Sustainability in the cultural field
Exploring the increasing development of sustainability in the context of cultural
policies, artists and cultural organizations in the Netherlands, Germany and the
United Kingdom.
Nora Campfens
MA Cultural Studies / Algemene Cultuurwetenschappen
University of Amsterdam / Universiteit van Amsterdam
Thesis supervisor / scriptiebegeleider: dr. C. Delhaye
Second supervisor / tweede lezer: drs. C. Wilschut
Student number: 5744202
Abstract
This research examines the increasing development of sustainability in the cultural fields across Europe. The (recent) history of the concept of sustainability will be researched, by analyzing selected publications and international conferences that focus on sustainability. The relationship of
sustainability with arts and culture in particular will be researched next, focusing on what the role of arts and culture could be in the sustainability discourse. A case-study will then be analyzed to further illustrate the concrete, practical way sustainability is placed within arts and culture in a European context. Focusing specifically on and comparing these developments in Germany, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, by analyzing how artists, cultural organizations and art policies are forming a framework in which sustainability can be placed, this comparison will establish what the position of the Netherlands is in this context.
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my thanks to everyone who has helped and supported me throughout the process of writing my thesis. First of all, I would like to thank my thesis supervisor, dr. Christine Delhaye, for her enthusiasm and encouragment, for providing me with valuable comments and advice, and for getting me in touch with Yasmine Ostendorf. I would also like to thank my second supervisor, drs. Karin Wilschut, for reading my thesis on an extreme short notice and for her kind words about it.
I am very grateful to Yasmine Ostendorf for helping me give my first idea a more concrete shape, and getting me in touch will the lovely people at TransArtists – especially Maria Tuerlings, Marie Fol and Mareile Zuber, who also deserve a special thank you for welcoming me into their office and providing me with all the information I needed to put together the case-study.
Futhermore, I would like to thank each of the GALA-partners who have graciously granted me some of their time to answer my questions: Gemma Lawrence, Marie le Sourd, Catherine Langabeer, Peter Gingold, Sigrid Niemer and of course Marie Fol, Yasmine Ostendorf and Maria Tuerlings.
I also thank my friends for sticking with me throughout my studies. This thesis would never have been completed without their peptalks, coffee breaks and occasional late night beers.
And last, but not least, I would like to thank my family, my parents and my sister, for their support, and for never losing their faith in me. This thesis is dedicated to them.
Contents
Abstract 2
Acknowledgements 3
Introduction 6
1. Sustainability – a global phenomenon 8
1.1 Sustainability, a starting point 8
1.2
Sustainability after the Second World War 101.2.1 The Club of Rome 10
1.2.2 The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm 12
1.2.3 The Brundtland Report / WCED 13
1.2.4 The Earth Summits, 1992 – 2002 – 2012 14
1.3 Sustainability; an increasingly layered concept 15
2. Sustainability and arts and culture 17
2.1 Sustainability and its relationship with arts and culture 19
2.2 Cultures of sustainability 25
2.3 Towards a practical implementation of the cultures of sustainability 27
3. Case-study: the Green Art Lab Alliance project 29
3.1 The Green Art Lab Alliance: goals and wishes of an international project 32 3.2 Examining the role of the cultural and political actors in the sustainability
discourse, in the context of the case-study 36
3.3 GALA: an example of international collaboration 42
4. Sustainability in the cultural field in Germany, the United Kingdom and
the Netherlands – a comparative analysis 44
4.1 Germany 44
4.2 The United Kingdom 49
4.3 The Netherlands 52
Conclusion 57
Appendix A Timeline of selected publications and events regarding sustainability 66
Appendix B Additional information about the Green Art Lab Alliance 67
The partners 67
The Green Art Lab Alliance. ‘Whishes and Challenges’ 71
The Green Art Lab Alliance. ‘Our vision for the Green Art Lab
Alliance’ 74
Report for the GALA workshop, Berlin March 12 and 13, 2014 76
Introduction
This thesis has been written to examine current developments of sustainability within the cultural sectors in Europe, focusing specifically on Germany, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. A case-study is added, to offer insight on the concrete way sustainability is placed within a framework of cultural organizations, funders, cultural policies and artists, working together (inter)nationally towards the implementation of sustainable practices in the cultural sector.
Research questions
The main research question of this thesis is: what is the position of the Netherlands in an European context regarding the implementation of sustainability in the cultural sector? To answer this question, several sub-questions have been formulated, which will be explained below.
First and foremost, the thesis should begin by stating the definition of the term sustainability to specify how the term is applied in the research. This provides the first challenge, as sustainability has become a very complex, layered concept. As long as mankind has had a relationship with the (natural) environment, there have been stories told, texts written and pictures painted about this relationship and its preservation. Thus, to give an inclusive definition of the concept of sustainability, it would require a thesis of its own.
The thesis therefore begins with a brief account of the development of the concept of sustainability that has led towards the usage of the term today. The first chapter will answer the question of how the concept has developed in (recent) history by tracing its origins and focusing on specific moments in recent history that have mainly shaped the sustainability discourse, by offering an analysis of certain international conferences and publications on the subject.
The second chapter will focus specifically on the relationship between sustainability and arts and culture. The main aim of this chapter is to answer the question of what the potential role of arts and culture in the sustainability discourse could be, also taking into account the (presumed)
discrepancy between autonomous art and socially engaged art, in regards to sustainability.
The question that is answered in chapter 3 is: what is an example of a concrete way that arts and culture are currently given a role in the sustainability discourse. To answer this question, an international project will be analyzed as a case-study in this chapter. The Green Art Lab Alliance project is a collaboration of twenty cultural organizations from a variety of European countries, co-funded by the European Commission to aid in their collaborative goals of exploring ways to incorporate sustainability in their daily activities and set up a “knowledge alliance” to share their experiences.
The focus within this thesis will be on the participating partners from Germany, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Chapter 4 will therefore answer the fourth sub-question: in what way is
sustainability interpreted and implemented in the cultural sectors of these countries, by analyzing and comparing the way sustainability is placed within a framework of cultural organizations, cultural policies, artists and funders.
The thesis will then come to a conclusion. Here, the gained insights and conclusions from the individual chapters will be summarized to come to an overall conclusion, answering the main research question by establishing the position of the Netherlands in a broader, European context in regards to the role of culture in the sustainability discourse, and the potential improvement of this position, while also giving an outlook and suggestions of themes and topics that could be researched further.
Methodology
While the cultural history of the concept of sustainability and the theoretical framework of the relationship between arts and culture and sustainability presented in the first two chapters, is based on the research of literary sources, the analysis of the case-study in chapter 3 is the result of a more empirical approach. The comparison of the interpretation and implementation of sustainability in the cultural sectors in Germany, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands in chapter 4 is based on a combination of both research methods. To gain insight into the project, as well as the cultural
“landscape” of the countries mentioned above, several of the partners that participate in the Green Art Lab Alliance have been interviewed. These interviews have been analyzed to extract specific,
qualitative information, which is presented in chapters 3 and 4.
