Let us introduce “1 % for Art” into Japan’s Cultural Policy
NISHIKAWA Megumi / Journalist
July 16, 2020
The novel coronavirus pandemic has shed light on the many challenges Japan faces, one of which is its cultural policy.
In late May, concerned parties from theatre, music, and cinema circles jointly filed a petition to the national government, requesting certain measures such as the creation of a fund to compensate for the economic losses incurred. The officer in charge at the Cultural Affairs Agency stated in response, “A Reconstruction Fund for Arts and Culture will be established in the Japan Arts Council (which comes under the Cultural Agency’s jurisdiction) to help raise private donations, but government money would not be injected into the fund”. A playwright who was present at the petition rebutted this by saying: “it would not really be a fund as it is meant only to raise and redistribute donations. We strongly request that this current predicament be addressed with an independent budget. We’d like our government to show, with its money, that it cares about culture”.
Responding to such strong voices from the arts and culture world, a total of 56 billion yen was allocated as the “Emergency Comprehensive Aid Package for Artistic and Cultural Activities” in the second supplementary budget that was approved by the National Diet in early June. Given that the losses caused by cancellations of various events and performances are said to amount to 690 billion yen by the end of this year, this can be seen as a fairly decent emergency rescue measure.
However, the Covid-19 issue has exposed Japan’s lack of principled approach to the role and place of culture in building national identity. European countries initiated measures to support artistic and cultural activities since the early stages of the pandemic. Germany, in particular, allocated 6 trillion yen out of fiscal measures amounting to approximately 90 trillion yen for supporting arts and culture. Monika Grutters, the Culture Minister stated, “Artists are now an indispensable existence for us to sustain our lives.” This remark caused quite a stir in Japan. The message that arts and culture give people the strength to live, particularly in difficult times, resonated well here.
To begin with, Japan is the 3rd largest economy in the world, but its budgets for arts and culture are a far cry from those of other developed nations. In 2017, the ratio of Japan’s culture budget to its national budget was 0.11%, in marked contrast to 0.16% in UK, 0.49% in German, 0.88% in France, and 1.05% in the Republic of Korea. In the same year, the per capita cultural budget in Japan was 819 yen, compared to 2824 yen in UK, 2634 yen in Germany, 7568 yen in France and 5597 yen in the Republic of Korea.
Since the beginning of this century, it has been argued repeatedly that Japan should free itself from the mantra of “economic growth first” and put culture at the center of the efforts to build its national identity. Following the enactment of the amended Basic Law on Art and Culture in 2018, the government finally steered away from the policy focused exclusively on “protecting culture” to the policy of “utilizing culture”. This shift of focus is partly due to the spreading realization that arts and culture can be an important driving force for tourism, one of Japan’s few growing industries. However, the mindset has not developed yet to the point of assigning a leading role to the government in promoting and utilizing arts and culture.
While the budgetary aid package may serve as an emergency bailout, I believe this is the time for the government to hammer out a drastic policy for promoting arts and culture, using the Covid-19 crisis as a springboard. As a part of the policy, I’d like to suggest the legislation of “1% for Art”. “Percent for Art” is a system where a percentage (ranging between 1% and 0.3%, depending on the country) of public building costs are allocated for arts and culture. It is a huge driving force for promoting arts and culture in the West.
Its root goes back to the United States at the time of the Great Depression in 1929. The US government commissioned artists who had lost their jobs to create works of public art to decorate public buildings and parks. This resulted not just in supporting the artists, but providing opportunities for a wide range of citizens to appreciate the arts. It is said to have contributed to the building of the identity of US culture. Since the 1950’s onwards, European countries such as France, and once again the US after a break during World War II, began adopting this system no longer as a measure to alleviate unemployment, but as a vehicle to promote arts and culture. Thus it played a significant role as an engine for promoting arts and culture, transforming them into a major industry in the respective countries.
Mr. Takenobu Igarashi, a former president of Tama Art University and a sculptor, was based in the US for about 10 years from the mid-90’s, and engaged in several projects related to “1% for Art” including the creation of public art inside a public hospital in San Francisco and the railings of a bridge in Los Angeles. Based on these experiences, he told me in my interview, “the workload of artists from the 1% for Art scheme is totally different from, for example, museums purchasing their artworks or galleries selling them. It especially helps young artists and generates enormous power in terms of support extended to artists, who utilize the opportunities to grow. The ripple effect is immense”.
The idea of spending 1% of public building costs, which come from public funds, for arts and culture may be debatable. However, this can be our strong message that we place arts and culture at the center of the efforts to build our national identity, and are tackling head on the task of building a nation truly devoted to arts and culture. Furthermore, it will lead to a change in the Japanese mindset from considering arts and culture as a personal activity to viewing them as a public good from a wider perspective.
