FOREWORD 

It is important to note that the process was devised by/for the  City of Launceston's Council to develop and deliver "A Cultural Strategy For Launceston" and it has apparently been 'devised' by-and-large in isolation from 'the community'. Indeed,  even the 'arts community', however it may be variously understood, seems to be disengaged. 

Likewise, the QVMAG's Trustees – the city's aldermen – have not thus far been in open discussion with their constituents in regard the development of this key policy. Notwithstanding this, the 'Trustees' have consistently used their deemed authority to 'silently levy' ratepayers to cover the QVMAG's recurrent budget while apparently seeking to grow the city's 'cultural sector' in isolation.

Thus the process arguably lacks meaningful 'community consultation' and as a consequence there been little to no detectable community engagement. Also, there is signalling evident that suggests that the 'operational wing' of Council is set to grow via its own initiatives. This would be under the auspices of "The Cultural Strategy For Launceston" process and its current 'orchestration' – and with the prospect of 'the growth' being exponential over time.

It appears as if the desired outcome has been determined in-house and that the evidence/information to support that position is being assembled to underpin the projected outcome.

INTRODUCTION 

Effectively, 'the community', the subject of the strategy, has been bureaucratically insulated from the process currently in play – and from the very beginning.

While the process does talk about "consultation", up to now asking about the process has consistently drawn the reply, in essence, that it is "confidential information" pertinent only to Council's 'operational wing' thus information will be made available in 'due course' – along with  other responses designed to deflect attention.

It is a matter of contention as to whether or not this is 'by design' or that it has been assumed that 'the community' lacked the capacity, the 'expertise', the interest even, to participate and contribute in a 'meaningful way'. If so, that would be both flawed and an arrogant assumption.

In either instance it is flawed reasoning given that 'the community' is the subject of whatever process is actually in play leading to whatever anticipated outcome – and as yet unarticulated in public on the record using conscripted public funding  to arrive at an outcome. Also, it discounts the expertise of people in the city and region.

Hints, and only hints, as to where the process was/is going can be gleaned here and there. However, any hint of including the various and layered 'Communities of Ownership and Interest' (COI) is illusive if not absent. .

To discover that Launceston has a "strong commitment to building partnerships with stakeholders, and seeking greater community involvement in the activities and decision making processes of council" is bewildering to say the least. IF this statement is in fact a 'Council Policy' and one that has been passed by, and adopted by, Council in 'open council around the table' the process in play would seem to run counter that kind of understanding. 

THE PROCESS

Against this backgrounding there is quite a bit to ponder upon. In a 21st C context and in the context of current 'cultural sensibilities' where there is a changing paradigm within which to ponder upon such things as 'cultural landscaping' and assess 'COI expectations and aspirations'. The process does not seem to begin 'purposefully' working towards identifying a set of 'aspirations/objectives' in accord with a 'vision/expectations' supported by commensurate rationales that comes together in a set of purposeful strategies. 

There is sufficient evidence to suggest that the process as it stands demonstrates a disconnect, if not the disengagement, with the community upon whom the costs largely falls – and by conscription. Given the broader social cum economic cum community wide implications of the process this is unfortunate to say the very least. 

That said, 'the exercise' is both worthwhile and retrievable/repairable if there is the bureaucratic will and the intellectual wherewithal to effect the necessary changes. Arguably, the most urgent task is to reposition the investigation in order to give 'regional imperatives' more prominence. Currently, the process appears to be contained within the City of Launceston's 'municipal borders' presumably based on the overworked idea that 'the place' is Tasmania's largest city, etc. etc. 

Moreover, rightly or wrongly, the process seems to privilege Anglocentric cum colonial cum monocultural perceptions of 'place, placemaking and placedness'. Given the paradigm shifts in play in regard to cultural landscaping it would be more than unfortunate if this issue was to go unaddressed – and addressed overtly. 

The projection and implication that Launceston has a "community engagement policy in place" is unsupported by the evidence on the ground.

This process, as it presents itself, carries all the hallmarks of it 'being done to' the community rather than 'with' the community in partnership and collaboration. 

There is much to ponder in a 21st C context with current 'cultural sensibilities' in mind. Then there is a 'COI expectations and aspirations' to consider given that effectively such issues appear to have flown well below the radar thus far.

PURPOSE

All too often processes such as the one here are ambiguous, open ended, somewhat opaque and consequently unclear and of dubious value as a result. 

If the 'process' is to be meaningful it is 'pure folly' to pursue such an exercise based upon a set of apparently ambiguous and unarticulated assumptions. It appears to be the case here with the Cultural Strategy For Launceston that such a scenario of 'ambiguous purposefulness' is in full swing. 

Apparently, it is being assumed that the reader, the constituent, the cultural community, whoever, either knows or are able to deduce not only the 'purpose of the strategy' but also all the implied nuances and machinations. 

That would the boldest of assumptions and so bold as to compromise the integrity, the validity even, of the exercise. 

It is standard practice to articulate purpose followed by objectives and rationales. After that, the foundations are there to develop 'strategies' via which to purposefully satisfy various objectives in accord with rational endeavour/s. Nonetheless, the process needs constant review in order that serendipity has opportunities to play a part in the investigation. 