Furthermore, several appendices have been added to the thesis, to offer further insight into the topic, as well as a starting point for further research; these include a timeline that summarizes the history of the concept of sustainability, extensive background information on the Green Art Lab Alliance by providing documents and the transcripts of the interviews, as well as a collection of (online) resources that concern sustainability in relation to arts and culture.
Chapter 1. Sustainability - a global phenomenon
Sustainability, or sustainable development is a popular concept. It pops up everywhere, in fashion shows, news reports, political debates. But wat is sustainability? It seems that everyone has their own specific definition of the concept, to suit their own agenda. So how can this phenomenon, with its long historical lineage, cultural layers and nuances and its prominence in various discourses, be defined?
To come to an understanding of how cultural sustainability is used in the context of this reseach, this chapter will consist of a brief summary of the historical development of the concept, focusing mainly on the several publications on sustainability and international conferences held since the Second World War. The second chapter will then examine the specific relationship between sustainability and culture.
1.1 Sustainability, a starting point
Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. Genesis 2:15
This is one of the most referred to examples of the long tradition of the ambivalent and
anthropocentric relationship of humans with their environment in Western culture: to both care for nature and use its resources.1 Altough there have been written sources on humans’ interaction with
nature that go back as far as the ancient Greek, to trace the concept back this far would exceed the relevance of the summary at hand.
Instead of an inclusive history of the origins of the concept of sustainability, one key moment in Western history will be highlighted here, to form a starting point for tracing the development of the concept.
According to Ulrich Grober, in his account of the cultural history of sustainability, the origin of the concept of the sustainable management of nature can be traced to two foresters: John Evelyn (1620 – 1706) in England and Hans Carl von Carlowitz (1645 – 1714) in Germany, who both witnessed the rapid decrease of wood supplies, the main source of fuel and basis of any production process at this time.
Evelyn wrote Silva, or A Discourse of Forest-Trees and the Propagation of Timber in His Majesty's Dominions in 1662. In this work about forest management and gardening, he states his
1 Gober, Ulrich. Die Entdeckung der Nachhaltigkeit. Kulturgeschichte eines Begriffs. Verlag Antje Kunstmann
GmbH, München: 2013: 55 – 56, Harlow, John, Aaron Golub, Braden Alleny. A Review of Utopian Themes in Sustainable Development Discourse. Sustainable Development 21.4 (2011): 275.
objections to the cutting of trees on a large scale, arguing that the beauty of forests should be preserved for the future and criticizing his contemporaries for focusing only on the economic profit.2
Carlowitz’ book Sylvicultura oeconomica or Anweisung zur wilden Baumzucht from 1713 also shifts the focus from economic profit on the short term, to a more long term solution of the supply problems. He proposes a strict management of the growth of trees, a limitation on cutting and the preferred use of substitutes for fuel, like turf, to overcome the shortage on the short term.3
Grober argues that both Evelyn and Carlowitz use very specific descriptions in their
arguments for a more sustainable forest management. For example, Carlowitz points out that forests should be treated “pfleglich” (with care) and with “Behutsamkeit” (caution).4 Shortly thereafter
Carlowitz uses the word “Nachhaltigkeit” for the first time in this context: to treat nature and its resources with care to sustain them for the long term. He connects the idea of conservation (from the latin word conservare, meaning to keep for the long term, emphasizing the temporal aspect) with sustainability (from the latin word sustenare, to keep in being emphasizing the active aspect), arguing that a society should not use more supplies than it can create in order to maintain its forests. According to Grober this provides the foundation of the concept of sustainability in its current context:
“Carlowitz entwirft nicht nur das Design für die Begriffsbildung. Er skizziert die gesamte Struktur des modernen Nachhaltigkeitsdenkens.”5
Carlowitz’ ideas about sustaining the forests and overcoming the supply shortage were a new way of thinking about sustaining supplies on the long term, but they had not enough impact to really solve the supply problems. About 80 years later, Alexander von Humboldt came to the same
conclusion as Carlowitz before him. He too saw the solution in a 20 – 30 year “time gap”, in which trees could be planted and fuel would be provided by using turf. These temporary solutions, however, became more or less permanent when more alternatives to wood were being discovered and used and, in a parallel development, the upcoming Industrial Revolution called for even more fuel.6
Before the Industrial Revolution everything, from fuel to materials used to build houses came from natural resources and was therefore biodegradable, creating little to no waste. This changed, when, initially just to overcome the fuel shortage created by the unsustainable management of forests, oil, coal and gas were used to replace wood.
Examples of the uses of coal can be found as early as the 16th century in Geat Britain, where
the fuel deficiencies drove up the prices of firewood. Coal was much cheaper, and gradually many businesses that required fuel began to substitute the expensive wood for the cheaper coal. The disadvantages of burning coal instead of wood, like the smoke polluting the air, were already noticed
2 Grober, 2013: 87 – 97. 3 Grober, 2013: 114 – 119. 4 Grober, 2013: 115 – 116. 5 Grober, 2013: 117. 6 Grober, 2013: 188 – 190.
at this early stage. For example, John Evelyn had published a pamphlet in 1661, an appeal for the reversal of the substitution of firewood with coal, proposing to overcome the shortage with importing more firewood from abroad. But the economic profits of using coal were to high.7
The Industrial Revolution made the path for a series of inventions, ranging from steam trains to building materials, leading up to an optimistic outlook into the 20th century. But the modernist confidence in technology not only escalated in two World Wars, but also lies at the foundation of the idea that technology will prevent environmental disasters.
1.2 Sustainability after the Second World War.
Several developments and cultural changes have occurred since the Second World War. The end of colonialism, globalisation and scientific knowledge of environmental issues led to an increased awareness of the global impacts of environmental pollution.
In line with modernist thought, initially it was asumed that technology would resolve all the issues. Since then, this attitude has slowly evolved as the growing scientific knowledge and general awareness about the global scale of environmental problems made it clear that technology would not be able to provide easy solutions, as the problems were increasingly understood in their complex contexts of political, economic, social and cultural conflicts. Since the 1960s there have been a large number of publications and international conferences on the topic of sustainability. A few of these will be analyzed here, to further illustrate the development of the concept.
1.2.1 The Club of Rome
One of the first publications on sustainability was The Limits to Growth, published by the Club of Rome in 1972. It’s authors, Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers and William W. Behrens III, were all part of the Club of Rome, which was founded in 1968 by Aurelio Peccei (1908 – 1984). Peccei was an Italian industrial who had travelled across Europe and Asia as a manager for Fiat. His travels had given him extensive knowledge of the economic developments in the West and a vast network of international connections. He used these connections to invite several scientists, academics, economists and governement officials to the Accademia dei Lincei in Rome in 1968, to discuss issues that concerned the global future. This group, henceforth known as the Club of Rome, identified several interconnecting problems, which they called the “world problematique”.8
In the introduction of The Limits to Growth, U Thant, UN Secretary-General from 1961 – 1971, expressed his worries for the (near) future. He claimed that the UN had ten years left to
7 Grober, 2013: 182 – 187.
8 Meadows, Donella H., Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers, William W. Behrens III. The Limits to Growth.
