthinkingthroughsitua-
tionsandideas.Inspecificcircumstances,oneormorewouldnotbeappropriateorrele-
vant:whatmatteredwasthatpeoplehadthoughtaboutanddiscussedtheissuesandknew
whysomethingdidordidnotapplytothem.
Parkrestorationproject,Kratovo,LivingHeritageMacedonia2003
TheLivingHeritageprogrammewaslaunchedinMarch2001inSkopje(Macedonia),and
subsequentlydevelopedinBulgaria,Romania,andBosniaHerzegovina(Matarasso,2005).
Overthenextfouryears,140communityheritageprojectsweresupported,mostlyinsmall,
often remote rural communities (thoughurbanprojectsalso tookplace inSofia,Brasov,
Bitola, Sarajevoandelsewhere). Ineach country, localpartnersmanaged thegrantpro-
grammeandprovidedtraining,technicalsupport,andotherresourceswithhelpfromex-
ternal specialists.Between2001and2005,about€2.2millionwas invested in theLiving
HeritageprogrammebytheKingBaudouinFoundationanditsfinancialpartners,notably
theSorosFoundation.Theprogrammemethodologyhadanumberofdistinctiveaspects.
First,LivingHeritagewasnotopentoapplicationsfromexistingorganizations.Becauseit
aimed to supportmarginalized anddisempowered communitieswithout the capacity to
competeinsuchaprocess,projectswereidentifiedthroughfieldworkandmeetingswith
communitiestodiscusslocalneedsandideas.Asaresult,manyprojectswereledbyteams
withnopreviousexperienceofprojectdevelopmentor sometimesofworking together.
CommonGround:Culturalactionasaroutetocommunitydevelopment 8
Theybecameorganizations,formallyandinformallyconstituted,throughtheLivingHerit-
ageprocess.Evenwheretheprojectswereledbyexistingvoluntaryorganizations,likethe
chitalishtethatformauniqueculturalinfrastructureinBulgaria,theprogrammewasable
toreachcommunitieswhohadnotpreviouslyhadexternalfundingorsupport.Thiscon-
tributedtoaveryhighsuccessrate,bothinthenumberofsuccessfulapplicants,andinthe
proportionthatachievedtheirobjectives.Just7%oftheprojectsfailedtodelivertheirmu-
tuallyagreedgoals;ofthe,93%whichdid,manyexceededtheirbestexpectations.
Secondly,theprogrammeprovidedverysubstantialnon-financialsupport.Someofthiswas
formal training: every project teamparticipated in two residentialworkshops, about six
monthsapart,beforereceivingtheirgrants.But informalsupportwasequally important.
Sitevisits,specialistassistancethroughlocalexperts,supportinnegotiatingwithpublicbod-
ies,evensimplybeingabletophoneaprojectmanagerinacrisis,wereallessentialtohelp-
ingprojectteamsbuildskills,confidenceandexperience.
Thirdly,thegrantsofferedweregenerallysmall.Indeed,astheprogrammedeveloped,they
gotsmaller,sothattheaveragegrantin2005wasjustunder€6,000.Sincefuturelocalgrant
aidwasunlikely, itwasessential to avoid creating financial dependency. LivingHeritage
grantshadtoenableaprocessoflocalcapacitybuildingandorganizationaldevelopment
thatwouldleaveeachcommunitybetterabletoworkcollectivelytowardssharedgoals.
Afinalnotableaspectoftheprogrammewasitscapacitytofosterahugediversityofwork.
Projects includedmajorbuilding restoration (Bitola,ByalaCherkva), environmental cam-
paigns(Ipoteşti,Tusnad),oralhistory(CherniVit,Ivanovo),crafts(Tetovo,Šipovo),theatre
(Darjiu,SatuMare),festivals(Catici),folklore(Oresh),video(Lagera),andmuchmore.Work-
ingwithpeople’sinterestsusuallymeantthattheyhadexpertiseinthesubjectandreduced
dependenceonexternaladvisors.Theprogramme’srespectfor,andreadinesstoinvestin,
whatthecommunitythoughtimportantwasavitalsteptowardsempowerment.
Thatinvestmentwaswholehearted.Thoughthereweregrantconditions,theyappliedto
projectmanagement,notitscentralpurpose.Inthisrespect,LivingHeritageoperatedun-
likemostcommunityartspractice,sinceitdidnotdependonprofessionalswithartisticor
culturalexpertise.Thesupportoflocalandotherexpertswaslargelyconfinedtogeneric
matters of project management and community development practice. Where project
teamsneededsupportonartisticorrelatedissues,theyhadthefundstocontracttheirown
advisors.Liketherural touringpromoters, theyremained incontrolof theirworkand in
severalcasesdemonstratedtheirauthoritybyrejectingprofessionaladvice.Byaccepting
people’scultureattheirownestimation,LivingHeritageavoidedsomeoftheprejudicesof
muchartsfunding. Itdidnot,forexample,privilegecontemporaryovertraditionalartor
newtechnologyovercraftskills.Itacceptedthatwhatwasmeaningfultothebeneficiaries
wasmoreimportantthanwhatwasvaluedbyfoundationstafforculturalexperts.
