Evaluation of BarentsKult 2022
5. Main findings to the sub questions 5.1 New Actors (Questions 9, 10)
designed only to meet those criteria. […] It is hard to tell in advance which projects are innovative and which are not. In my experience, [the Barents Secretariat] is not very clear on this, and I think that is a good thing.» (Project owner)
To what extent does BarentsKult fulfil the objective of stimulating the growth of good, innovative art and cultural projects? What are the main criteria for success? As reflected in the webinar, BarentsKult owners grapple with defining what is innovative, and how to measure it. BarentsKult owners see the concept of innovation as central as well as difficult to define. Innovation is described as «looking forward», thinking «outside the box» and creating projects that are interesting to both participants and the audience. «New content, new elements, and new ideas» are seen as very positive when applications are reviewed. Bringing in impulses from another country and merging two different cultural traditions is seen as facilitating just that.
Innovation is a high priority for the Expert Committee in the process of approving and rejecting applications. Likewise, lack of innovation is a frequent reason for rejecting applications. Innovation appears to be almost an absolute criterion, with the exception of some arena development projects where the degree of innovation seems to be less emphasized. Furthermore, the artistic quality of the projects is the one factor most frequently mentioned as an argument for approving an application (see Figure 1, p. 24). Also, ability to create results is a repeated reason for approval, while lack of professionality in some instances has been used as a reason for rejection (see Figure 2, p. 24).
One perspective is that bringing together artists with new projects and developing new arenas can be seen as innovation. In addition, even repeaters can reinvent themselves. On a different note, swopping old actors for new ones within the confines of a repetitive concept is not necessarily innovative. There is, however, a mutual recognition among BarentsKult owners that innovation is not a concept that is easily measured.
Between 2014 and 2020, BarentsKult has provided a total of 70 million NOK. Of these funds, the two large repeaters Pikene På Broen and Stiftelsen Tromsø Internasjonale Filmfestival have received 22.7 million, i.e. 32 per cent of the total. Both these project owners have received between one and two project grants per year during the entire period. Projects from these two applicants have received between 0.7 and 1.5 million NOK per project, which place them at the very high end of the scale. Only two other applicants have received funds of that scale: Hilde Merete Mehti received 1.8 million NOK for her Dark Ecology project in 2015, and Troms fylkeskultursenter received 1.9 million NOK for their High North AiR network: AIR Barents 2016, also granted in 2015. In parallel with this, tight finances were used as a reason for reducing the amounts granted to 13 project approvals and was used as a reason to reject otherwise fundable projects in three instances.
The idea that innovation is found in the cross-border aspect resounds with BarentsKult project owners. In the words of one project owner: «I have not heard of any other band that has done anything similar – that makes music in this way across borders.» Another interpretation offered in the case interviews is that the innovation aspect was found in the location of the project, and that nothing similar had been done in that particular village before. Yet another point of view is that innovation arises when focus is directed towards a type of art that has received little attention before. Certain methodologies are also seen as innovative. Finally, «innovation» is interpreted as combining classical and new art expressions or staging classical pieces in a new way.
When asked about the conditions for innovation and good art, time, economy and planning were identified as the key enablers of success. The flexibility of BarentsKult funds, particularly the possibility of using funds as salaries to Russian counterparts were seen as essential. The possibility of applying for more than one year is also seen as important in that it allows for time to properly develop projects and ensure quality.
From the perspective of the artists, the lack of a clearly defined notion of innovation may not be a bad thing: «All art has an element of innovation – even art expressions that are retrospective. In defining what is innovation, you risk pushing away types of art that cannot meet those specific criteria, or you get applications that are directly 36