“subordinate their ancient quarrels and launch a global partnership”9 in order to effectively solve the
problems of poverty, population growth and environmental pollution. The authors continued to explain how population growth would lead to economic problems, such as food shortages, as well as an increase of environmental pollution, affecting the global food production. These hypotheses were based on models of economic growth, leading the authors to conclude that, if continued in the set course, the global economies would “overshoot”: when the earth’s resource limit would be reached, they would uncontrollably collaps. The only way to avoid this outcome, would lie in dramatic changes in various policies on these matters, on a global scale. As Grober rightly points out, in order to ensure a world where all of the populations basic materialistic needs were met, a new sustainable global policy had to be found.10
The book was initially a great succes, selling close to 10 million copies worldwide,11 an
unheard of number for a science book, but it was also heavily critized. One of the reasons the book has suffered a long aftermath of negative critique, could be that many reviews only focused on the books negative prediction of the human condition.12
Others argue that many of the negative reviews are based on a misinterpretation of the message the book tries to convey. It’s author Jørgen Randers, for example, argues in an article from 2010, published on the Club of Rome’s website, that most of the negative connotations are based on a linguistic misinterpretation of the word “growth”. According to him, the language used in The Limits to Growth has since evolved into a specific jargon. The word “growth” itself, he argues, has often falsely been equated with “economic growth” rather than being understood in its meaning within the context of the book, which in todays words would be “growth of environmental impact”. It is therefore a misconception that the book and its authors were making a case against economic growth. Although they argued that societies were steering towards overshoot unless there would be a major change of (consumer) behavior, they didn’t explicitely reject economic growth as such, just its environmental implications.13
The real message of The Limits to Growth, according to Randers, is that global economies must change their course to avoid an overshoot, but due to bureaucracy this is unlikely to happen in time:
“Global society is likely to overshoot – and then be forced to decline or collapse – because of significant reaction delays in the global economy. These are the unavoidable lags in the perception and localization of global limits, the significant institutional delays involved in (democratic) decision
9 Meadows, et al., 1972: 17.
10 Meadows, et al., 1972: 9 – 12, 17, Grober, 2013: 225 – 228.
11 Moll, Peter. The discreet charm of the Club of Rome. Futures 25.7 (1993): 801.
12 Moll, 1993: 801, Randers, Jørgen. What was the message of the Limits to Growth? The Club of Rome. April
5. 2010. Web. March 22, 2014.
making, and the biophysical lags between implementation of remedial action and the improvement of the ecosystem.”14
While its contents could either be perceived as a wake-up call or a collection of doomsday scenarios, the book did spark discussion about what (environmental) sustainability could mean in a globalized world and could therefore be seen as the beginning of a series of global conferences, publications and general public debate about this issue.
1.2.2 The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm
Another factor in the popularity of The Limits to Growth could be the timing of its publication: right before the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, in the summer of 1972. It was the first global conference that was attended by government officials from all over the world and the first conference that adressed and connected issues such as environmental pollution and social inequalities on a global scale. Its key phrase, only one earth, came from the accompanying publication Only one Earth – the care and maintenance of a small planet, by Barbara Ward and René Dubois, who connected scientific knowledge about the state of the environment, with social issues such as poverty. The conference had a significant impact on world politics. In preparation of
attendence, several governments appointed commissions to exclusively focus on environmental issues and possible solutions.15
Grober highlights two major turning points that happened during this conference: the already mentioned connection between environmental pollution and poverty, which was highlighted even more by Indira Gandhi’s speech,16 and René Dubois’ connection between the local and the global.
Dubois highlighted that global problems started at a local level and that local actions and solutions could significantly add to solutions on a global scale.17
The conference issued a declaration which consisted of 26 statements that became
incorporated within the sustainability discourse. The first statement recalls the history of mankind and the relationship between humans and their environment when it opens with the sentence “Man is both creature and moulder of his environment”.18 This shows the acknowledgement of the impact of human
action on the environment and the responsibility to limit the consequences thereof.
14 Randers, 2010.
15 McDonald, John W. United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. International Negotiation. 1.2
(1996): 225, Grober, 2013: 233.
16 In her speech, the Indian Prime Minister Gandhi pointed out that many of the worlds poorest suffer from the
worst impacts of environmental pollution. The most cited sentence from this speech is “Poverty is the greatest polluter”, which, accordig to Grober, is a rather limited interpretation of a very complex issue, but nevertheless raised awareness of this particular aspect of environmental problems. Grober, 2013: 234 – 237.
17 Grober, 2013: 237.
18 United Nations. Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. United Nations,
The following statements already imply the dilemma this causes:19 on the one hand, following
the argumentation of The Limits to Growth, it acknowledges that there are limits to economic growth, but at the same time, it also states that economic well-being is something every person in the world should have acces to.20
1.2.3 The Brundtland Report / WCED
This tension between economic growth for economic and social equality and the unsustainable implications of economic growth is underscored even more in the Brundtland Report, published in 1987. In 1983, former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland was asked by the UN Secretary General to establish the World Commission on Environment and Development (short WCED), often referred to as the Brundtland Commission. In the introduction to the report, titled Our Common Future, Brundtland explaines the four major goals of the commission aimed at long-term strategies for sustainable devlopment by increasing international co-operation, placing much emphasis on international collaboration but also on an interdisciplinary approach. The idea that environmental problems could no longer be seen as isolated from social and economic inequality is one of the main threads in the Brundtland Report and is explicitly stated by Brundtland in the introduction:
“The environment does not exist as a sphere separate from human actions, ambitions, and needs, (…) the ‘environment’ is where we all live; and ‘development’ is what we all do in attempting to improve our lot within that abode. The two are inseparable. (…)These links between poverty, inequality and environmental degradation formed a major theme in our analysis and
recommendations. What is needed now is a new era of economic growth – growth that is forceful and at the same time socially and environmentally sustainable.”21
Brundtland not only linked these issues, but made sure to invite experts from the varying intersecting fields and from all over the world, to “span the globe”22 with this international and interdisciplinary
approach, which is also echoed in the publication’s title.
This main theme of connecting economic equality with sustainability, was summarized in the definition of “sustainable development”, which was immediately incorporated within the mainstream discourse on sustainablity: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the
19 For example, the fourth statement reads: “Millions continue to live far below the minimum levels required for
a decent human existence, deprived of adequate food and clothing, shelter and education, health and sanitation. Therefore, the developing countries must direct their efforts to development, bearing in mind their priorities and the need to safeguard and improve the environment.” United Nations. Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. United Nations, 1972. Web. March 28, 2014.
20 Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment: 1972. 21 Our Common Future: 1987.
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.23 Clearly,
economic growth and sustainability here are no opposites. The emphasis of the report is placed on economic growth in the developing countries, but also on finding sustainable ways for this
development while at the same time the “developed” West is urged to consider how to transform their already established practices into sustainable ones. So the economic development was seen as
absolutely neccesary to even out the gap between the worlds richest and poorest.