Megumi Nishikawa is a Contributing Editor for the Mainichi Shimbun Newspaper
In late May, concerned parties from theatre, music, and cinema circles jointly filed a petition to the national government, requesting certain measures such as the creation of a fund to compensate for the economic losses incurred. The officer in charge at the Cultural Affairs Agency stated in response, “A Reconstruction Fund for Arts and Culture will be established in the Japan Arts Council (which comes under the Cultural Agency’s jurisdiction) to help raise private donations, but government money would not be injected into the fund”. A playwright who was present at the petition rebutted this by saying: “it would not really be a fund as it is meant only to raise and redistribute donations. We strongly request that this current predicament be addressed with an independent budget. We’d like our government to show, with its money, that it cares about culture”.
Responding to such strong voices from the arts and culture world, a total of 56 billion yen was allocated as the “Emergency Comprehensive Aid Package for Artistic and Cultural Activities” in the second supplementary budget that was approved by the National Diet in early June. Given that the losses caused by cancellations of various events and performances are said to amount to 690 billion yen by the end of this year, this can be seen as a fairly decent emergency rescue measure.
However, the Covid-19 issue has exposed Japan’s lack of principled approach to the role and place of culture in building national identity. European countries initiated measures to support artistic and cultural activities since the early stages of the pandemic. Germany, in particular, allocated 6 trillion yen out of fiscal measures amounting to approximately 90 trillion yen for supporting arts and culture. Monika Grutters, the Culture Minister stated, “Artists are now an indispensable existence for us to sustain our lives.” This remark caused quite a stir in Japan. The message that arts and culture give people the strength to live, particularly in difficult times, resonated well here.
To begin with, Japan is the 3rd largest economy in the world, but its budgets for arts and culture are a far cry from those of other developed nations. In 2017, the ratio of Japan’s culture budget to its national budget was 0.11%, in marked contrast to 0.16% in UK, 0.49% in German, 0.88% in France, and 1.05% in the Republic of Korea. In the same year, the per capita cultural budget in Japan was 819 yen, compared to 2824 yen in UK, 2634 yen in Germany, 7568 yen in France and 5597 yen in the Republic of Korea.
Since the beginning of this century, it has been argued repeatedly that Japan should free itself from the mantra of “economic growth first” and put culture at the center of the efforts to build its national identity. Following the enactment of the amended Basic Law on Art and Culture in 2018, the government finally steered away from the policy focused exclusively on “protecting culture” to the policy of “utilizing culture”. This shift of focus is partly due to the spreading realization that arts and culture can be an important driving force for tourism, one of Japan’s few growing industries. However, the mindset has not developed yet to the point of assigning a leading role to the government in promoting and utilizing arts and culture.
While the budgetary aid package may serve as an emergency bailout, I believe this is the time for the government to hammer out a drastic policy for promoting arts and culture, using the Covid-19 crisis as a springboard. As a part of the policy, I’d like to suggest the legislation of “1% for Art”. “Percent for Art” is a system where a percentage (ranging between 1% and 0.3%, depending on the country) of public building costs are allocated for arts and culture. It is a huge driving force for promoting arts and culture in the West.
Its root goes back to the United States at the time of the Great Depression in 1929. The US government commissioned artists who had lost their jobs to create works of public art to decorate public buildings and parks. This resulted not just in supporting the artists, but providing opportunities for a wide range of citizens to appreciate the arts. It is said to have contributed to the building of the identity of US culture. Since the 1950’s onwards, European countries such as France, and once again the US after a break during World War II, began adopting this system no longer as a measure to alleviate unemployment, but as a vehicle to promote arts and culture. Thus it played a significant role as an engine for promoting arts and culture, transforming them into a major industry in the respective countries.
Mr. Takenobu Igarashi, a former president of Tama Art University and a sculptor, was based in the US for about 10 years from the mid-90’s, and engaged in several projects related to “1% for Art” including the creation of public art inside a public hospital in San Francisco and the railings of a bridge in Los Angeles. Based on these experiences, he told me in my interview, “the workload of artists from the 1% for Art scheme is totally different from, for example, museums purchasing their artworks or galleries selling them. It especially helps young artists and generates enormous power in terms of support extended to artists, who utilize the opportunities to grow. The ripple effect is immense”.
The idea of spending 1% of public building costs, which come from public funds, for arts and culture may be debatable. However, this can be our strong message that we place arts and culture at the center of the efforts to build our national identity, and are tackling head on the task of building a nation truly devoted to arts and culture. Furthermore, it will lead to a change in the Japanese mindset from considering arts and culture as a personal activity to viewing them as a public good from a wider perspective.
