The cultural sector is going through a major crisis that reveals a paradigm shift. In my opinion, we must now cultivate culture everywhere, in all sectors.
The French cultural sector is in a phase of very great financial difficulty at the beginning of 2025. What is at stake has been in the works for a long time, and in my view outlines a major paradigm shift. Of course, we must defend public cultural policies in a committed and lucid manner, but we must also think about the future of the functioning and organization of art and cultural activities, taking into account the profound anthropological changes that are actually at work behind these budgetary and political tensions. This is what I propose here. For current difficulties, I refer to the very relevant “Cartocrise Culture 2025” proposed by the Observatory of Cultural Policies.
The current crisis is not a crisis of culture, because cultural practices have never been so invested by human beings, with incredible access and massive uses. There is a crisis for some, and for a certain professional milieu, but no crisis per se. It is a crisis for those who are losing the power they had.
The public professional cultural sector has completely lost its symbolic power. Historically linked to politics, it exercised significant influence since Louis XIV, who used it as a tool of power. Then, one went to the Opera in one’s box for important meetings, high-level negotiations and marriages of interest between the powerful.
Today, the places of real power, those where contemporary money circulates, do without the traditional cultural sector. Those who hold the money are no longer those who frequent the opera and theater. Notables still go there, certainly, but they are yesterday’s notables, a culture in decline, which is gradually losing its political influence, whether local, national or international. I’m not sure that in the end this is such bad news.
Here is what I propose: we must cultivate a multitude of cultural services everywhere. Human activities are flourishing: commerce, public works, education, or finance of course, for example. There are problems everywhere, and the development of inequalities is terrible, certainly, but there is potential and financial means in many places of civil life. It would be false to say “there is no money”.
What I believe we need to support today and tomorrow, at the ministerial level as in local communities, is the scattering of the cultural sector. By this I mean developing new cultural skills in all environments: in banking, in transport, in construction, wherever we want, everywhere! Not just 1% cultural obligations, but a real integration of culture into professional and collective structures themselves, both public and private.
Let’s take the example of works councils. Historically, they have been very large consumers of culture. But that was the era when, to access motivating cultural offerings, one had to go out, one had to travel to the theater, to the museum, to experience cultural practices different from one’s daily life.
Today, the main cultural practices take place within companies themselves. How many employees watch YouTube videos during their working hours? How many consult Instagram between two files, or have lunch alone in their office in front of a Netflix series?
The mission of a cultural policy, whether carried out by public power or within private companies, is to offer something other than people’s autonomous cultural practices. But why offer something else, when people already have their cultural uses? Precisely to conduct a real cultural policy, that is to say to support the diversity of creation, bring greater emancipation, support amateur artistic practices, etc. This is where we will do public service work, that is to say, do something else with art and culture than simply sell or “consume” them. And this can develop, particularly economically, in a disseminated way, within all collective, associative and professional places. This will involve reinventions of artistic forms, their formats, durations and modalities of public participation. If “we go for it”, if we innovate, if we transmit the importance of culture everywhere and its benefits for collective spaces of any kind, as I concretely advocate in this article, we will renew professions, and invent the cultural sector of tomorrow, in touch with the world.
And then we must articulate culture with issues of well-being, physical and mental health, citizenship, secularism, personal construction and other psychosocial skills. The mission of public service is not, contrary to what some still claim, the simple dissemination to the greatest number of the great works of humanity, it is to build a better world thanks to the arts and culture, to their sharing, in increasingly horizontal relationships.
Since practices have changed, the system must adapt. External cultural venues, museums, theaters, cinemas and other event spaces, will not disappear. But from now on, they must compose with other symbolic places, not necessarily geographical: digital platforms.
This massive change in cultural practices cannot be ignored. We must imperatively anticipate it, propose experiments, invent new devices, new ways of creating. This is our collective responsibility.
My multidisciplinary practices—spanning creation, cultural action, training, and support in a wide range of cultural, social, and educational contexts across France—provide me with a privileged, subjective, and in-depth observatory of the cultural sector in France.
This sector is weakened by its position, often deemed “non-essential” by many political leaders, by the competition from digital platforms in cultural practices, as well as by challenges and obstacles related to the difficulty of establishing interdisciplinary collaborations and the scarcity of evaluations, which are often poorly conducted and instrumentalized.
My observatory allows me to identify dynamics that work, as well as difficulties I observe. Here, I propose to share my analyses, methods, and suggestions, hoping they may prove useful. My goal is to contribute to a stronger cultural sector in the future, as I believe that defending a cultural sector funded by taxpayers’ money holds the potential for emancipation, the development of freedoms, democracy, and the capacity to act—in a way that is fundamentally different from what private actors produce.
This is possible if there is no hypocrisy, and in my view, it comes at the cost of a commitment to lucidity and self-questioning, a choice to deconstruct representations, and perhaps to challenge certain privileges and systems of domination.