Very promising conversation going on over at Artsjournal.com this week on the concept of replacing the terms "arts" and "culture" with "expressive life" when imagining public policy.
Here's how organizer Douglas McLennan frames things in the opening post:
Are the terms "Art" and "Culture" tough enough to frame a public policy carve-out for the 21st century? Are the old familiar words, weighted with multiple meanings and unhelpful preconceptions, simply no longer useful in analysis or advocacy? In his book, Arts, Inc., Bill Ivey advances "Expressive Life" as a new, expanded policy arena - a frame sufficiently robust to stand proudly beside "Work Life," "Family Life," "Education," and "The Environment." Is Ivey on the right track, or is "Expressive Life" a dead end? Can we define what's in and out, use "Expressive Life" to argue the value of heritage and artistic engagement, or should we just pump fresh oxygen into the old talking points? Is Ivey the Pied Piper, Don Quixote, or cultural policy's rendition of Bernie Madoff? Beginning Monday, fifteen of the smartest thinkers on art and society will put Expressive Life through the wringer. May the public interest win!
For more see the Expressive Life blog.