Megumi Nishikawa is a Contributing Editor for the Mainichi Shimbun Newspaper
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
文化政策に「１％フォー・アート」の導入を
西川 恵 / ジャーナリスト
2020年 7月 16日
新型コロナウイルス問題は日本が各分野で抱える課題を浮き彫りにしたが、文化政策もその一つである。
演劇、音楽、映画の関係者が５月下旬、経済的な損失の補填などを目的とした基金の創設などを求めて国に要望書を手渡した。これに文化庁の担当者は「（文化庁が所管する）日本芸術文化振興会に文化芸術復興創造基金を創設し、民間から寄付を募集する。基金に国費は投入しない」と述べた。同席したある劇作家は「それは基金ではなく、寄付を集めて分配するだけだ。現在の窮状には別予算で対応してほしい。国は文化を大事に思っていることをお金で示してほしい」と反論した。
こうした文化芸術業界の強い声もあって、６月上旬に成立した第二次補正予算には「文化芸術活動への緊急総合支援」として総額５６０億円が盛られた。イベントや公演の中止の損失は年内で６９００億円になると言われるが、緊急避難的な対策としてはまずまずだろう。
だがコロナ問題は、文化をどう国造りの中に位置づけていくかという理念の欠如を明るみに出した。欧州各国は初期のころから芸術支援策を打ち出しているが、なかでもドイツは約９０兆円相当の財政出動のうち６兆円を芸術文化支援に充てた。モニカ・グリュッタース文化相は「アーティストは今、生命維持に必要不可欠な存在」と言い、日本でも大きな反響を呼んだ。苦しい時にこそ文化芸術は人々に生きる力をもたらしてくるとの言葉だ。
そもそも日本は世界第３の経済規模に比して、文化予算は先進国の中で見劣りする。２０１７年、日本の国家予算に占める文化予算の比率は0.11％で、英国（0.16％）、ドイツ（0.49％）、フランス（0.88％）、韓国（1.05％）との差は歴然だ。同じ年、国民1人当たりの文化予算額も日本の819円に対して、円換算で英国2824円、ドイツ2634円、フランス7568円、韓国5597円である。
経済成長第一主義を脱却して文化を国造りの軸に据えるべきだとの議論は21世紀になって繰り返されてきた。やっと２０１８年の改正文化芸術基本法の成立によって、それまでの「文化の保護」一辺倒から「文化の活用」へ舵を切った。文化芸術は日本の数少ない成長産業である観光の重要な推進力になるとの認識が浸透したことも一因だが、国が音頭をとって文化政策をリードしていくとの発想はまだ乏しい。
私はこのコロナ危機をスプリングボードとし、緊急避難的な対策は対策として、いまこそ文化芸術振興のために抜本的な政策を国として打ち出すべきだと思う。その一つとして「１％フォー・アート」の法制化を提案したい。「１％フォー・アート」は公共建築費の１％（国によって１％～0.3％など幅がある）を文化芸術に割く制度で、欧米では文化芸術振興の大きな駆動力となっている。
このルーツは１９２９年の世界恐慌のときの米国にある。米連邦政府はニューディール政策の一環で、失業している芸術家に公共建築や公園などに飾るパブリックアートの制作を依頼。これは結果として芸術家の支援にとどまらず、広く人々に芸術鑑賞の機会を提供し、米国文化のアイデンティティ作りに寄与したと言われる。戦後の１９５０年代からフランスをはじめとする欧州、そして戦争で中断していた米国でもこの制度が再び採り入れられていくが、もはや失業対策としてではなく、文化芸術振興のエンジンとして、文化芸術が国の一大産業となる上で大きな役割を果たした。
多摩美術大学の前学長で彫刻家の五十嵐威暢（いがらし・たけのぶ）氏は、９０年代半ばから約１０年間、米国を拠点に活動したが、サンフランシスコ市の公立病院内のパブリックアート制作、ロサンゼルス市の橋の欄干造りなど、「１％フォー・アート」に絡む幾つかのプロジェクトに携わった。その体験から「１％フォー・アートで生まれる芸術家の仕事量は、美術館の買い上げや、ギャラリーが作品を販売するのとはまったく異なるレベルです。とくに若いアーティストたちを助け、支援する意味で大きな力が生まれ、そこからアーティストたちがチャンスを得て育っていく。その波及効果は計り知れないものがある」と私のインタビューに語っている。
公共建築費の「１％」という公的資金を文化芸術に使うことに議論もあるだろう。しかし逆に「文化芸術をコロナ後の国造りの軸に据える」「真の文化芸術国家の建設に取り組む」との国の力強いメッセージの発出になる。日本では個人の営みとして捉える傾向の強い文化芸術を、より広がりのある公共性との兼ね合いで捉え直すことにも繋がる。
