Accessible Art: The New Way Forward for Culture in Chicago

Nick Rabkin is an associate of the University of Chicago’s Cultural Policy Center and a member of the consulting team that created the new Chicago Cultural Plan. He has served as director of the Center for Arts Policy at Columbia College Chicago, senior program officer for arts and culture at the MacArthur Foundation, Deputy Commissioner of Cultural Affairs for the city of Chicago, and executive director of the Organic Theater.

The recently released Chicago Cultural Plan is the city’s first since the 1986 plan of Mayor Harold Washington’s administration. What does culture mean within the context of this plan? How did the developers of the plan arrive at that definition?

Culture is probably one of the most complex words in English, and it means many, sometimes contradictory, things.

We deliberately did not try to define culture as planners, but asked people to tell us what they thought culture was at the many public events that were part of the process. Culture should be democratic in a democracy. What they told us was that culture is not just the arts, though they are a very important part of culture in Chicago. They told us it is the threads that tie us to each other as a community, that tie us to our histories, and the aspirations that inspire our future.

That meant that the cultural plan needed to be big and expansive, needed to be about the neighborhoods and downtown, and needed to be about weaving the city together as much as it needed to be about the arts, per se.

Having been a part of the development of both the 1986 and 2012 plans, what do you see as their similarities and differences? Are there elements of today’s plan that aim to improve upon the city’s previous plan?

The two plans have much in common. That’s because many challenges we face in the world of culture are persistent and not new. So it should be no surprise that resources for the arts and culture are still a big problem. So is improving conditions and opportunities for artists.

Arts education was a big concern in the first plan. It still is. This time there may actually be the public will to really do something. Cultural resources have been concentrated downtown for over a century, and vital downtowns have vibrant cultural assets. But investment in large-scale downtown cultural assets has not been balanced with development in neighborhoods.

So I see more in common than what is different between the plans on paper. But it is important to remember that Mayor Harold Washington died within a year of the first plan’s completion. Mayor Daley did some enormously important things for culture, many in the plan, but it wasn’t his plan, and he mostly ignored it. This is Mayor Emanuel’s plan, and he has a stake in delivering results, not just a plan.

Chicago, like many other US cities, faces very public struggles with a host of issues such as crime, education, poverty, and infrastructure. Why is it important for cities like Chicago to focus on culture?

If what we mean by culture is limited to what we often refer to as “high art,” it may not be so important. To a large degree our cultural system was structured around that concept, and it has resulted in a system that seems tilted toward the interests of only a very narrow, well educated, and wealthy slice of our community.

But that is not all that the arts are by any means. And there is mounting evidence that participation in the arts is vital to building strong communities, improving student achievement, keeping people on the streets, and making them safer. As for infrastructure, wouldn’t it be a great idea if it also had a spark of creativity and beauty? The key is really thinking about the arts as an asset we can all enjoy rather than an exclusive and elite domain. When we do that, it is simple to see how they can contribute enormously to improving the quality of life for everyone.

With thirty-six recommendations and more than two hundred suggested initiatives, some critics have argued that the current cultural plan is too abstract in its priorities and lacks the funding necessary to support implementation. Why does the plan retain a broader focus rather than narrowing its scope to a smaller number of concrete proposals?

The plan is very broad, but it reflects the breadth of input that we got through the very participatory process that we used. When you have thirty community meetings and thousands of people attend, you will collect a lot of ideas and opinions.

I frankly believe that there is another step that needs to be taken now: Which of those ideas have the most potential to make a difference for the city’s future? Which of them can we afford? Which should be implemented quickly, and which can we shelve for now—or forever, perhaps?

We had neither the time nor the resources that would be required to answer those questions as well as conduct the intensive participatory process. I hope that the city will mobilize another process to take them on now.

The development of the cultural plan stressed the importance of community member involvement and the plan itself is now referred to as a “call-to-action.” What role will citizens play in the plan’s implementation?

The public sector has never been the dominant force in cultural development. Private initiative has always been vital, though there is a great need for vision and leadership in the public sector. So the idea that leadership in the plan’s implementation will come from the community is nothing new. It is actually how it has always worked.

The public sector is still reeling from the effects of the recession, so it is hardly likely that it will drive the plan on its own. That doesn’t mean, though, that the public sector has no role or that it can’t be a force in making sure that what happens is balanced, focused on creating the maximum public benefits from the arts. It can and should do that.

What ideas within the plan are you personally excited about for the city? Are there particular initiatives you see as game changers for Chicago?

I had my favorites among the ideas that emerged from the process, for sure. I’m keenly interested in the idea of a national writers’ museum, and Chicago could be a great home for it. I love the idea of developing a network of summer festivals that activate public spaces along both branches of the Chicago River through the arts and connect people across neighborhoods. I have long been an activist for expanding arts education in CPS and our communities, and that idea seems to have real traction and support now.

I’d love to see real progress on reforming the building, zoning, and business license codes to be sensitive to the arts. That one is actually pretty simple, but it has long been opposed by entrenched and conservative bureaucracies. I suspect the Mayor could wave his hand at that one and make it happen.

But I also think it is vital to do the financial and benefits analysis before we leap headlong into new projects that will require boatloads of money. There’s not a lot of money looking for cultural projects, so we should be careful. That doesn’t mean we should shy away from all big projects. It just means we should proceed with real caution.

Feature Photo: cc/MPBecker