Art in Cultural Diplomacy: Miss Van

The role of art as a tool in the field of public or cultural diplomacy has always been hotly debated. Much of this debate comes down to one of the most enduring, unanswerable questions: what is art? Many believe that true art can only occur when it is free of outside influence, such as government control. Therefore, government mandated pictures or sculptures aren’t free art so much as a paid advertisement. The question then becomes, can free, independent art have a diplomatic impact? One example that springs to mind is the work of modern “graffiti” artist Miss Van.

The idea of graffiti as art has itself been controversial, with critics arguing that it amounts to little more than vandalism, while supporters see it as the very epitome of artistic expression of the everyman. Graffiti art’s relationship with government is even more clouded, as on a very real level, governments frequently make the decision of whether or not street graffiti should be destroyed, or whether they should be preserved as artistic expression. Furthermore, graffiti tends to address many political or social attitudes towards government, and can be seen everywhere from Israel to Iran to Peru.

Pivotal figures such as the enigmatic Banksy have propelled the relationship between government and graffiti art to the headlines.

Work by Banksy, Photo by Q Ladaa. http://qews.info/wordpress/?attachment_id=3196

For her part, Miss Van has brought graffiti across many borders. Originally spreading her work along the streets of Toulouse, France, Miss Van brought some of the first overtly feminine overtones to the mostly male dominated world of street art. She has been a topic of some debate for feminists, some of whom praise her for bringing a feminine influence to this type of art, while others criticize her for her overtly sexualized and infantilized representations of women. She saw her work as a challenge to censorship. “When I started, you could say I had a somewhat rebellious heart. I also find that painting in the street, because it is forbidden, is a lot more exciting. Painting on walls, you’re able to hold on to your freedom, and since it’s illegal, there’s no censorship.”[1]

During her career, she has moved throughout Europe, painting on public street walls, or showing in galleries, moving fluidly between the two very different artistic worlds. As governments of countries she graces with her work determine whether or not it should remain on the street walls in which it has been painted, they are now many international and political nuances, which are all presented in a real-life public forum. The ideals of feminism and non-censorship travel with her paintings, but it is difficult to determine if those ideals are actually a form of public or cultural diplomacy, as they are only tangentially affected by government or state influence.

Work by Miss Van. From UK Show ‘Lovestain’, October 2009. Picture provided by UK Street Art. http://www.ukstreetart.co.uk/2009/09/diary-date-october-1-miss-van-private-view-at-stolen-space/

---

[1] Magda Danysz & Marie Noelle Dana “From Style Writing to Art: a Street Art Anthology” pp. 262 - 273

The Olympics and Cultural Diplomacy

Every couple of years, all the nations of the world gather together to do battle in front of the entire international community. I am referring, of course, to the Olympic Games. Every four years, athletes from every nation come together in the spirit of global competition. At home, citizens gather around televisions to cheer on their national team, hoping they will bring home victory and national pride. The Olympics have also begun to have a huge impact in the world of international politics. Though it would seem silly, this athletic competition has become a major determination of a government’s power. In the field of public and cultural diplomacy, the Olympics have become a key forum for countries to gain or assert what Joseph Nye refers to as “soft power”.

In the Olympic games, countries are given many opportunities to gain soft power. The first of these comes in hosting. The honor of hosting the Olympic games is decided by the International Olympic Committee. It is a testament to how important and influential hosting the Olympics can be, that the International Olympic Committee has been riddled with corruption and favoritism, and states do everything to be the ones to host, (BBC 1999). It is easy to understand he incentive. Host nations have the eyes of the world on them, which gives them a chance to shine, as well as promote a favorable national image. This can have various levels of success. In 1936, Nazi Germany had the opportunity to host they Olympics, and attempted to use the attention to promote an image of socialism as a peaceful, (Findling & Pelle 2004, 107). China was able to achieve significantly more success in its own efforts in 2008, impressing the world with its incredible stadium and intimidating performances in its opening ceremonies, and giving an impression of strength and development, (Cull 2008). Host nations are able to highlight their cultural appeal, and also benefit from increased tourism, as thousands will attend the games, and even more will choose to visit the nation that receives so much positive media attention.