筆者は毎日新聞客員編集委員
演劇、音楽、映画の関係者が５月下旬、経済的な損失の補填などを目的とした基金の創設などを求めて国に要望書を手渡した。これに文化庁の担当者は「（文化庁が所管する）日本芸術文化振興会に文化芸術復興創造基金を創設し、民間から寄付を募集する。基金に国費は投入しない」と述べた。同席したある劇作家は「それは基金ではなく、寄付を集めて分配するだけだ。現在の窮状には別予算で対応してほしい。国は文化を大事に思っていることをお金で示してほしい」と反論した。
こうした文化芸術業界の強い声もあって、６月上旬に成立した第二次補正予算には「文化芸術活動への緊急総合支援」として総額５６０億円が盛られた。イベントや公演の中止の損失は年内で６９００億円になると言われるが、緊急避難的な対策としてはまずまずだろう。
だがコロナ問題は、文化をどう国造りの中に位置づけていくかという理念の欠如を明るみに出した。欧州各国は初期のころから芸術支援策を打ち出しているが、なかでもドイツは約９０兆円相当の財政出動のうち６兆円を芸術文化支援に充てた。モニカ・グリュッタース文化相は「アーティストは今、生命維持に必要不可欠な存在」と言い、日本でも大きな反響を呼んだ。苦しい時にこそ文化芸術は人々に生きる力をもたらしてくるとの言葉だ。
そもそも日本は世界第３の経済規模に比して、文化予算は先進国の中で見劣りする。２０１７年、日本の国家予算に占める文化予算の比率は0.11％で、英国（0.16％）、ドイツ（0.49％）、フランス（0.88％）、韓国（1.05％）との差は歴然だ。同じ年、国民1人当たりの文化予算額も日本の819円に対して、円換算で英国2824円、ドイツ2634円、フランス7568円、韓国5597円である。
経済成長第一主義を脱却して文化を国造りの軸に据えるべきだとの議論は21世紀になって繰り返されてきた。やっと２０１８年の改正文化芸術基本法の成立によって、それまでの「文化の保護」一辺倒から「文化の活用」へ舵を切った。文化芸術は日本の数少ない成長産業である観光の重要な推進力になるとの認識が浸透したことも一因だが、国が音頭をとって文化政策をリードしていくとの発想はまだ乏しい。
私はこのコロナ危機をスプリングボードとし、緊急避難的な対策は対策として、いまこそ文化芸術振興のために抜本的な政策を国として打ち出すべきだと思う。その一つとして「１％フォー・アート」の法制化を提案したい。「１％フォー・アート」は公共建築費の１％（国によって１％～0.3％など幅がある）を文化芸術に割く制度で、欧米では文化芸術振興の大きな駆動力となっている。
このルーツは１９２９年の世界恐慌のときの米国にある。米連邦政府はニューディール政策の一環で、失業している芸術家に公共建築や公園などに飾るパブリックアートの制作を依頼。これは結果として芸術家の支援にとどまらず、広く人々に芸術鑑賞の機会を提供し、米国文化のアイデンティティ作りに寄与したと言われる。戦後の１９５０年代からフランスをはじめとする欧州、そして戦争で中断していた米国でもこの制度が再び採り入れられていくが、もはや失業対策としてではなく、文化芸術振興のエンジンとして、文化芸術が国の一大産業となる上で大きな役割を果たした。
多摩美術大学の前学長で彫刻家の五十嵐威暢（いがらし・たけのぶ）氏は、９０年代半ばから約１０年間、米国を拠点に活動したが、サンフランシスコ市の公立病院内のパブリックアート制作、ロサンゼルス市の橋の欄干造りなど、「１％フォー・アート」に絡む幾つかのプロジェクトに携わった。その体験から「１％フォー・アートで生まれる芸術家の仕事量は、美術館の買い上げや、ギャラリーが作品を販売するのとはまったく異なるレベルです。とくに若いアーティストたちを助け、支援する意味で大きな力が生まれ、そこからアーティストたちがチャンスを得て育っていく。その波及効果は計り知れないものがある」と私のインタビューに語っている。
公共建築費の「１％」という公的資金を文化芸術に使うことに議論もあるだろう。しかし逆に「文化芸術をコロナ後の国造りの軸に据える」「真の文化芸術国家の建設に取り組む」との国の力強いメッセージの発出になる。日本では個人の営みとして捉える傾向の強い文化芸術を、より広がりのある公共性との兼ね合いで捉え直すことにも繋がる。
筆者は毎日新聞客員編集委員
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