Journal of Cultural Management 2015 (2)

http://dx.doi.org/10.14361/zkmm-2015-0202

• Abstract

  As freedom of art should not be questioned, cultural financing is required to not interfere with artistic content. Thus, public funders, sponsors and donors claim objectivity, denying any influence. Unconsciously this is never the case: financing is multidirectional communication. Being its medium, money functions as a semantic system transporting meaning. Therefore, it always interacts with cultural and artistic production. Using a 3-sector model of society, this article investigates the transfer of meaning from the spheres of market, state and civil society into art, mediated through money.

Journal of Cultural Management 2015 (2)

http://dx.doi.org/10.14361/zkmm-2015-0203

• Abstract

  The present article investigates the legitimacy of cultural politics from the perspective of democracy politics. This question is dealt with on the basis of the Lincoln formula, “government of the people, for the people, and by the people.” Democratic equal liberty can only be implemented on the basis of solidarity among citizens and of the citizens towards the state; culture and the arts can contribute to these forms of solidarity, e.g. by constructing national cultures. In contemporary migration societies, this specific achievement of culture and the arts has, however, become doubtful, and has to be re-defined. Furthermore, culture and the arts are said to contribute to civic education, thereby enabling “government by the people”. Finally, culture and the arts create spaces in which conceptions of the public good can be confronted with each other, i.e. different meanings of “government for the people”.

  The second part of the article analyses different forms of financing culture and the arts out of the perspective of democracy politics – public financing, philanthropy, sponsoring, crowdfunding, and cultural and creative industries. In this way, the theoretical considerations of the first part are confronted with practices of cultural politics.

Journal of Cultural Management 2015 (2)

http://dx.doi.org/10.14361/zkmm-2015-0204

• Abstract

  The cultural sector is a field offering a high degree of individual conception and is thus crucial to a municipality’s identity. Its scope, nonetheless, appears increasingly narrowed by budgetary strains. This article identifies causes of this situation, debates reform logjams and presents courses of action that also illuminate the role of the ‘Länder’ (federal states) and especially the situation in Thuringia. It argues for a system to better interlock all levels of cultural policy, and advocates a more concept-based work approach. Ultimately, it offers some theses on the new Thuringian Cultural Concept.

Journal of Cultural Management 2015 (2)

http://dx.doi.org/10.14361/zkmm-2015-0205

• Abstract

  In Germany there is a long tradition of public funding of musical culture. Further support is given by collective agreements for the members of symphony orchestras. In larger cities, municipal funds for music promotion are mainly used for those orchestras who emphasize the performance of major orchestral works of the 19th century. The existential security of other artists plays a minor role in the concept of cultural policy, for example, musicians who specialize in a wide range of earlier musical eras or are focused on the musical diversity of the 20th/21st century, including jazz. An important historical milestone for the development of the German cultural profile was the establishment of the ‘Kulturorchestersystem’, which has been continually expanded since 1938.

  In this paper the history of the expression ‘Kulturorchester’ is outlined. The term implies the former concept of culture, especially the ideological beliefs of Peter Raabe, who was President of the Nazi institution ‘Reichsmusikkammer’. In Raabe’s tenure this term was raised to a legal concept. Given these historical findings, the study concludes that the use of the legal Nazi term ‘Kulturorchester’ is no longer acceptable. The analysis leads inevitably to the question of why after 1945 the policy has failed to enforce a fundamental course correction in the distribution of public funds for the development of musical diversity.

Journal of Cultural Management 2015 (2)

http://dx.doi.org/10.14361/zkmm-2015-0206

Journal of Cultural Management 2015 (2)

http://dx.doi.org/10.14361/zkmm-2015-0207

Journal of Cultural Management 2015 (2)

http://dx.doi.org/10.14361/zkmm-2015-0208

Journal of Cultural Management 2015 (2)

http://dx.doi.org/10.14361/zkmm-2015-0209

Journal of Cultural Management 2015 (2)

http://dx.doi.org/10.14361/zkmm-2015-0210

Journal of Cultural Management 2015 (2)

http://dx.doi.org/10.14361/zkmm-2015-0211

Journal of Cultural Management 2015 (2)

http://dx.doi.org/10.14361/zkmm-2015-0212

Journal of Cultural Management 2015 (2)

http://dx.doi.org/10.14361/zkmm-2015-0213

Journal of Cultural Management 2015 (2)

http://dx.doi.org/10.14361/zkmm-2015-0213

Journal of Cultural Management 2015 (2)

http://dx.doi.org/10.14361/zkmm-2015-0213

Journal of Cultural Management 2015 (2)

http://dx.doi.org/10.14361/zkmm-2015-0213

Journal of Cultural Management 2015 (2)

http://dx.doi.org/10.14361/zkmm-2015-0213

Journal of Cultural Management 2015 (2)

http://dx.doi.org/10.14361/zkmm-2015-0213

Journal of Cultural Management 2015 (2)

http://dx.doi.org/10.14361/zkmm-2015-0213