How Helpful Is Cultural Diplomacy?

For the last six years I have been obsessed with the concept of cultural diplomacy.
 
While other countries have been active exporters of their arts -- China and Great Britain come to mind -- the United States government has been reticent to invest in this form of diplomacy.
 
This was not always the case: both American Ballet Theatre and the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater added the word 'American' to their names at the request of the State Department about half a century ago when they were sent on government-sponsored international tours.
 
But while some American embassies abroad have been active in bringing American artists and arts groups to 'their' countries in recent years, this is still a very minor activity of the Department of State.
 
But does traditional cultural diplomacy work? Do we need state-supported tours by American performing arts groups when without federal funding so many of our performers and performing arts groups are appearing all over the world, when American architects are designing high profile buildings internationally and when American artists are featured in the great museums?
 
Does sending a symphony orchestra to play for a thousand of the most powerful people in the capital of another nation truly affect the way our nation is viewed?
 
As the Obama administration tries to rebuild America's image abroad, do we need to send dance companies and theater companies abroad?
 
My response, not popular with my peers running arts organizations across the United States, is no.
 
Marketing only works (and cultural diplomacy is marketing) when it is frequently repeated.  And it is simply too expensive to send orchestras and dance companies and theater groups to the same territory over and over again. And are we really influencing the citizens of a nation when we send performing groups to entertain the elite? Don't the elite come to the U.S. anyway? (And frankly, many people in foreign countries feel they get enough American culture via television, movies and popular music.)
 
But that does not mean that cultural diplomacy should be discarded.
 
Rather, I believe we need to abandon traditional forms of cultural diplomacy in favor of a new approach.
 
The major problem facing arts organizations across the globe is a reduction in funding they are receiving from their governments.  Outside of the United States, arts organizations in almost every country rely on government funding for the majority of their support. As governments find themselves unable to maintain this level of support, arts organizations are seeking new methods for finding funding.
 
Given our reliance on private funding, Americans have a great deal to teach abroad. We can teach how we build sponsorship by corporations and especially individuals. We can teach how we use marketing to expand the reach of our arts organizations.  We can teach the importance of long-term program planning for building new sources of support.
 
I have been pursuing this form of cultural diplomacy for six years, and have now taught arts managers in 60 countries.
 
These arts leaders now are attempting to support their organizations in new ways. They are grateful for the help they have received from the Kennedy Center, America's national cultural center. This gratitude extends to the governmental leaders of the nations in which we teach; it is not unusual for us to meet with mayors, ministers of culture and even presidents and prime ministers when we work abroad.  They are all impressed that Americans care not just to export their own culture, but to see to the health of arts organizations in their country and around the world.  (And because we teach over a period of years, and build strong relationships in every country, the impact is far greater and longer-term than for any one concert.) The U.S. gains immense prestige and good will.  And the cost is so small: one airline ticket and a hotel room.

While the Kennedy Center's international work is privately funded, maybe the State Department could support a program that allows other American arts organizations to teach abroad. (The money saved could be given to arts organizations to invest in programming, marketing and touring.)
 
Maybe this is a new way we can truly explain the value of a thoughtful, involved, generous democratic society across the globe.

Comments

[Peterell]

06:02 AM on 09/23/2009

I just wish that America would import the understanding that the arts are of value to a nation. When we spend many, many times more of our tax dollars to hire mercenaries like Blackwater (now Xe) to terrorize other nations than we do to help our artists and arts institutions, it is clear we have much to learn from other countries. If America's main government-funded export is militarism and terror it is hard to see how we expect other countries to want our influence. Nor how an extraordinarily tiny amount of exported culture will do anything to help our State Department build respect and influence for the United States.

What cultural diplomacy really seems to be is a backdoor effort by some well-intentioned and sympathetic members of Government to throw a bone to the arts and arts organizations through the back door.

What we need to be advocating is government support of the arts at 50 to 100 times the current level (which is less than fifty cents per capita). Then many arts organizations here could use their expertise to create their own cultural exchange, and they woudl be wanted because they woudl have the time and support to create things worth exporting.

[RYWTaylor]

06:40 PM on 09/22/2009

I have nothing but respect for Michael, whom I have known and admired for many years, and whose office at the Royal Opera in London was just up the road from mine at the English National Opera. However, cultural diplomacy and marketing are not the same thing, in the same way that free markets and democracy are not the same ideas. After 20 years of being an American manager in England, and then moving back to the US to be considered an English manager here, I also know that we need to be nuanced and respectful when exporting American management ideas. It's horses for courses, not one size fits all, and not understanding this can hurt the image of America abroad.

It is wonderful that the Kennedy Center work has been so well received, and I know of the depth and authenticity of Michael's commitment to the arts. But we must not confuse running arts organizations with speaking for our nation, however tempting it may be to elevate the former by confusing it with the latter.