Contrary to many publications before the Brundtland Report, its tone was optimistic, rather than painting a “doomsday” scenario, which was the critique of many earlier publications, like The Limits to Growth.24 Looking back, Brundtland has stated that she wanted to show that there were ways
to turn negative developments around, to create strategies and plans for concrete actions that would have a real impact.25 On a semantic level, it is interesting to note that this wish is reflected by the
phrasing. Instead of “limits”, she is focusing on “developments” and instead of “rights”, the report speaks of “needs”.26
1.2.4 The Earth Summits, 1992 – 2002 – 2012
The “call for action” was echoed in the so called Earth Summits, taking place in 1992, 2002 and 2012. The first of these United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (short UNCED) was held in Rio de Janeiro. Due to the urgency conveyed in Our Common Future, which put sustainability on the worlds agenda, the UN started preparing the conference in 1989. The conference resulted in several agreements, its most prominent was Agenda 21. This “action plan”,27 was enthousiastically
signed by all attending world leaders, but the plan was never legally binding, making it in fact less meaningful as plan for concrete implementation.
This was even more clear at the “follow up” conferences.28 These were aimed at reaffirming
the agreements of Agenda 21, but it became increasingly difficult to negotiate because of conflicting interests on political and economic levels. The Earth Summits clearly took on the interdisciplinary approach, initiated by earlier conferences, but it resulted in such a broad spectrum of interconnecting
23 Our Common Future: 1987. 24 Moll, 1993: 801.
25 In an interview, held 15 years after the publication of Our Common Future, she said: “I believe that human
beings have the ability to share concerns and take corrective action. There are a lot of examples of this, although, as we look at the world today, progress is clearly far too slow. I have always believed that once we fully see the economic consequences of a set of actions – or inaction – the complex process of decision-making and policy development can turn towards sustainable solutions.” Bugge, Hans Christian, Lawrence Watters. A Perspective on Sustainable Development After Johannesburg on the Fifteenth Anniversary of Our Common Future: An Interview with Gro Harlem Brundtland. Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 15 (2003): 365.
26 Grober, 2013: 266 – 267.
27 United Nations. Agenda 21. June, 1992. Web. April 7, 2014.
28 Before the second UNCED in 2002 in Johannisburg, there were several smaller conferences, for example the
UN General Assembly Resolution session on Sustainable development (UNGASS) in 1997. O’Riordan, Timothy. ‘The Rio Process’: The Politics and Substantive Outcomes of ‘Earth Summit II’. Global
problems that some authors even claim that these global conferences cannot be expected to solve any complex issues at all.29 But this doesn’t mean they don’t have any impact at all; they are still important
for keeping sustainability on the global agenda and for raising general public awareness.30
Nevertheless, it shows that the “doomsday” scenario of the Club of Rome, with its prediction of global overshoot, and the worlds politics reacting too slow to avoid it, might not be so far off.31
1.3 Sustainability; an increasingly layered concept
Throughout history humans have always had a relationship with their environment. At first, it was just the natural world humans lived in. But the relationship changed when “nature” became “resource” with the increasing needs for energy. The increase of the worlds population led to a decrease of firewood, which led to an increase of fuel and energy demand, becoming more urgent with the Industrial Revolution and later two World Wars, prompting the use of cheaper and more polluting alternatives. After the Second World War it became clear that both the deforestation and the usage of alternative, non-sustainable energy had severe consequences for the global environment.
Following several publications on environmental pollution and the public debate these initiated, a number of international conferences were held in order to address this issue. These conferences laid bare the complex implications of environmental pollution on a global level and the intimate connection to other problematic global developments, such as the rapid growth of world population, poverty and social inequality. All conferences had in common that they strived for intensified international collaborations and that they approached the issues from an increasingly interdisciplinary standpoint.
This led to the concept of sustainability becoming more complex: its definition now
incorporates the environmental, economic and social aspects, summarized in the Brundtland definition of sustainability: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.32
Although these international conferences have greatly added to the global awareness of environmental issues and the urgency of sustainable alternatives, these solutions have not been implemented, at least not on a large enough scale, because of the economic benefits on the short term and the bureaucracy of making long term political commitments.
29 O’Riordan, 1998: 97.
30 O’Riordan, 1998: 93, 95 – 97.
31 For example: “Overshoot day” is the day the earth’s resources, calculated for the year, have been exhausted.
This date has been earlier every year, since 1993. Grober, 2013: 273. Global Footprint Network. Earth Overshoot Day. August 20, 2013. Web. April 2, 2014.
Surprisingly, culture is largely absent from the various reports, definitions and descriptions of sustainability and its interdisciplinary approaches. Only in passing is it mentioned, for example in Brundtland’s introduction when she speaks about bringing together experts from varying fields to work together on the report: “The fact that we all became wiser, learnt to look across cultural and historical barriers, was essential”33, which clearly refers to the background of the researchers, and not
to culture as a tool in their quest for sustainable development.
The first time culture is mentioned in the context of the sustainability discourse, is in 2004. Amongst all the “follow up” conferences and publications after the UN Earth Summit in 1992, there was one conference with an accompanying publication, both titled the “Agenda 21 for Culture”. This document is the first to focus exclusively on the role of culture within the sustainability discourse, while still acknowledging the complex context. It was signed by “local governments from all over the world to enshrine their commitment to human rights, cultural diversity, sustainability, participatory democracy and creating conditions for peace”.34
More recently, in 2012 the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) published a “thematic think piece” called Culture: a driver and an enabler of sustainable development. This shows that in recent years culture has slowly become more prominently featured in the debates concerning sustainability. The next chapter will focus on this relationship, outlining what role culture may have within the sustainability discourse.
33 Our Common Future: 1987.
Chapter 2. Sustainability and arts and culture
The previous chapter showed how sustainability has developed into a multi-layered concept, which can be interpreted in a number of different ways. The Brundtland Definition, which is used frequently in the sustainability discourse, connects the society (or in a broader sense the world) we live in today with the one we will live in in the future. It speaks of “needs”,35 implying social and economic aspects.
This definition is often conceptualized in a model illustrating these aspects in a triangle or pyramid with three “pillars” that stand for the environmental, economic and social aspects of sustainability. Although the presentation of these pillars can vary slightly, they usually convey the same message (see illustrations 1, 2, 3).
Illustrations 1, 2, 3.
