Panel discussion with participants who are the co-editors of the Routledge Companion of Arts Governance, Leadership and Philanthropy: Ruth Rentschler, Wendy Reid, Chiara Carolina Donnelli

Governance in the arts on a global scale is an important but emerging issue in our field. Since the first article on arts governance in 1970, there has been an increased focus on this topic as scholars seek legitimacy and incorporate new and different perspectives into their research. Initially rooted in organizational literature, the concept of governance has evolved beyond the traditional view of dynamics within the boardroom. Understanding of governance varies depending on the discipline addressing it, such as social psychology, organization studies, and public and non-profit management. In addition, the evolution of the field is characterised by both theory-driven and empirically normative approaches. The latter is mainly addressed from consultants working with arts clients. As a result, a shared definition and unique perspective are still lacking in the field.

The practice of arts governance also varies worldwide due to differences in legislative structures, cultural policies, and funding frameworks. While the debate has traditionally been dominated by North American, European, and Australian scholars, perspectives from the Global South (Asia, Latin America, and Africa) are now being included in the discussion. Additionally, issues related to inclusion and diversity, the dynamics of abuse, critical perspectives, post-colonial perspectives, climate change and sustainability are changing governance dynamics.

As well, there has been a shift in arts governance research from a traditional agency-focused approach to a more holistic stakeholder-orientation. This integrated agency framework is based on a behavioural-ethical-relational view. The editors of this Routledge Companion on Arts Governance will reflect on their learning about governance as a multifaceted concept, providing an overview of current trends in governance studies globally and highlighting future research opportunities in a call to action for the field.

Commensurating the Incommensurable: A Historical Perspective on Cultural Sustainability in Giotto and the Scrovegni Chapel

Issues and Arguments

Over two decades ago, the World Heritage Committee recognized cultural heritage as pivotal for sustainable development, advocating for its integration into national agendas. This marked the beginning of acknowledging heritage not just as a contributor to social and economic development but also as an agent of change for sustainable development (Agenda 21 for Culture, 2012). It shapes regional identities and contributes to social and economic growth (Smith, 2006; Throsby, 1999; 2013). However, two interconnected issues remain controversial: the need to commensurate heritage's value in its multifaceted dimensions and the discussion around its ‘sustainable’ use.
Built heritage, as noted by Vileniske (2008), contributes to the physical and visual sustainability, as well as to the social and cultural viability of landscapes, local identity, and sense of place. This is often in contrast with the conservation of its physical integrity, challenged by balancing physical preservation against intangible values and economic prospects(Carter & Grimwade,1997).

While sustainable development typically emphasizes economic, social, and environmental pillars, cultural sustainability is less defined (Soini & Birkeland, 2014). The debate around heritage preservation (Vileniske, 2008) opens doors to alternative scenarios of valorization, reuse, and pure conservation. These are often in contrast due to the multidimensional nature of heritage and the broad set of values they represent. However, Cultural Sustainability, being an evolving concept in scientific discourse and society, presents different storylines and political ideologies (Soini & Birkeland, 2014). Thus, decisions made in this context are not always consensual, especially considering the varying perspectives (neo-liberal, conservative, communitarian, etc.) on the potential use of heritage and the difficulty to commensurate its value. Cultural heritage is defined to be unique or irreplaceable; being non-excludable; and being subject to special destination or inalienability constraints. These elements, acting together, make it extremely difficult to measure value to the extent that they are also referred to in the common lexicon as 'priceless' and/or 'incommensurable'. The dabate is wide and International accounting bodies, including the Accounting Standards Board (ASB),have tried to set standards for the evaluation of heritage inside accounting documents.

The Scrovegni Chapel case highlights the historical precedence of cultural sustainability concerns, showcasing the evolving perception of heritage as a legacy for future generations, within the discourse of value quantification. This research aims to identify the prodromes in the debate on cultural sustainability, discussing its historical origins through the case of Giotto’s Capella degli Scrovegni in Padova.

Methodology

This study focuses on the Scrovegni Chapel in Padua, where the local government's actions in the 19th century to preserve Giotto's frescoes exemplify early stages of cultural heritage protection. Methodologically, this study adopts an institutional and narrative history approach (Greif, 1998), examining both institutional changes and the roles of individuals in past institutions (Dyer, 1978). From a critical and interpretive perspective, our narrative provides a description of facts and events underlying the crucial transition from an estimatory activity recognizing the asset as valuable to one where its cultural value, and thus its incommensurability, is perceived. The research is supported by the consultation and study of primary (ongoing) and secondary sources, with primary sources comprising original documents preserved in the State Archives of Padua and the General Archives.

