One area of policy that has become increasingly employed alongside regeneration is cultural policy, and Evans has developed a new model of thinking in response to this. Understanding what is meant by culture, however, is complex, as the term encompasses a wide range of interests, art practices, social relationships and nationally driven agendas. The range of literature on culture is vast, and although it would be impossible to provide an adequate analysis of the concept here, it is important to outline that whilst the term can be understood in both artistic and anthropological terms,68 it is used here in line with Raymond Williams’ theory that culture is not “a form in which people happen to be living, at some isolated moment, but a selection and organisation, of past and present, necessarily providing for its own kinds of continuity.”69 This overarching definition demands “elasticity” in its application70 to ensure its relevance to many aspects of life and, consequently, Hewison’s statement that “culture puts the flesh on the bones of national identity”71 is of particular importance.

The application of this notion that culture can be used to add layers to other policy areas, and in this case to regeneration policy, is in line with Evans’ new models for regeneration, which describes three potential regeneration strategies: cultural regeneration; culture and

regeneration; and culture-led regeneration. Cultural regeneration and culture and

regeneration are examples of the two policies being implemented concurrently, although at varying levels of integration, with the former being the most integrated. Culture-led regeneration more specifically understands the role of culture being as a catalyst, often with flagship arts institutional developments or cultural events at its heart.72 The two policy areas are not so smoothly integrated, however, and Evans and Foord attribute this to the varying definitions of culture that exist in contemporary society.73


McGuigan, J. (1996), Culture and the Public Sphere, London: Routledge, pp.5-6 69 Williams, R. (1981), Culture, London: Fontana, p.184

70 Hewison, R. (1995), Culture and Consensus: England, Art and Politics Since 1940, London: Methuen, p.302


ibid., p.15 72 See Evans 2005 73

Two sets of meanings are particularly prevalent in current urban policy and regeneration discourses. One set of meanings and values suggests culture is an essential element of everyday life and identity...The second interpretation of culture is as an integral and substantive part of present day city economies.74

Furthermore, the integration of culture into the economy, although increasingly seen as important, is still in transition. Although regeneration is more than just an economic policy, culture is frequently used as an additional component of regeneration rather than being seen as integral to it, thus demonstrating that the definition of culture as having potential economic value is still not fully accepted. Aside from this economic uncertainty, Evans attributes the lack of integration to the inconsistency of arts funding and the absence of entrenched attitudes of collaboration between those responsible for regeneration or cultural activities.75 Although he and Foord assert that culture is “an essential element of everyday life and identity,”76 it still appears to remain somewhat on the periphery of many regeneration strategies.

Melanie K. Smith suggests that this may be because the two concepts remain both vague and complex,77 exacerbated by the commitment from government often being to the potential income generation that arises from cultural tourism. Although she states that there is evidence of a change from the traditional view of culture and tourism as “the icing on the cake”78 of regeneration, it is interesting to note that the success of regeneration is frequently measured by:


Evans, G. and Foord, J. (2003), “Shaping the Cultural Landscape: Local Regeneration Effects,” in

Urban Futures: Critical Commentaries on Shaping the City, eds. M. Miles and T. Hall, London and New York: Routledge, pp.167-181 (p.167)


Evans, G. (2005), “Measure for Measure: Evaluating the Evidence of Culture’s Contribution to Regeneration,” Urban Studies, vol.42, no.5/6, pp.959-983 (p.970)

76 Evans and Foord (2003), “Shaping the Cultural Landscape: Local Regeneration Effects,” p.167 77

Smith, M.K. (2007b), “Towards a Cultural Planning Approach to Regeneration” in Tourism, Culture and Regeneration, ed. M.K. Smith, Wallingford: CAB International, pp.1-11 (pp.1-2)

78 Smith, M.K. (2007c), “Conclusion” in Tourism, Culture and Regeneration, ed. M.K. Smith, Wallingford: CAB International, pp.175-178 (p.175)

Increased visitor numbers, creation of a new image, increased income, expansion of other economic activities, population growth, enhanced civic pride, job creation, and further investment in attractions and environmental improvements.79

Many of these measures can be seen as evidence of a successful tourism policy, and this confusion can be due to the subsequent diversification of economies, through showcasing culture and heritage or prioritising community-based regeneration projects that are closely linked to tourism as well as culture.80 However, recognition of the growing importance of the “cultural turn”81 in local economies indicates a shift towards the prioritisation of culture in regeneration schemes. This has led to the development of what Andrew Tallon calls “the cultural city,” which he states “has been engineered as a representation of city, regional and national identity.”82 He makes a direct link between the use of arts and cultural policies in the regeneration of post-industrial cities, but also warns that this can lead to the homogenisation of culture “to the detriment of difference and individuality.”83 Consequently, whilst culture becomes more accepted as a useful part of economic and regeneration policy, it must be understood that this can come at a cost to the authentic cultures that have long since thrived within cities.

1.1.3 The Art

In document The art of regeneration: the establishment and development of the Foundation for Art and Creative Technology, 1985–2010 (Page 47-49)