To see how the legislation defines the relationship between the state and art and culture related individuals, one must first refer to the Law on the Basics of Cultural Legislation adopted in 2002, which states: “The state 1) promotes the activities of creative workers aimed at preserving, spreading and developing culture, 2) provides conditions for the work and employment of creative workers, 3) supports the expansion of international creative contacts of creative workers.” Put differently, the state is supposed to support the activities of the unions of creative workers, gives them the opportunity to participate in the development of cultural policy, takes into account their suggestions when developing programmes in the fields of employment of creative workers, professional training, job security, and social protection. However, in different periods of Armenian history of the 20th and 21st centuries this kind of relationship between artists and the political power was interpreted and realized differently.
If we try to make a mechanical modelling before the Velvet Revolution (2018) and after, the main analytical outline of cultural policy of RA can be classified as that of the state-bureaucratic model before the liberal-liberal model after the revolution. The involvement of cultural figures, creative workers and representatives of the cultural sector in the process of developing and implementing cultural policy is more evident in 2018-2022, because public debates began to be actively used as a new tool of cultural policy. In 2018 the government’s decision on the procedure for holding public debates was adopted. There are a number of examples, that after public debates and active media discussions some policies and laws were withdrawn for further changes and developments, such as the new Law on Education.
However, the role of artists and cultural professionals currently is much less significant than in the periods of the strong ideologisation of political regimes. In the 2000’s and early 2010’s, the representatives of the so called “creative intelligentsia” were actively used as promoters of nationalist and neo-soviet approaches to culture and education (as it was the case in the Soviet times) and their reputation was significantly decreased. Currently, any really reputable figures among art and culture related individuals influencing the political or civil fields do not seem to exist.
 Antonyan, Intelligentsia ?
Comments are closed.