Performance at the games is another way for a country to show its strength. The more a nation’s athletes succeed, the more impressive and imposing their nations appear. The athletes’ high performance are a testament to the resources of the nation, which facilitates their training, States have historically pushed their athletes to do well, in order to cement their national image as winners. “Societies like Mussolini’s Italy and Lenin’s Soviety Union emphasized sport and physical culture as symbols of the virility of their political system, and achievement in Olympic competition became a profound concern of governments,” (Cull 2008, 120). In more recent years, the USA’s consistent accumulation of gold medals have cemented its status as a great power, as well as inspiring international envy. In 2008, China seemed almost desperate to succeed, resulting in controversy over the ages of the gymnasts it sent to the competition, with many alleging that Chinese officials had changed the official documents of their ages, (Nichols 2008).

Throughout the Olympics, there is a free exchange of culture, with athletes coming together in competition, but forming strong bonds. Strong personalities and athletic celebrities from Yao Ming to Shawn White, garner international attention, bringing celebrity diplomacy into the forum as well. With the Olympics growing more and more competitive and impressive, is will be very exciting to see how nations like the UK and Russia do with the spotlight, and how much gold each nation amasses. Accordingly, it will be interesting to observe the impact on their public and cultural diplomacy in the internal forum.

Works Cited

BBC News, “World Timeline: Olympics Corruption Scandal.” BBC Online Network. 1999. Web Article. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/297030.stm

Cull, N.J. “The public diplomacy of the modern Olympic Games and China’s soft power strategy.” From Owning the Olympics: Narratives of New China by Price, M. E. University of Michigan Press. Ann Arbor, MI. 2008. Pgs. 117-144.

Findling, J. E. and Pelle, K.D. Dictionary of the Modern Olympic Movement. Greenwood Press. Westport, CT. 2004. Pg, 107.

Nichols, P. “Olympics: Chinese gymnasts accused of being under minimum age.” The Guardian. Guardian.co.uk. Aug, 2008. Web Article. http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/aug/18/olympics2008.olympicsgymnastics

Humanitarian Aid and Public Diplomacy

In recent years, public and cultural diplomacy has been deeply affected by the idea of humanitarian aid. Unfortunately, the past few years have seen several devastating natural disasters, like the earthquakes in Haiti and more recently Japan, and the Indian Ocean tsunami that hit Indonesia and India. In each of these situations, existing aid organizations rushed to help survivors recover, and new aid programs were developed. Celebrities brought together their star power to raise money for those suffering, like the “We Are The World” single sold on Itunes to send money to Haiti, or the “Songs for Japan” album, also sold on Itunes, which sent proceeds to Japan. Direct foreign aid supplied by governments, as well as these non-governmental aid organizations and programs, have had a huge impact in the discussion of public and cultural diplomacy.

The idea of foreign aid as a diplomatic tool is much newer than it seems to be. In fact, the very concept of countries donating aid to other countries has only been around since after World War II, (Lancaster2007, 25). Nowadays, however, foreign aid is a huge part of political discourse. Foreign aid can range from “billion dollar reconstruction projects in war-torn countries like Iraq and Afghanistan,” (Lancaster, 2007, 25). to small aid donations like the “Texts for Haiti Relief” program, where individuals donated 10 dollars per text. Some would argue that the different natures of these programs, from government organizations, to NGOs and international organizations, to individual, personal aid activities, prevents them from being considered as tools of public diplomacy, as they do not form a unified, collective policy controlled by the state. They would argue that international and personal aid programs do not conduct such activities out of political motivation, or to enhance the reputation of any country, even their host. In fact, many critics of government based aid argue that it should be left up to such international aid organizations and personal actors. However, the donation of aid has demonstrably achieved diplomatic aims. For example, the U.S. first began donating aid during the Cold War, when they were attempting to prevent countries from falling to Communism. Some countries, like Denmark, have made donation of humanitarian aid a large part of their international “image” gaining esteem in the international community, (Lancaster 2007, 190).