In the introduction to Kultur – Kunst – Nachhaltigkeit. Die Bedeutung von Kultur für das Leitbild Nachhaltige Entwicklung, the president of the German Umweltbundesamt from 1995 – 2009, Prof. Dr. Andreas Troge, problematizes such models depicting a triangle of “environment”, “economy” and
“society/social space”, because this presupposes the equality of the three pillars. He argues that it is often asumed that the focus on one of the three will be at the cost of the other two, implying that they are, in fact, not equal but conflicting.36
Furthermore, culture is usually not represented in this model, a critique that is shared by other authors.37 It can sometimes be included in the “social” pillar, but it is never presented as an equal pillar
or an integral part of society that has the same weight or value in the sustainability discourse. But since the publication of the Agenda 21 for Culture, calling for the acknowledgement of the importance of cultural diversity, and its advancement by (local) governments,38 culture has slowly
begun to appear in various publications that engage with sustainability. Some authors are calling for culture as the “fourth pillar”, although, as will be discussed in this chapter, many argue that the model is deficient and call for a new approach altogether.39
In 2010, UNESCO published a brochure titled The Power of Culture for Development, which stated that culture was an integral part of solving global problems, including the development of sustainable practices: “culture is an essential investment for peace and stability, and is a prerequisite for the success of human development. A more visible and effective inclusion of culture in
development programmes at local, national, and international levels is critical for sustainable development.”,40 already pointing at the role that (local) governments could have.
The first conference that centred specifically around the connection between culture and sustainability was an international congress in Hangzhou, China, in May 2013, called “Culture: Key to Sustainable Development”. This conference “underlined the role of culture in fostering sustainable development as an enabler and as a driver” and aimed at “providing state of the art knowledge, research, data and best practices on the contribution of culture to sustainable development”,41 which
was echoed in the conference’s declaration, stating that culture was key to shaping a sustainable future through implementation in a local context. The declaration focused even more on the role of local governments, urging them to “integrate culture within all development policies and programmes”.42
36 Kurt, Hildegard, Bernd Wagner, eds. Kultur – Kunst – Nachhaltigkeit. Die Bedeutung von Kultur für das
Leitbild Nachhaltige Entwicklung. Kulturpolitische Gesellschaft e. V., Bonn, Klartext Verlag, Essen: 2002: 10.
37 For example, Hildegard Kurt, Sacha Kagan.
Kurt, 2002a: 13, Kagan, Sacha. ‘Cultures of sustainability and the aesthetics of the pattern that connects’.
Futures: The journal of policy, planning and futures studies 42.10 (2010): 1094. 38 Agenda 21 for Culture: 2004.
39 For example, Werner Schenkel, who states he was initially in favour of appointing culture as the “fourth
pillar”, but revised his opinion, arguing that culture is an overlapping entity that encompasses all segments of society, including all three pillars, and is therefore essential to the sustainability discourse.
Schenkel, Werner. ‘Kultur, Kunst und Nachhaltigkeit? Einführungsvortrag in die Tagung am 10./11. Januar 2002’. Kultur – Kunst – Nachhaltigkeit. Die Bedeutung von Kultur für das Leitbild Nachhaltige Entwicklung. Kurt, Hildegard, Bernd Wagner, eds. Kulturpolitische Gesellschaft e. V., Bonn, Klartext Verlag, Essen: 2002: 38.
40 UNESCO. The Power of Culture for Development. September 14, 2010. Web. June 8, 2014. 41 UNESCO. The Hangzhou Congress. Web. June 8, 2014.
These recent publications and conferences show that culture is slowly gaining ground and that, although perhaps not as easily or naturally as the economic or social elements, it is being increasingly considered to have an integral part in the sustainability discourse. But the question is how this role can be defined, and how it can be implemented without falling into the feared instrumentalization of the arts. Most publications on culture and sustainability, although stating firmly that culture should play a role, use unspecific or even vague formulations on what that role could be.43The following chapter
will focus on the relationship between culture and sustainability, and on the role that culture could potentially have in the sustainability discourse.
2.1 Sustainability and its relationship with arts and culture
The relationship between arts, culture and nature is prominently featured in “environmental art”. This term is usually used to describe artforms that use the (natural) environment or natural or recycled materials. The best known form is land-art, developed in the late 1960s and 1970s from conceptual art and as a reaction to consumerism, by artists such as Robert Smithson or James Turell, although these artists’ primary concern was not the environment, nor were they trying to make a point about
conserving nature (on the contrary, Smithson’s work Spiral Jetty (1970) caused permanent damage to the landscape).44 They did, however, lay the ground for the development of “environmental art” that
started to question the decrease of natural resources, materialism and waste, and the relationship between humans and their natural environment.
The late ’60s and ’70s are mostly known for the emergence of countercultures, fueled by a rejection of conventions and traditions paired with the longing for a new way of life, a better future; themes that inspired new artforms and lifestyles. This was also the time the first scientific studies about environmental problems were published. In 1975 the environmental scientist James Lovelock published his Gaia-theory, a holistic view of the world as a complex, self-regulating system.45
Lovelock’s theory saw a positive reception from environmentalists. It’s topic fits into the Zeitgeist of countercultures and their new view of nature. But also themes like the search for the “self”, harmony with nature and an utopian ideal of a better future were part of the Zeitgeist. According to authors like cultural critic Maarten Doorman, such themes are part of a revival of Romanticism. Doorman also places the renewed examination of the relationship of humans with
43 For example, in the UNESCO brochure The Power of Culture for Development, there is a statement saying
that: “A variety of current environmental challenges such as depleting water sources, shrinking forest covers, and disappearing species, rooted in a disregard for the environment, may be addressed by positive practices
embedded in local cultures that value a balance between natural and human worlds”. UNESCO. The Power of Culture for Development. September 14, 2010. Web. June 8, 2014.
44 Honour, Hugh, John Fleming. A World History of Art. Laurence King Publishing Ltd, London: 2009: 859 –
861.
45 Doorman, Maarten. De Romantische Orde. Uitgeverij Bert Bakker, Amsterdam: 2008: 50 – 51, 55 – 57.
nature, as well as the examination of the relationship between art and society in general in this revival of Romanticism.46
According to him, these Romantic themes appear in the way artists interact with their
environment.47 Cultural critics Lewis Hinchman and Sandra Hinchman also argue in What we owe the
Romantics that in Romanticism, instead of “going back” to a time when humans (presumably) lived in perfect harmony with nature, a more foreward outlook could be observed in many artists’ work:
“When the [Romantic] poets confessed their feeling of kinship with all life, they did not simply mean that animals’ biological processes or genetic endowments resemble those in humans; rather they refer to the self-directing, self-expressive impulses that appear in a meadow flower, a birdsong and a poem. Quite literally, insight into the life of nature was also insight into the self and its animating principles.”48
Artists where often also scientists, marking the fluent transition from Enlightenment to Romanticism, and it was believed by writers and poets such as Goethe or Wordsworth that to know and scientifically unterstand nature only increased its beauty. They strived for an “interconnectedness” and for
recognition of the “interdependencies”49 of mankind and nature. This also led to the
“anthropomorphising” of nature; a result of an identification with nature, of appointing nature with an intrinsic value.50
These views of the natural world can also be observed in the revival of Romanticism after the Second World War, when, as discussed in the previous chapter, the faith placed in technology was starting to turn into a firm realization that technology would not be able to solve fundamental global problems – but was in fact part of the creation of those problems. As a result, a renewed interest in nature arose. Hinchman and Hinchman argue that the above mentioned anthropomorphising of nature is the reason many people fight for the preservation of natural environments; nature is believed to be worth of preservation because humans grant nature this value.51
Ralph Pite, professor in the Department of English at the University of Bristol, whose research area’s include the Romantic period, as well as ecocriticism, also adresses the question of preserving nature in How Green Were the Romantics? His conclusion echoes Hinchman and Hinchman’s: humans appoint value to nature, therefore a responsibility is created to preserve it. According to Pite, who distinguishes two categories of environmentalists, people who believe humans are responsible for nature because of their potential power to influence it, fall into the category of shallow
environmentalists. Deep environmentalists on the other hand, believe that humans are part of nature, and see the destruction of nature as the result of an enstrangement of humans from nature. Because
