Cultural policy in totalitarian society implies
two models of existing – either conformist position, which excludes
creative independency (that shows numerous examples of avant-garde artists
in Soviet Union), or existing in total opposition to the totalitarian
system, which leads usually to physical or moral pressure to the artist,
and in the result to renunciation of own position or personal annihilation
of the artist (imprisonment/murder/mental hospital) and/or destruction
of artist’s creative work. In post-totalitarian societies with
non-developed cultural policies art, being not able to respond to criteria
of free market (show-business becomes the substitute for it on the consumption
level), forced out to the margins of public life. It is not able to
turn attention of media or public (state or municipal) structures (neither
in terms of financing, nor in terms of content/form of the art piece
itself). As well it is unable to involve financing from commercial companies.
This turns into situation of absolute freedom for the artist –
from the one side, and absolute impossibility to survive as a full-valued
creative individual and society member. The more complicated problem
for the artist appears when the post-totalitarian situation overlaps
with post-colonial situation (as in case of most post-Soviet countries).
This is also influenced by crisis of “old” democratic models
in USA and European Union (which used to be extended through activity
of international funds and governmental financing programs), and this
puts under question the very paradigm of “transformation society”
as evolution from non-democratic to democratic forms. The aim of the
section is to explore the situation of the artist in post-totalitarian,
post-colonial society and how these societies transform; the meaning
of being “independent” artist in these circumstances; and
to discuss possible models of cultural policies in such societies.