These unfortunate recent disasters have highlighted the relatively new idea of humanitarian aid, and its use as a diplomatic tool. The programs that have arisen to address them have also put a lot of emphasis on direct person-to-international organization contact. For example, the Texts for Haiti Relief program raised over 30 million dollars from American citizens donating to the Red Cross, (Choney 2010) Perhaps, in the future the affect of foreign aid on public and cultural diplomacy will be based less on the actions of state government, but on the actions of the state’s domestic citizens.

Works Cited

Choney, S. “Mobile giving to help Haiti exceed $30 million.” MSNBC. Jan, 2010. Web Article. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34850532/ns/technology_and_science-wireless/t/mobile-giving-help-haiti-exceeds-million/

Report of the Advisory Committee on Cultural Diplomacy

US Department of State, September 2005

CULTURAL DIPLOMACY: THE LINCHPIN OF PUBLIC DIPLOMACY (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/54374.pdf)

Through culture, can a nation truly and honestly promote itself and reflect its values and ideals to the outside world. Cultural diplomacy can do what many other efforts are unable to do, namely secure national interests and security with a lasting effect. The ‘war on terror’ has turned the world against the US, viewing it as more of a danger for the rest of the world more than anything else. The trust and credibility previously enjoyed by the US has been lost and needs to be regained, military and economic matters will not be enough, but through the promotion of culture as the way forward. During times of war, cultural diplomacy has always been considered essential, but as soon as wars are over, cultural diplomacy is moved to the backseat, and therefore the Advisory Committee highlights the need and importance of employing cultural diplomacy and to make it last in the long-term, and realize the importance of cultural diplomacy on US national interests. Cultural diplomacy is important for many reasons, namely because it can provide for ‘a foundation of trust’, counter stereotypes and promote understanding, creates bonds between people that are lasting but also gives American citizens the chance to get to understand other cultures as well and avoid misunderstandings. The Advisory Committee therefore made recommendations of the measures that need to be adopted to the Secretary of State, which included most importantly funding, which needs to be increased for public and cultural diplomacy in general and the need for the expansion of international cultural exchange programs in persons, skills and knowledge. ‘Winning the hearts and minds of people’ won’t happen overnight, but it needs to be consistently applied in the long-term. This needs to be a central effort of US diplomacy in the 21^st century.

The Advisory Committee notes that there has first of all been a lack of adequate funding for cultural diplomacy, but also a lack of understanding the importance of it. It is hugely important to listen and react to how the world and other cultures view American culture. US policies have ‘damaged America’s credibility and power to persuade’. A survey conducted in 2003 and 2004 revealed that for a large part, people ‘view George W. Bush as a greater threat to the world order than Osama bin Laden’. Influencing world opinion about the US cannot be done militarily, but through culture and ‘cultural engagement’ applied consistently, that will make a difference in the end. An extremely important element must therefore be listening, and through that understanding for cultural diplomacy to be effective, as it is a ‘two way street’. Cultural diplomacy is also important to balance the policies that have influenced public opinion in the world, and the Committee stressed the fact that right now, there is ‘no cultural counterweight to our foreign policy’.

US cultural diplomacy in the era of the ‘war on terror’ would have been extremely essential. Many people lost the ability to distinguish between policies and people, and since there was nothing to balance out the effects of the policies on world opinion, hostility towards the US was inevitable. The US made the mistake of not listening, and giving the impression of complete disregard for all others and cultures and values, highlighting and imposing its own as the only way to go. The way to ‘win hearts and minds’ is to listen and understand others, and through mutual understanding, it is only possible to overcome issues. Basically, the report highlights the need for a ‘permanent structure’ for US cultural diplomacy especially during the ‘war on terror’ but also beyond, for the future, since it has never existed but only during times of war has cultural diplomacy been applied. Cultural diplomacy needs to be made an essential effort for the future, because it is so important in today’s world to advance mutual understanding by listening and understanding others as well, and only through this to better be able to influence and be a part of the global debate.