46 Doorman, 2008: 21 – 49, 63, 126, 157. 47 Doorman, 2008: 42 – 43, 56 .
48 Hinchman, L. P., S. K. Hinchman. ‘What We Owe the Romantics’. Environmental Values 16.1 (2007): 338. 49 Hinchman, Hinchman, 2007: 337 – 338.
50 Hinchman, Hinchman, 2007: 337 – 338. Doorman, 2008: 17. 51 Hinchman, Hinchman, 2007: 337 – 338, 350.
humans no longer see themselves as being part of nature, the preservation of the environment can only be possible if humans change their own behaviour.52
An example of an artist who can be placed in the latter category is American ecological artist Jackie Brookner. Brookner’s art focuses on the relationship of humans and nature, seeing humans as part of it and trying to reconnect them with this knowledge. Her so called “biosculptures”53 are
artworks that consist of closed, self-sufficient ecosystems that underline the relationship between humans and the natural environment, for example by showing the similarities of certain characteristics in nature with parts of the human body (see illustration 4).54 Other “artworks” include ongoing
projects, like the reintegration of a stormwater detention basin in Fargo, North Dakota, into the landscape and at the same time turning it into a recreational site for the local residents of the area, while also maintaining a certain aesthetic element. This project involves the artist as initiator, creator and connector, but it also involves residents, cityplanners, ecological specialists and the local
authorities.55
Illustration 4
According to Brookner, and in accordance with Pite’s definition of deep environmentalists, there needs to be a change of mentality that opposes individualization, but also the notion of autonomous art: “There is something (…) fundamental and (…) urgent that needs to happen: we need to
52 Pite, R. ‘How Green Were the Romantics?’. In: Studies in Romanticism, vol. 35 (1996) 3: 358 – 362, 371 –
372.
53 On her website, Brookner describes biosculptures as: “living sculptures that use the capacity of carefully
chosen plants to clean and filter water. Made of mosses, ferns and other plants growing on stone and concrete structures, they provide ecological and aesthetic solutions to water quality and water quantity problems.”. “Biosculptures”. Jackie Brookner. Web. June 10, 2014.
54 For example, “The Gift of Water” in Grossenhain, Germany, 2001. “The Gift of Water”. Jackie Brookner.
Web. June 10, 2014.
mainstream a differrent understanding of what being human can mean, and our relationship to the larger context of life.”56 Concretely, this is what Brookner implements when she makes “artworks”
that are actually (long term) projects, involving local communities, authorities and specialists, blurring the line between static works of art and “live” art (by using literally materials that are alive), taking the art out of a fixed, static context such as a museum, and changing her own role as an artist by involving non artists and therefore challenging both the role of the artist and the autonomous artwork.
These examples of “eco-art” show that the relationship of arts and the environment is part of a larger discourse on the place and significance placed on arts in society at large and the (apparent) conflict between autonomous and “social” art.
In his introduction to the exhibition catalogue of the 2005 – 2006 touring exhibition Beyond Green for the Smart Museum of Art, Victor Margolin, Professor Emeritus of Design History at the University of Illinois, also divides environmental art into several categories. Rather then to focus only on the motives, like Pite, he distinguishes art that engages with the environment in a concrete, direct way57 (like Brookner does in the example above with her art that engages with the landscape), art that
engages with sustainability through its practice (for example, by using recycled materials) and “art that responds to social issues through the productions of objects or discourse”.58
Margolin divides art into these categories to examine his observation of an increased
awareness of environmental sustainability in the arts, leading to an increase of art that can be placed in either of these categories. According to him, the lines between “sustainable art” and “social art” are becoming blurred, making it difficult to acknowledge if artworks belong to the third category.59 Often,
artists reject labels of “sustainable” or “social” art, perhaps fearing a categorization like this will undermine the value of the autonomous artwork, or possibly because these artforms transcend conventional categorizations of art. This shows how sustainability is slowly being recognized as a relevant topic in the art world, but how it also has difficulties fitting into a specific framework within these art worlds.
Critical views regarding art and sustainability often point at the (supposed) instrumentalization of art in the sustainability discourse. Cultural researcher and author Hildegard Kurt notes that prejudices often centre around artists who, in their visualization of unethical ecology, are accused of reducing art to a “communications-strategy”,60 therefore instrumentalizing or “using” the art for this cause and
leading critics to question its legitimacy as autonomous art. Whereas on the other end of this spectrum,
56 Brookner, Jackie. The Fargo Project: Jackie Brookner at TEDxFargo. October 14, 2012. Web. June 10, 2014. 57 Margolin includes all art that engages with the land or landscape in this category, also art that doesn’t
necessarily does this in a sustainable way. Margolin, Victor. ‘Reflections on Art and Sustainability’. Toward a
sustainable art. Stephanie Smith ed. Independent Curators International, New York: 2005: 22. 58 Margolin, 2005: 22.
59 Margolin, 2005: 24.
60 Kurt, Hildegard. Nachhaltigkeit, eine Herausforderung an die Kunst? Kulturpolitische Mitteilungen 97.2
art that is aesthetically pleasing is often considered to undermine the seriousness of the issue it is adressing.61 This raises the question of what the aesthetic of sustainability should be. Although this is a
very interesting point of discussion on its own, which unfortunately exceeds the space of this thesis, Kurt argues that at the base of this debate the question is wheter art should have a purpose beyond its autonomy. Should art take responsibility for society?
