Arts & Culture: Are They an Item?

WGBH radio proclaims it is Boston's arts and culture station. SCI reports that during 2006-2007, it systematically queried the people of Woburn and learned that above all other realistic improvements they want more arts and cultural opportunities in the city. SCI subsequently received a grant to spur efforts to deliver them.

So often they are mentioned together, and as products of human imagination and activity, the arts and culture certainly have something in common. The terms almost seem inseparable, but they are not. There is a distinction. In coverage and discussions of arts education, for example, the arts stand alone, usually in some degree of jeopardy. Where is culture then? Safely out of bounds; it is not for a moment considered optional.

How are arts and culture related? What is the connection? Are they the parts of a whole? If so, which one? Why don't we use its name instead of the names of the parts? These are just a few of the questions we will have new opportunities to consider.

I think culture is the whole and the arts are a sensible part of it. Like an iceberg, culture is much bigger than the protrusion that's readily seen from where most observers stand. All arts are part of that protrusion, but I can't say that they alone constitute the protrusion. A plant/soil analogy applies, as well, which is good because I would not want to leave you thinking of culture as a frozen solid. The arts are rooted in culture, cannot exist without it and, over time, modify it by, for example, rearrangement of selected stuff and contribution of new compounds. Through exchange they coevolve.

I'll be back with more musings about arts and culture.