[SouthwestChamberMusic]

06:27 PM on 09/22/2009

The State Department is already doing what you suggest to some degree. Southwest Chamber Music (Los Angeles) will produce the largest cultural exchange between the U.S. and Vietnam in Spring 2010, and we're supported by the U.S. State Department. We completely agree with Mr. Kaiser's view, having developed our program to have long term impact to assist in building capacity in the arts in Vietnam after disadvantages caused by war. Over a 6 week period, we will produce a music festival in both countries, have a substantial educational component, and also teach and compare notes in best practices in arts administration, including involving the local business communities in discussing ways to support the arts. We will send 19 Americans abroad and bring 19 Vietnamese here, greatly impacting our local audiences and students. This is our third collaboration in Southeast Asia, and our experiences demonstrate the need for dialogue and example, not "drive by art" that stresses only performances. Mid-size arts organizations have the ability to effect maximum change with minimal investment dollars. It is important that the foreign view of America include serious artistic accomplishment and the willingness to help others help themselves. We are an example of positive State Department support that helps artists provide examples of best practices and artistic accomplishment - it can work and there needs to be more long term investment, especially in mid-size organizations, as detailed by Mr. Kaiser.

[Seemasue]

10:37 AM on 09/22/2009

I would add that for cultural diplomacy to be truly effective, it needs to go beyond "us" teaching "them." Instead the arrow need to go both ways. I believe you can win over hearts and minds only by giving people a voice and truly listening. Learning about "the others'" art and stories. Artists are good at that. At Mo`olelo, we take a community organizing approach to every production and have been successful in engaging "non-traditional audiences" as stakeholders, dramaturgical contributors, and participants while remaining 100% professional, being at once grass-roots and Equity at the same time. In other words, you don't have to "give anything up" by simply hearing other voices. Rather, that's where true diplomacy can take place.

[JBiegel]

06:45 AM on 09/22/2009

As always, I agree with so much of what Michael says. I have started a global project, which will begin shortly. In this regard, I will create a model for orchestras worldwide to form a consortium to get new works co-commissioned, all the while keeping their share fee costs very low. The first project will feature a worldwide respected, Pulitzer prize winning composer. In this way, orchestras can indeed joiun hands in musical diplomacy, and see a future of commissioning new works by the world's finest composers, with multiple performances. The goal for the first is a projected 100 orchestras to form the first planet-wide consortium. Stay tuned...

[michael618]

06:00 AM on 09/22/2009

While I agree that spending large sums of money to export the work of large traditional companies and art forms would not be useful as cultural diplomacy, I think there is a vital role for government to play in supporting the dissemination of the extraordinarily vital work of contemporary American performing artists. This is the work that is about new ideas, not classical forms which were never created in America anyway, and it represents the authentic cultural energy present in our society today. Many of these artists travel abroad already and collaborate with their colleagues in different countries. In fact national borders are frequently immaterial to them. But, for many others, the costs are prohibitive and a revival of the USIA support would be quite useful. And if diplomacy is, in part, an exchange of ideas and a search for common ground, the export of new work (while sometimes controversial) would send a signal that our country supports creativity, cutting edge thinking, risk taking AND sharing.

[artsadvocate77]

05:30 PM on 09/21/2009

As someone who has lived in three countries outside the US, I agree with Mr. Kaiser’s opinion that exporting our marketing approach might be the better way to export
our culture. While living for an extended time in Australia, I did indeed feel the resentment that American culture was far too influential. However, when it came to the classical ballet the resentment at times was in the extreme. Australians have long since been recognized as having one of the most successful training academies in the world The Australian Ballet School. Also as puzzling perhaps as it may seem this excellent training bubbles up from excellent schools and academy throughout the vast nation of Australia with its relatively low population. The dancers of Australia are all over Europe and the US in the past and present. The are the most expansive and generous of dancers. It is said that is in part because of the Australian geography. They do have a full and rich outdoor life in Oz. How could you not? In Australia they are use to having excellent government support but with the world economy changing is such a drastic way I can certainly see the wisdom of Mr. Kaiser’s view point. This would build positive relationships and give a unifying goal that we are a team of artists and art leaders trying to help each other.

[Dots]

02:03 PM on 09/21/2009

Your efforts are a real path toward peace. I applaud your fine work.
I worry that art in America is "taken for granted" in the mind of most people.

[Haglund]

09:19 AM on 09/21/2009

While exporting American arts management talent as cultural diplomacy could certainly help foreign arts organizations strengthen their business sides, it is unlikely that the true beneficiaries of that exchange, the arts audiences of that country, would ever know fully the American influence on their own art forms. The impact that Monica Mason, The Royal Ballet, Alicia Alonso, the Cuban National Ballet and the Cuban National Symphony were able to achieve by joining forces to communicate to the Cuban people in their shared language - the love of ballet - demonstrates how the actual sharing of performing arts groups among countries builds relationships between the peoples of different countries, not just between the diplomats. Advocating that the US government not support foreign tours of our country’s most brilliant performing arts groups is a dangerous and counterproductive proposition by any lover of the arts. It will surely lead to private donors being reluctant to support such organizations as well.

-- Haglund's Heel

[wilky]

10:24 PM on 09/21/2009

Exchanges of knowledge are always useful, especially when they are true exchanges, not just "Americans teaching our less enlightened overseas friends," as this essay (perhaps unintentionally) seems to assert. "Haglund's Heel" is right that there is no substitute for the art itself (and artists themselves) in cultural diplomacy. To offer management teaching but not art simply perpetuates the stereotype of America as the money-obsessed, culture-deprived nation too many think it is already.