Study Setting and Preliminary Results

Around 1870, the Scrovegni Chapel faced a potential sale to a London buyer, risking the removal of its paintings. The Municipality of Padua, with remarkable foresight, recognized the chapel's importance and took measures to prevent this, necessitating the commensuration of its value to finalize the transaction. This period marks a critical transition in heritage appraisal, as highlighted in a 1871 council report to the Padua City Council. The report underscores the social value of the chapel, described as 'one of the most splendid monuments of Italian art', and the need to prevent its removal, positioning the council as an early advocate of cultural heritage sustainability. In the final phase of the story of the Scrovegni Chapel, a turning point occurred on 10 May 1880. Antonio Tolomei, the Councillor for Culture, persuaded the Padua City Council to buy the property, known as the Arena, from the Venetian Counts for 54,921 Italian lire. This event marked the culmination of over sixty years of efforts by the City of Padua and its citizens to preserve the Chapel.
Their tenacity and civic sense were driven by the recognition that the Chapel, home to Giotto's greatest fresco masterpiece and a pivotal work in the evolution of mural painting, was a heritage not just privately owned but belonging to the entire community. This recognition was recently remarked on 24 July 2021 when 'Padova urbs picta, Giotto's Scrovegni Chapel and the 14th-century fresco cycles of Padua' were designated as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

Conclusion

This research, employing institutional and narrative history, critically analyzes the transition in heritage valuation, supported by primary sources from the State Archives of Padua and ongoing documentary research. It is a part of a broader discourse on cultural valorization and sustainability. The administrative actions by the Municipality of Padua reveal not only a cultural sensitivity towards Giotto's unique and irreplaceable pictorial representations but also the role of accounting in valuing heritage. This case exemplifies the genesis of cultural heritage protection, where accounting techniques and administrative practices played an instrumental role in protecting and appreciating a value now considered incommensurable but which, at the time, existed within a regulatory framework that did not explicitly protect cultural heritage in both its tangible and social components.

In summary, the paper discusses the evolution of cultural heritage from a valued asset to a culturally significant legacy, advocating for its protection and inter-generational transfer, as exemplified by the protective measures taken for the Scrovegni Chapel, now recognized as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

Bibliography

• Agenda 21 for Culture, 2012. Rio + 20 and culture. Advocating for Culture as a Pillar of Sustainability. An Initiative by the Committee on Culture of United Cities and Local Governments – UCLG. Barcelona. .
• Barton, A. D. (2000), Accounting for Public Heritage Facilities – Assets or Liabilities of the Government?, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 13(2): 219–235.
• Biondi L., Grandis F.G. e Vari D. (2023), “Measuring Heritage Assets in Public Sector Financial Reporting: Dream or Reality?”, Measurement in Public Sector Financial Reporting: Theoretical Basis and Empirical Evidence. Emerald Publishing Limited (pp. 193-217).
• Carnegie G. e Wolnizer, P. (1999), Unravelling the rhetoric about the financial reporting of public collections as assets: a response to Micallef and Peirson, Australian Accounting Review, 9(17):16-21.
• Carter B. e Grimwade G. (1997), Balancing use and preservation in cultural heritage management, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 3.1: 45-53.
• Dyer T. (1978), Institutional Research and Institutional History, Research in Higher Education 8: 283–286.
• Ellwood H., e Greenwood M. (2016), Accounting for heritage assets: Does measuring economic value ‘kill the cat’?, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 38: 1-13.
• Fidelbo E. (2018), Strumenti giuridici di valorizzazione del rapporto tra patrimonio culturale e territorio: il caso dei patti di collaborazione tra amministrazioni locali e cittadini, Aedon, (3).
• Greif A. (1998), Historical and Comparative Institutional Analysis, The American Economic Review, 88: 80–84.
• Hood C. (1995), Contemporary public management: a new global paradigm?, Public Policy and Administration, 10(2): 104-117.
• Jurėnienė V. e Radzevičius M. (2014), Models of cultural heritage management, Transformations in Business & Economics 13 (2014): 236-256.
• Moore M. H. e Khagram S. (2004), On creating public value. What Businesses Might Learn from Government about Strategic Management, Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative Working Paper, 3.
• Moore M.H. (1995), Creating public value: Strategic management in government, Harvard University Press.
• Rizzo I. e Throsby D. (2006). Cultural heritage: economic analysis and public policy, Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, 1: 983-1016.
• Soini K. e Birkeland I. (2014), Exploring the scientific discourse on cultural sustainability, Geoforum, 51:213-223.
• Smith, L. Uses of Heritage; Routledge: London, UK, 2006.
• Vileniske, I.G., 2008. Influence of built heritage on sustainable development of landscape. Landscape Res. 33 (4), 425–437.