Everyprojectwasmonitoredandevaluatedby localmanagementpartnerswithsupport
fromtheprogrammeteam.Theresultswereconsistentlyimpressive.Peoplehadgathered
CommonGround:Culturalactionasaroutetocommunitydevelopment 9
localsupport,securingcontributionsincash,kind,andvoluntarywork.Theyhadlearntto
plan,organise,andmanagecomplexprojects.Theyhaddevelopedcontactswithlocalgov-
ernment,businesses,otherNGOs,andprofessionalbodies,oftenforthefirst time.They
haddeliveredawiderangeofactivities,workshopprogrammes,training,andpublicevents,
andattractedverygoodattendances.Inmostcasestheyhadearnedincome,andinsome
therewas lastingeconomicbenefit through increasedvisitornumbers.3Butperhaps the
mostimportantoutcomewasthestrengtheningofexistingcommunityassociationsandthe
developmentofnewones.Thesehaddifferentstructuresandinterests,fromenvironmen-
talprotectionoryouthworktotraditionalartandtourism,butmosthadthecapacityto
buildonthedevelopmentinitiatedbytheprogramme.Theexperienceoftheearlyprojects
showedthatahighproportioncontinuedtoworkindependentlyaftertheendofthefunds.4
Women’sneedleworkgroup,LivingHeritageMacedonia,2003
3 TheLivingHeritageprojectinSmolare(NovoSelo,Macedonia)createdasafepathtoa45metrewaterfall,ofhis-toricculturalsignificancetothevillage.Inthefirstyearitattractednationalmediaattentionandvisitors,andthathasbeensustainedoverthesubsequentdecade.
4 LivingHeritageinBulgariahasbeensustainedasaprogrammesince2005bytheWorkshopforCivicInitiatives.Seehttp://zhivonasledstvo.bg/main(inBulgarianonly).
CommonGround:Culturalactionasaroutetocommunitydevelopment 10
The successof theseprojectswasdependentonmany factors that there isno space to
considerhere.However,one issuedeservesparticularattention,because itparallels the
experiencesofruralartsdevelopmentalreadydescribed.LivingHeritagegavefundsdirectly
tothecommunitiesitwasworkingwith,ratherthantointermediaryagenciesorartsorgan-
izations.This required trustonbothsides,especiallywhenthegroupconcerneddidnot
haveanexistingbankaccountorconstitution:intheevent,therewasnoinstanceoffraud
amongthe140projects.Beingtrustedwithmoneywasagenuinelyempoweringexperience
thatbuiltconfidenceandencouragedpeopletoshowwhattheycouldachieve.
Conclusions:culturalactionasaroutetocommunitydevelopment
Theexperiencesofbothrural touringandLivingHeritagehighlightsomecrucial lessons.
First,effectivecommunityculturalprojectsproduceawiderangeofdevelopmentalout-
comes,alongsidetheirintrinsicculturalvalue.Theycandeveloppeople’sskillsinmanyar-
eas, from performance, construction or IT to competencies like teamwork or project
management,accordingtotheirrolesinaproject.Thoseskillsbringconfidencefoundedon
actualachievement,recognizedbyothers.Projectsalsobuildsocialcapitalintheformof
relationshipsoftrustwithothers,includingthoseoutwithpeople’susualnetworks,suchas
politiciansandprofessionalsinpublicservices.Thesedevelopmentscaninturnsupportthe
creationandgrowthofcommunityorganizationsfrominformalassociationstosocialenter-
prises,whichgiveindividualsthepowertotakecollectiveactiontowardssharedgoals.Even
iftheoriginalculturalprojectisnotcontinued,individuallyandcollectively,thecommunity
gainscapacitiesthatleaveitstronger.
Secondly,self-managedculturalprojectsarewithinpeople’sexistingmeans.Preciselybe-
causesuchprojectsareoftenoflittleinteresttooutsiders,andparticularlytogovernment,
theyarelefttolocalinitiative.Theytendtofocusonthingsinwhichlocalpeoplehavereal
expertiseandtodemandskillsandresourcesthatarewithintheirreach.Withappropriate
support,theythereforehaveahighchanceofsuccess.Theyrequirethedevelopmentof
genericandtransferablepractical,organizational,andcooperativeskillsthatareresources
forfutureaction.
