This article explores how responses to the pandemic in relation to creative workforces, organisations and their audiences, and the structures underpinning the performing arts in each of the G7 countries our research compared were shaped by and contributed to shaping debates regarding ‘cultural value’: the contribution culture is argued ...
This article explores how responses to the pandemic in relation to creative workforces, organisations and their audiences, and the structures underpinning the performing arts in each of the G7 countries our research compared were shaped by and contributed to shaping debates regarding ‘cultural value’: the contribution culture is argued to make to the economy, society, democracy, national or regional identity at home, political ‘soft power’ abroad, and population wellbeing. How these debates differed between countries reflects their respective historical understanding of the role of culture and the creative workforce in their national life.
We examine the impact of public and policy discourse in relation to the ‘essential’ nature of culture for national identity, social cohesion, and wellbeing; how the pandemic catalysed questions regarding the ‘viability’ of creative jobs; the importance of cultural heritage in relation to tourism and ‘soft power’; and the ways in which German arguments about the seminal role of culture and freedom of expression as tools for democratic engagement at times of crisis were echoed in other countries. Our comparative analysis reveals how in the English-speaking countries, those debates were enmeshed in the struggle for social justice that was fuelled by the dual forces of the pandemic, with its disproportionately negative impact on minoritised communities, and the murder of George Floyd. The comparison also reveals how overall, arguments for the intrinsic value of culture during COVID-19 made way for instrumentalist arguments that foregrounded the contribution of the creative industries to the economy and society.
