在文化和藝術生活絢爛多彩的紐約生活了一年，我有點意外地發現，這座城市從去年才開始醞釀她歷史以來的第一份文化規劃。這讓我不期然地想到，所謂的創意城市也許不一定是規劃得來的；那麼這份文化規劃，會給這座城市的文化創意錦上添花，還是弄巧反拙？
去年九月，紐約市政府宣佈文化局必須在今年六月內提交針對未來十年的文化規劃，讓市議會通過。因是之故，文化局馬上開展了研究整理的工作，並組織公眾參與活動，建立專題網站「創意紐約」（CreateNYC）。透過文化和社區組織合作，文化局在八個月的時間裡，一共舉辦了四百多場不同形式的意見收集活動，推動了18萬紐約人參與，亮麗的數字演繹著美國政策規劃過程中，政府對公眾參與的重視。
五月，相關意見匯總公佈，裡面提供了多項數據，反映居民在文化上的訴求，這些數據於即將出台的文化規劃工作會是很好的支持。可是，生活在這座城市的文化工作者，他／她們依然有滿腹的怨氣，認為諮詢時間過於倉促，尤其對於小型文化機構，根本無法充份參與；但更大的問題可能在於，非常多的文化工作者對規劃毫不知情。問題到底出在文化工作者對於切身的政策議題缺乏關注，還是諮詢工作沒有到位？
筆者更偏向於認為，任何的政策諮詢工作都不可能是全面的，最大的限制來自於時間。作為紐約市的第一份文化規劃，它根本難以以僅僅八個月的公眾意見收集為依歸，可是每任政策官員的任期有限，希望有所作為的官員，在推動政策規劃的公眾參與之前，就已經在給規劃工作照亮方向。而紐約市的這項規劃，從一開始研究課題的選定，到諮詢議題的設計，以及意見的滙整，都指向了一項首要的任務，就是推動文化上的平等──在川普實施反移民政策、倡議取消所有聯邦政府文化資助的背景下，它突顯了紐約市在文化政策上截然不同的視野與態度。
對於紐約而言，文化上的平等指的是生活在不同社區的不同群體，他／她們都應該享有同等的權力，去實踐其文化活動，發揚其文化傳統。紐約是一個多元族群的社會，百份之六十是有色人群；然而長期而來，它們的社區文化活動，都不被視為文化藝術，更難以成為政府資助的對象。資源的缺乏，讓這些社區機構無法提升專業水平，以爭取更多的資源。這一份文化規劃，就是要重新分配紐約的文化資源，並且重新定義，何謂文化。
推動著紐約市文化政策方向改變的人，是紐約市的文化專員Tom Finkelpearl，他曾經擔任紐約皇后博物館的館長。當年他把乒乓球桌放進了博物館裡，因為皇后區有大量華人居住，他就那樣和社區的居民打起了乒乓球，也聊起了牆上掛著的藝術──皇后博物館在他的帶領之下，成為了社區博物館的典範。今天，掌管紐約市文化事務的他，每周敞開著自己辦公室的大門聽取市民對文化規劃的意見，也出走了數以百計的意見收集活動，同時，他還繼續採用著他的「乒乓」文化策略。也許，在他看來，文化推動就跟打乒乓球一樣，一個人無法打得好，需要對手的參與，而他特別願意做那個先把球發好的人。
原載於 C2文創誌 第二十二期
Having lived in a vibrant, cultural city such as New York City for a year, I have discovered, much to my surprise, that the city’s cultural blueprint was not conceived until last year. It makes me consider whether a creative city can be planned. Can a cultural plan bring benefit or harm to the city’s creative development?
In September last year, the government of New York City announced that the Department of Cultural Affairs must submit its ten-year plan by this June for approval by the New York City Council. As a result, the Department immediately kicks off its research and planning, and begins a round of public consultation and activities, setting up a dedicated website “Creative New York” (CreativeNYC) for the project. In collaboration with cultural institutions and community groups, the Department organised over 400 different activities for the community, with 180,000 people taking part. These figures reveal the government’s emphasis on community involvement in planning and executing public policy.
Based on these activities and outreach, survey results were announced in May. The information collected reflects the cultural concerns of the public, and lends support to the government’s cultural plans. However, it is inevitable that the cultural practitioners who live in the city have their own grievances, as some of them protest that the public consultation has been conducted in haste, jeopardising the opportunities for smaller-scale cultural organisations to take on a bigger role. Another major concern among these practitioners is that there is a considerable number of cultural practitioners who are unaware of the government’s plans and consultation exercises. So the question is: does it reflect that some cultural practitioners are not paying attention to the policy agenda most relevant to them, or is the consultation exercise inadequate?
In my opinion, it is infeasible to expect a policy consultation exercise to achieve a 100% coverage on the population, particularly given the time constraint. We have to bear in mind that this is New York City’s first cultural blueprint, and that the consultation period is limited to a number of eight months. Since each responsible government official in charge will only serve for a number of years, we can only hope that those incumbent, capable officers have done what they can to steer the public consultation. For the case of New York in particular, a priority behind the drawing up of policy agenda, the public consultation design and subsequent data-collection, is to promote equality in cultural development. In face of Trump’s anti-immigrant policy and urge to eliminate funding support for municipal governments, it highlights New York City’s open-minded vision and attitude.
For New York City, cultural equality means that different groups in the community can enjoy the same rights to take part in cultural activities and claim their traditions. After all, New York City is a diverse society, with 60% of its population being non-Caucasians. For a long time, the cultural activities of these people are not accepted as part of the city’s cultural tradition, and therefore cannot secure funding from the government. The lack of resources makes it difficult for these community organisations to improve their scope and quality of work, and in turn makes it harder for them to procure more resources. The new cultural blueprint aims to re-allocate the city’s resources and to redefine culture in a more encompassing way.
A key person in re-engineering this change in New York City’s cultural policy is the Cultural Affairs Commissioner, Tom Finkelpearl, who worked previously as Director of Queens Museum, New York. As Director, Finkelpearl decided to install a table tennis table in the museum. Since there is a lot of Asian residents in the district, Finkelpearl established a personal relationship with the residents there by playing table tennis with them. Through the table tennis game, he successfully introduced these people to the museum and, as a result, the museum has become a great example of community outreach. Nowadays, in his new role, Finkelpearl invites the community to offer their feedback towards New York City’s cultural development through his weekly consultation sessions. He also seeks public opinions through hundreds of activities and survey exercises. At the same time, he continues with his “table tennis” policy in overseeing culture. Perhaps for Finkelpearl, cultural development is like a game of table tennis: it takes two to play a game. For Finkelpearl, he is willing to be the player who initiates it.
Source: C2 Issue 22