Celebrity Diplomacy

Today most of the capitalist and developed nations suffer from the negative attitude towards them which are originated from the underdeveloped countries. The underdeveloped countries blame the capitalist ones for their suffering. In the recent years, celebrity diplomacy gained momentum with the presence of Angelina Jolie, Bono and George Clooney as the celebrities who devoted themselves to the public diplomacy. I believe they cannot change the image of the whole country but they have chance for a better image. For instance Lady Diana was very successful for representing her country. But can Angelina Jolie change the public image of George Bush or Obama? No she cannot. But they may create a new perception in the world which will be limited but at least they try to make difference. For instance, they made declarations that blame the military intervention or they went to middle of the war in order to show how they feel. Sean Penn wrote an open letter to President Bush in order to change his mind. So celebrity diplomacy is a new unconventional tool for promoting the culture of the state But it seems that Angelina Jolie has to do more instead of adopting children otherwise she will need to adopt every Iraqi child in order to save them.

Bibliography

Cooper, A. 2008, “Celebrity Diplomacy”. http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/library/reviews_detail/celebrity_diplomacy/

Cold War Public Diplomacy with James Bond

The American public cultural diplomacy peaked during the Cold War because United States perceived Soviet Union as a threat for them. One cannot deny that United States used every policy tool in order to promote American culture to the society. It is possible to argue that Hollywood used to be a policy tool for United States public policy. Cinema had a crucial importance for the daily life of American people so they were fascinated with idea of James Bond who was fighting against Soviet secret service. British agent fought against communism and he represented the good side in order to give the message capitalist America is the good side in this war whereas communism is a threat for the American values. It is possible to state that the mass media has an influential role on the society and United States government used mass media in order to reflect the ideas of the U.S. government. It would be naive to think that the Hollywood movies did not have the aim of making propaganda. Unite d States government used James Bond movies in order to create a public opinion on behalf of United States against Soviet Union. The line between fiction and reality disappeared when Hollywood entered to the war with United States against Soviet Union. Also it is possible to say that Cold War contributed to the popularity of James Bond because citizens were attached to him based on the reason they share the same ideals.

Bibliography

Shaw, T. “Hollywood’s Cold War”.

“James Bond in the Cold War”. 2009. BBC Home. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A51925962

U.S. Public Cultural Diplomacy after 9/11 Public cultural diplomacy: historical perspectives Many Tools To Use...

It is possible to define cultural diplomacy as “a domain of diplomacy concerned with establishing, developing and sustaining relations with foreign states by way of culture. It is also a proactive process of external projection in which a nation’s institutions, value system and unique cultural personality are promoted at a bilateral and multilateral level.” So, from a general perspective cultural diplomacy is promotion of values. It is possible to claim that cultural diplomacy gained momentum with the Cold War in United States because United States fought with Soviet Union at every level. And it was important for her to promote her culture against communist culture. So it will be wrong to think the states will adopt conventional methods in order to spread culture to the world. There are several examples for evaluating this claim, Hollywood cinema used to be a proxy for American Cold War propaganda, using sports as a diplomacy tool or making propaganda by celebrities. So it seems that there are many tools to be obtained and if they are adopted they have high chance of being successful. For instance, someone cannot deny the success of Hollywood for making anti-communist propaganda, or Angelina Jolie as “UN Goodwill Ambassador”. But today United States has an image of being an oil hunter so none of the tools to be working compared to earlier times. We may blame technology for showing us the truth!

See definition of cultural diplomacy retrieved from Ivey, B. and Cleggett, P. “Cultural Diplomacy and the National Interest: In a Search of 21st Century Perspective”. The Curb Center For Art. http://textus.diplomacy.edu/textusBin/BViewers/oview/culturaldiplomacy/oview.asp?FilterTopic=%2F38139