Thirdly,thepeopleinvolved,theintendedbeneficiariesofsomuchdevelopmenteffort,do
notnecessarilyregardcultureasasecondaryissuetobeaddressedafterotherproblems
havebeensolved.Often,theysee itasawaytounderstandandaddresstheirproblems
fromwithin.OneMacedonianLivingHeritageprojecttookplaceinacommunitythathad
alreadydoneaprojectthroughtheKingBaudouinFoundation’s‘interethnicrelations’pro-
gramme.Theheritageprojectprovedtobemoresuccessful inengagingallsectionsofa
verydiversecommunity,partlybecauseitdidnotannounceimprovingethnicrelationsas
itsgoal.Unlikemanydevelopmentalinitiatives,culturalactionfocusesoncommunityassets
notproblems.Itdealswithtraditions,naturalheritage,locallandmarks,foodculture,oral
history,contemporaryartandnumerousotherthingsidentifiedandcherishedbypartici-
pantsthemselves.Whereproblemsarepartoftheequation,theyareidentifiedinternally
CommonGround:Culturalactionasaroutetocommunitydevelopment 11
andfromexperience,ratherthanbyoutsideexperts.Communityculturalprojectsareef-
fectivewhentheycentreonactionthatpeoplecareaboutandaredevelopmentalrather
thanremedialinconception.
Finally,culturalprojectsgivepeopleaccesstoameansofself-expression,evenofself-defi-
nition,thatfewotherformsofcollectiveactionoffer.Cultureisaboveallhowhumanscre-
ateandarticulatetheirvalues.Itallowsinternalmeaningstobeexternalizedandshared.In
ademocraticcontext,culturalexpressionisafundamentalhumanrightbecauseitallows
individualsandgroupstodefinethemselvesandtheirbeliefs,andnotonlybedefinedby
others.ThisisobviousinprojectsliketheLivingHeritageRomaTheatreproject(Ilijaš,Bosnia
Herzegovina),whichaimedtoimproveunderstandingofRomapeople’scultureandlivesby
presentingnewplaystoarangeofaudiences.Buttheaffirmationofpersonalandshared
culturalvaluesisnolessimportantinthedevelopmentofatraditionalcostumeworkshop
inVelešta(Macedonia),therestorationofalocalpageantinSatuMare(Romania),orthe
socialandculturaleveningsofferedthroughBritishruraltouringschemes.Ineachcase,cul-
turalactionenablespeopletoplacethemselvesaslegitimateactorswithinthebroaderlife
oftheirsociety.Itlaysthefoundationsofempowerment.
Neitherartnororthecommunityactivismitcannurturearefinalresponsestothechal-
lengesthatfacedisadvantagedordisempoweredcommunities.Theeconomic,social,and
otherforcesconfrontedtodaybymanymarginalizedgroupscannotbeovercomebesuch
actionalone.Buttheartshavethepotentialtodefineandsymbolizealternativerealities,
whileworkingthroughthemcanbuildpeople’scapacityforandinterestinsharedenter-
prise.Theycanformanucleusofself-determination,evenofresistance.
ACKNOWLDGEMENTS
TheresearchintoruraltouringreceivedfinancialsupportfromtheCarnegieUKTrust,theCountry-
sideAgency,ArtsCouncilEngland,theArtsCouncilofWales,Cheshire,Lincolnshire,Norfolk,Somer-
setCountyCouncils,EastLindsey,MendipandWycombeDistrictCouncilsandQueensHallArts.The
LivingHeritageProgrammewasfinancedbytheKingBaudouinFoundation,theSorosFoundation,the
CarpathianFoundation,theRomanianEnvironmentalPartnershipFoundationandtheEuropeanUn-
ion.Anearlierversionofthistextwaspublishedin2007byTheCommunityDevelopmentJournal.
ReferencesACE,2005,TheArtsandYoungPeopleatRiskofOffending,ArtsCouncilEngland,London.
Belfiore,E.&Bennett,O.,2008,TheSocialImpactoftheArts:AnIntellectualHistory,Basingstoke.
Crummy,H.,1992,LetthePeopleSing!AStoryofCraigmillar,Edinburgh.
Cullen,R.,ed.,1991,LookingBack:AnAnthologyofWritingfromthePasturesHospital,Leicester.
DCMS,1999,PolicyActionTeam10:aReporttotheSocialExclusionUnit,ArtsandSport,London.
Hevey,D.,1992,TheCreaturesTimeForgot:PhotographyandDisabilityImagery,London.
Kenna,C.,ed,,1986,PrintingIsEasy...?CommunityPrintshops,1970-86,London.
CommonGround:Culturalactionasaroutetocommunitydevelopment 12
Matarasso,F.,2004,OnlyConnect:ArtsTouringandRuralCommunities,Comedia,Stroud.
Matarasso,F.,2005,LivingHeritage,CommunityDevelopmentThroughCultureResourcesinSouthEast
Europe,Brussels.
Matarasso,F.2013,‘All inthistogether’:ThedepoliticisationofcommunityartinBritain,1970-2011’in
vanErven,E.ed.,2013,Community,Art,Power,Rotterdam.
Matarasso,F.,2015,AWiderHorizon,CreativeArtsEastandRuralTouring,Wymondham.
O’Leary,C.,2006,CommunityBasedArtsProgrammingNetworksReview,ArtsCouncilDiscussionPaper,
Dublin(unpublished).