I benefited from the historic context provided by Ewell’s contribution: it substantiated Goldbard’s vision; at the same time Goldbard’s essay added an urgency to this discussion.

This area of inquiry is somewhat new to me and I have little to contribute, but I began to wonder if reversing the perspective from Goldbard’s “culture of politics” to the “politics of culture,” would lead to some interesting speculations.

For me the “politics of culture” conjured up the following:
• art institutions are removed from the public arena except as terminals of consumption -
• this in part is based on these institution’s subservient role in the system of unequal distribution of wealth -
• which reinforces “art” as a sphere removed from everyday life –
• and this in turn forces the “artist” to perform as a “catalyst” – in both beneficial and destructive ways, individually and communally.

All of these thoughts assume the narrow definition of culture as product/commodity or even anti-commodity.

The notion of culture in its expansive mode, as the context of a peoples’ life together, presents further speculations regarding the notion of the “politics of culture.” What comes to mind? - Individualism, rivalry, “roles” as definition of persona, scarcity of physical and spiritual resources – ultimately a deeply “disturbed” society, that is, one out of harmony.

So is it valid to conceive of the “culture of politics” introduced into the “politics of culture”– like a germ introduced to a petri dish – and if so, what exactly are we accomplishing?

In other words, the aims of the “community artist” can be therapeutic and assuage the acute disharmonies we currently suffer, however, the chronic situation still needs to be addressed. And is there a role for the “community artist” in that situation? And if so, what would it look like?

Bernard