115. Memorandum Prepared by the International Cultural Planning Group Task Force on U.S. Representation in the Arts Abroad1
RECOMMENDATIONS OF ICPG TASK FORCE ON U.S. REPRESENTATION IN THE ARTS ABROAD
The conclusions reached by members (names noted on attachment)2 of the International Cultural Planning Group Task Force on U.S. representation in the arts abroad are reflected in the following recommendations of the 12 persons who represented private and Government interests in the visual and performing arts.
The Members agreed that it is important for the U.S. to be among the participating nations at international cultural events abroad, and that form and scope of representation must be responsive to the individual event or the country in which representation will occur. It also became evident that existing programs should be reviewed.
Interwoven among the broader precepts and more specific problems, was an attempt to determine the appropriate role of Government—coordinator, catalyst or source? The consensus seemed to be the former.
While the combined resources of Government agencies most directly involved with this facet of representation abroad (State, USIA, NCFA/IAP) are probably considerably less than $2 million, the value is significant. Though relatively miniscule, the funding is significant also. Particularly now, as related to the International Art Program [Page 280] of the Smithsonian, which comes under the direct jurisdiction of the National Collection of Fine Arts. Budgetary demands upon the NCFA for its domestic programs seems to call for a review now of IAP policies and procedures. What seems to be needed is re-assessment of IAP’s current status within NCFA and possible consideration of another base for its operations. While the program must continue its commitment to international representation (i.e., the exchange of fine arts exhibits as well as U.S. participation in Venice and Sao Paulo Biennials and similar international events—as specified in the Memorandum of Understanding between USIA and the Smithsonian Institution) of American activity in the visual arts, budgetary adjustments may call for shifting the major fiscal burden for specific exhibitions.
I. There is a need for coordination of U.S. involvement in the international arts arena. This is necessary from the standpoint of policy determination and because representatives of Government agencies find there is overlap in approaching private sources for funds, which are becoming more difficult to get.
Coordination could help to make budgets, impacts and effect go further thereby, hopefully, creating fuller, richer programs for foreign audiences.
Recommendation: That a central Government office coordinate U.S. arts representation abroad as to policy (where, when and what form) responsibility for representation (which agency) and procedure (selection of work, funding, role of possible advisory council).
II. Government endorsement is essential and a little “seed” money is helpful to increasing coordination between private and public interests in support of a joint venture in the arts.
Recommendation: That the President meet with selected representatives of industry to ask their support to increase U.S. cultural representation abroad.
III. There was discussion within the group, as there apparently has been in international arts groups meetings, of considering festivals of mixed cultural media. Whereas this type of festival takes place in other countries, to the knowledge of members of this group, none such has taken place in the United States.
Recommendation: That consideration be given to the feasibility of the United States hosting an international festival of mixed cultural media.
That consideration be given to the feasibility of U.S. representatives encouraging more of this type of international festival abroad.
IV. The role of U.S. representation in the visual arts has been directed fairly consistently to entries in major international exhibitions, with smaller exhibitions being sent as well.
Recommendation: That emphasis be placed on increasing the number of smaller exhibits circulated abroad, and the policy of entry into major international exhibitions be re-examined from the standpoints of support and cultural and diplomatic usefulness.
- Source: National Archives, RG 306, Office of Policy and Plans, IOP/C Cultural Subject Files, 1955–1971, Entry UD–90, Box 1, CUL 3 International Cultural Strategy Group. No classification marking. Hanford sent a copy of the recommendations to Joyce under an October 29 covering memorandum, indicating that the ICPG had discussed the recommendations at its October 27 meeting and that the consensus “was that Recommendation 1—a need for coordination of U.S. involvement in the international arts arena—should be resolved first.” Hanford wrote that Michael Straight (National Endowment for the Arts), upon the request of the ICPG, had agreed to chair a working group “to look into specifics of current practices.” Bunce, in an October 27 memorandum to Loomis, referencing the discussion of the recommendations that would take place that day, stated: “We have some reservations about the recommendation that a central government office coordinate U.S. arts representation abroad as to policy, responsibility for representation and procedure, funding, and role of a possible advisory council. Carol apparently does not have fixed views as to where such a central office should be located—whether in the White House, CU or in USIA. If decisions of such an office would involve funding and the office were outside of USIA, it might involve some complications with regard to Agency funding priorities. On the whole, the memorandum appears to provide a good basis for discussion by the International Cultural Planning Group.” (Ibid.)↩
- Attached but not printed is the undated list of Task Force members.↩