Kurt observes that the discourse around sustainability is often only seen as a environmental affair, not as a cultural one. The only links to art and culture seem to be in terms of utilizing them as a communications-strategy or functioning as an illustration.62 The only exceptions for this appear to be
particular artists (for example Joseph Beuys) from the eco-art movements that since 1960s have initiated a broader understanding of the concept of (autonomous) art: art as a process that is based on experience, that is open-ended and “working” as a social medium.63
Additionally, Kurt argues that there is also a change to be made within the established art worlds64 and cultural institutes, who are often ignorant of these questions, or are hesitant to engage in
the transdisciplinary approaches of art by merging art with sciences, or in a broader sense, approaching environmental sustainability from a cultural perspective. But this hesitant attitude of institutional art worlds also has to do with a decrease of monetary value if artworks change into projects and appear in new temporal and spacial frameworks: “Zum anderen sieht man in einer deutlichen Abtrennung der Kunstwelt als gesellschaftlicher Sonderbereich eine unverzichtbare Voraussetzung, um ökonomische Geltungs- und Wertansprüche zu behaupten”.65
In Kunst – Kultur – Nachhaltigkeit, which was edited by Kurt, she elaborates this point even more. She concludes how parallel to this Sonderbereich of society where artists work in an institutionalized context, there are also artists who reject these “art worlds” and try to merge the “Kunstwelt” into the “Lebenswelt” (referring to Zorn, Strelow, Fleiner and Steinmann):
“Beginnend etwa zeitgleich mit der Ökologiebewegung bildeten sich in der internationalen Kunstwelt kritisch gesellschaftsorientierte Praktiken heraus, die sich seitdem auf vielfältige Weise mit den sozialen und den ökologischen Verwerfungen der Industriemoderne auseinandersetzen. Heute besinnen sich weltweit immer mehr KünstlerInnen auf die gesellschaftsverändernden Potenziale der Kunst. Im eigenen Auftrag und auf neuen Wegen kehren sie aus dem
gesellschaftlichen Sonderbereich der Kunstwelt in die Lebenswelt zurück. Nicht im Sinne einer angewandten, sondern mit einer nach wie vor eigenständigen Kunst sucht diese neue Avantgarde ihr ästhetisches Gestaltungswissen in gesamtgesellschaftliche Transformationsprozesse
einzubringen (...). Grundlagen hierfür bieten namentlich die seit den sechziger Jahren ursprünglich in den USA entwickelte Konzeptkunst sowie die von Beuys eingeleitete anthropologische
61 Kurt, 2002b: 46. 62 Kurt, 2002b: 46. 63 Kurt, 2002b: 47.
64 This notion of “art worlds” is based on the definition by Howard Becker, who described an art world as “the
network of people whose cooperative activity, organized via their joint knowledge of conventional means of doing things, produces the kind of art works that the art world is noted for”. Becker, 1982, in: Alexander, Victoria D. Sociology of the arts. Exploring fine and popular arts. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Malden: 2010: 68.
Erweiterung des Kunstbegriffes, verbunden mit der Idee der Sozialen Skultpur.“ (emphasis added).66
Joseph Beuys (1921 – 1986) is often mentioned in relation to art and social issues as well as art and sustainability. Beuys was a German artists who expanded the concept of “art” (“Erweiterter
Kunstbegriff”) by developing artworks that transcended categorizations of “social art” or “ecological art”. He called his art “Gesamtkunstwerke”, and stated that anyone could participate in making art. This led to his idea of the “Sozialplastik”: art that moved out of a fixed context, such as the
materialism of an object, or the exhibition of art in a museum and could therefore have a substantial effect on society.67 For Kurt, who refers to Beuys on this matter, autonomous art is not cut off from
any social context, on the contrary, autonomy is the condition for critical, socially engaged art. To create a constructive diaologue, Kurt argues there need to be overlaps between art and sciences, and art and social space (“Lebensraum”), cutting through hierarchies within the
institutionalized art worlds. By viewing art as form of knowledge, Kurt sees it as an integral and equal part of the discourse.68 Art and sustainability should therefore be a basis for an interdisciplinary
approach that includes all actors and provides mutual impulses for development.69
This view is shared by several other authors. For Volker Kirchberg, Professor for Cultural Distribution and Cultural Organization in Applied Cultural Sciences at the Leuphana University in Lüneburg, whose research area’s include cultural sociology and sociology of the arts, the question of autonomy of the artist seems obsolete. According to him, artists always have, to some degree, a link to their environment, their context in society. Thus, art is always a social product, via production, distribution and consumption and can, as such, have a substantial influence on society:
“The question here is not wether but how the arts can contribute to a fundamental change. But do the arts feel the urgency? (…) The request for autonomy of the arts is not realistic and even
counterproductive in this context. Instead, an extensive involvement in the search for sustainability is desired. (…) The arts and artists are thus powers that might be able to influence future directions that our society might take.”70
Clearly, Kirchberg’s view is that we have already moved past the question of arts having a part in the sustainability discourse.
66 Kurt, 2002a: 256.
67 Adams, David. ‘Joseph Beuys: Pioneer of a Radical Ecology’. Art Journal 51.2 (1992): 28.
68 Margolin agrees with this, quoting Kurt who “believes that characterizing art as a form of knowledge can
empower it discursively”. Margolin, 2005: 24.
69 “An Schnittstellen zwischen dem Kunstfeld und den verschiedenen Lebenswelten müssen Rahmen entstehen,
innerhalb derer über längere Zeiträume hinweg in künstlerischen und zugleich wissenschaftlichen und zugleich sozialen Versuchsanordnungen an Gestaltungen für eine zukunftsfähige Moderne gearbeitet wird.“ Kurt, 2002b: 49.
70 Kirchberg, Volker. ‘Angst and Unsustainability in Postmodern Times’. Sustainability: a new frontier for the arts and cultures. Kagan, Sacha, Volker Kirchberg eds. VAS – Verlag für Akademische Schriften, Bad
This is echoed in another essay in Sustainability: a new frontier for arts and cultures. For Hans Dieleman, sociologist of art and sustainability, the very nature of art as a medium that challenges reality means that by default it has a place and a role in the sustainability discourse by “contributing to a societal change process”(emphasis original).71 But he also turns the question around by asking if
sustainability can be interesting for the arts. According to him, it is indeed interesting for the arts because of its implications of developing new lifestyles, products and systems, but also “new views and concepts of man, society and nature”.72
To summarize these statements: art and sustainability are complemental, they are inevitably connected to each other. The arts have indeed a special place or role in society, enabling them to question and challenge set conventions, traditions and ways of life. Sustainability is a topic which allows for these inquiries. But their autonomy does not mean the arts are somehow removed from their social context. It seems that the debate about the autonomy of art versus the engagement of art in social space has shifted.
These authors all acknowledge that there is a role for the arts in the sustainability discourse, and that autonomy, as a condition for meaningful artwork, can also mean it creates a responsibility for artists. A shift in the acknowledgment thereof seems to have started to develop, although art worlds and institutions, but also (cultural) politics seem to be slow in catching up to this development.
2.2 Cultures of sustainability
So what is the role of arts and culture? It is useful to differentiate here between the role of arts in sustainability, and cultures of sustainability. Several authors have observed the emergence of a culture or cultures of sustainability in the increasing awareness of the topic in every segment of society, bleeding into everyday actions.73 Monika Griefahn, co-founder of Greenpeace Germany and German
politician (she was the Minister for Environment in Lower Saxony from 1990 – 1998 and was a member of the German parliament, where she served as
chair of the committee on culture and the
media from 2000 – 2005
), defines culture as a wholesome entity, including traditions, lifestyles, behavioural patterns and more:“Über das künstlerische Schaffen hinaus gehören dazu auch Lebensformen, Wertevorstellungen, Traditionen und Glaubensrichtungen. Kultur ist in dieser Sicht der Schlüsselbegriff für das
71 Dieleman, Hans. Sustainability: a new frontier for the arts and cultures. Kagan, Sacha, Volker Kirchberg eds.
VAS – Verlag für Akademische Schriften, Bad Homburg: 2008: 110.
72 Dieleman, 2008: 110.
73 Wehrspaun, Michael, Harald Schoemps. ‘Schwierigkeiten bei der Kommunikation von Nachhaltigkeit. Ein
Problemaufriss’. Kultur – Kunst – Nachhaltigkeit. Die Bedeutung von Kultur für das Leitbild Nachhaltige
Entwicklung. Kurt, Hildegard, Bernd Wagner, eds. Kulturpolitische Gesellschaft e. V., Bonn, Klartext Verlag,
Gesamtgeflecht von Verhaltensmustern, Normen und Werten, die innerhalb einer Gesellschaft die Vorstellungen von Vergangenheit, Gegenwart und Zukunft prägen.“74
According to her, because of this broad understanding of culture in relation to sustainability, a similar broad understanding of the culture of sustainability is needed.
In The Cultural Dimension of Sustainability social scientist Davide Brocchi looks at the way sustainability is “lived” through culture. According to him, and in accordance with Griefahn’s definition, culture, as a social construct, lies at the heart of the sustainability discourse. To create a culture of sustainability, there needs to be a social change, through new ways of education, of
communication and of art.75 A major part of this change also lies in changing economic structures and
concepts, like the free market system or economic growth, where the state of development is always only measured one dimensional.76
Instead of measuring everything as a fragment, as is done in economy, Brocchi argues that it is more useful to regard everthing as part of a bigger unity, which is something that can be learned from nature and ecology. This shows a departure from the Romantic notion that nature and culture are opposites. Brocchi pleads for adopting a new worldview, equating nature, with its flexible borders, with culture, arguing that sustainable societies are more open and flexible, which leads to more cultural diversity.77
Cultural researcher Sacha Kagan, who specializes in the relationship between culture and sustainability, agrees that a new approach is needed. According to him, because we are living in an age wherein everything has become increasingly complex, we need to change thinking in terms of systems into thinking in terms of processes. 78 Only this way, the “apparent paradoxical reconciliations”79 that
are needed for a more sustainable future, for example between ecology and economy, or society, technology and environment as well as “inter- and intragenerational justice” can be solved.80
74 Monika Griefahn. ‘Nachhaltigkeitspolitik und Kulturpolitik – eine Verbindung mit Zukunft?’. Kultur – Kunst – Nachhaltigkeit. Die Bedeutung von Kultur für das Leitbild Nachhaltige Entwicklung. Kurt, Hildegard, Bernd
Wagner, eds. Kulturpolitische Gesellschaft e. V., Bonn, Klartext Verlag, Essen: 2002: 61.
75 “The ‘social construction of the reality’ is at first a cultural one, based on the dominant culture, a subculture or
an alternative culture. A sustainabable development means the change of the dominant monoculture of Globalisation into a diversity of cultures of Sustainability”. Brocchi, Davide. ‘The Cultural Dimension of Sustainability’. Sustainability: a new frontier for the arts and cultures. Kagan, Sacha, Volker Kirchberg eds. VAS – Verlag für Akademische Schriften, Bad Homburg: 2008: 27.
76 Brocchi, 2008: 37, 49. 77 Brocchi, 2008: 38 – 40, 47.
78 Kagan, Sacha. ‘Introduction. Sustainability as a New Frontier for the Arts and Cultures’. Sustainability: a new frontier for the arts and cultures. Kagan, Sacha, Volker Kirchberg eds. VAS – Verlag für Akademische
Schriften, Bad Homburg: 2008: 16.
79 Kagan, 2008: 15. 80 Ibidem.
These authors all agree that for a sustainable future, a paradigm shift or a change in mentality, or (consumer) behavior is needed,81 which is essentially a cultural change before anything else: “Der
Paradigmenwechsel hin zu einem neuen Fortschrittsbegriff braucht die gesellschaftlichen
Entwicklungspotenziale von Kultur und Kunst“ (emphasis original).82 The only way this paradigmshift
can happen is if existing structures in society, such as economic and cultural structures, are
(re)examined. Brocchi’s equation of ecology and culture can be useful here: biodiversity is good voor the ecosystem, a diversity of cultures and cultures without fixed borders, make a healthy society.83
It is therefore no longer effective to categorize sustainability into three “pillars” as in the model described in the introduction to this chapter. Instead, all authors mentioned call for an interdisciplinary approach, for a new way of thinking: in processes instead of systems; instead of thinking about development in a linear way, we should consider regarding culture as a “cycle”.84
Within these criteria, artists can have an important role as mediators, facilitators or enablers of dialogue, because they take sustainability away from the restriction of a closed scientific context and pull it into the centre of society. Sustainability is something that touches all segments of society, and therefore it is a cultural phenomenon.
2.3 Towards a practical implementation of the cultures of sustainability
“(…) vanuit het idee dat de science, dus echt de harde teksten en cijfers, eigenlijk een taal is die niet heel veel mensen aanspreekt (…) hoe kun je dat vertalen naar iets dat mensen begrijpen, dat ze kunnen vertalen naar hun eigen leven, wat ze aan het hart gaat [?] Het idee is dat de kunsten dat kunnen. Dat is muziek, beeldende kunst, film, van alles. Dus om een eigenlijk ingewikkelde, technische boodschap toegankelijk te maken voor een veel breder publiek. En altijd met het idee dat we geen activisten zijn (…) we wijzen niet met de vinger: “dit gaat verkeerd”, maar we willen juist laten zien: dit is heel erg mooi, dit zou een alternatief voor de toekomst kunnen zijn.”85
This is how Yasmine Ostendorf, programme director at Cape Farewell, based in London, describes her work. Her organization developed a number of programmes that link scientists with artists, giving them a context to work in together, to show what a sustainable future might look like. Artistic freedom is the basic condition: “artistieke vrijheid staat voorop (…) We zeggen nooit: het moet hierover gaan (…) Maar wat wel kan is iemand inspireren”.86 At Cape Farewell, the question is not wether artists
can have a role within the sustainability discourse. It is a given, it is what their organization is based on. Because artists have the unique ability to transform the “scientific language” of the sustainability discourse into something a large audience can understand and accept.
81 Brocchi, 2008: 37, Dieleman, 2008: 110, Kagan, 2008: 15, Kirchberg, 2008: 101 – 102, Kurt, Wagner, 2002:
253.
82 Kurt, Wagner, 2002: 253. 83 See also Kagan, 2008: 38 – 40.
84 Griefahn, for example, argues: “Andere, aufgrund ihrer Philosophie eher kreislauforientierte Religionen
beziehungsweise Kulturkreise (...) sind per se nachhaltiger ausgerichtet.“ Griefahn, 2002: 63.
85 Ostendorf, Yasmine. Personal interview. 02-05-2014. 86 Ibidem.