The intuition based alternatives, and the sets of assumption embedded in them, all too often prove to be folly-filled and find themselves heading to nowhere. 

The informing documentation in this process intimates that, "The City of Launceston is developing a cultural strategy for our city. This will link to a plan for supporting the arts and culture. ... Your feedback from this survey will help guide the cultural strategy to deliver initiatives for a healthy, vibrant Launceston community, which attract and support business, entrepreneurship and tourism, as well as a great place to live." Rather than being either a 'purpose or purposeful' this is in fact an 'aspirational objective' along with its rationalisation for being there. In part, it might well be a useful objective – its not a useful purpose. 

However, what might an overarching 'purpose' look like? It might be: To map the constituent components of [the place's] cultural landscape and determine its dimensions, diversity and the parameters understood to be [place].' Place here might well be: The Tamar/Esk region; ponrabbel; The Three Rivers Region; Catchment 43 EN-MAP; along with other imaginings of a 'cultural landscape'. 

'Placedness' here is important given that "Launceston" in the current 'operational context' is more a 'political precinct' rather than a viable 'cultural landscape'. 'The city' nonetheless may well be a significant component of a 'cultural landscape' given its histories and heritage. Arguably it isn't a 'cultural landscape' all by itself in isolation. If 'placedness' is insulated from the diversity of a place's histories and heritage it is diminished. 

Moreover, 'Launceston' and in a 21st Century context, this process seems to make a set of privileged, ranked, elitist, arrogant, Anglocentric cum colonial assumptions about the appropriateness of the 'operational placedness' that is (will be?) the focus of the 'strategy' development going on here. 

To ignore all this, and with cries of "political correctness" being voiced, it would be diminishing to all who inhabit the cultural landscape – strategically arrogant and a negative. 

Given that it is projected that "Implementation of the broader Cultural Strategy will commence in late 2018 to more effectively leverage the cities cultural assets. Seed funding of $3M is required to complete design work and deliver infrastructure improvements such as a public art trail" it has to be said that without inclusive .purposeful and inclusive placedness the 'strategy' runs the clear risk of being irrelevant and pointless in the end.

THE MAPPING AND INCLUSIVENESS

Click Here

The tensions between 'place' – geographic and socio-political – personal identity in concert with cultural identity are significant factors in the determination of cultural realities and 'placedness'.

The quandary that inevitably comes to light is to do with whether or not it is 'place' that determines a 'cultural reality' or culture that defines 'place and placedness'. That tension is always there and it is a somewhat fluid set of ideas/understandings.

The evolving shifts in cultural understandings arguably demand that there also be shifts in the ways, the layered ways, places are understood. In the aftermath of colonial enterprise, laden as it is with layers of storytelling and its tensions, the 'layering' in many ways throws new light on the ways – multidimensional ways – 'place' can be, and is increasingly, understood in a cultural context.

Likewise, the ways place might be 'mapped' expands exponentially as previously downplayed and somewhat submerged sensibilities and sensitivities are exposed and arranged less hierarchically and more rhizomeically [EN/1].

Thus it is increasingly important to be more inclusive in cultural mapping processes and similarly more critically engaged with the multi-dimensionality that determines and defines 'place'. Thus who it is who is 'authorised' to be engaged in the mapping becomes increasingly important, such as:
• When, and by whom, are  places and precincts relevant to the layering of cultural realities, defined?
• Who is it, and by what means, is 'ownership and interest' defined and in what context?
• Who gets to be the authorised determiner of an interest or layered interest in a place?
• Who has the 'expertise' to navigate a cultural mapping process and with what resources?
• Who distributes this information to whom and when?

AND, there is a myriad of other questions that arise out of these questions albeit that the inhabitants of cultural landscapes need to be deeply engaged in their mapping. Without that mapping processes would lack credibility.

An exemplary model of this can be found in England via the 'group' COMMON GROUND [EN2] albeit that they operate in a distinct network of cultural landscapes/parishes that have developed their cultural realities over a very long period of time. These exemplars do not readily translate into 'antipodean cultural landscapes' given the relative histories and distinctive storytelling and histories embedded in each. Nonetheless, comparisons can be made and illuminating contrasts divined.

There are tensions to do with the layerings and the shared ownerships of and interests in 'place' to be considered when mapping cultural landscapes. The concepts and the research that backs up and informs the notion of 'Communities of Ownership & Interest' very quickly come into play when we begin to interrogate 'placemaking/placemarking/placescaping'.

Indeed, the business of Local Govt is almost entirely to do with 'placemaking' and it is a useful reference in mapping cultural landscapes but not that useful all by itself.

ENDNOTES

'Culture' and 'cultural production' is found in the characteristics and knowledge systems of a particular group of people, encompassing language, religion, belief systems, cuisine, social habits, histories, personal inter-relationships, music and arts practices that simultaneously define 'place' and that are defined by 'place' .

EN/1–  rhizomatic .... A rhizome (botanical origin), unlike trees or their roots, connects any point to any other point, and its traits are not necessarily linked to traits of the same nature. Rhizomatic is a philosophical concept developed by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, used to describe theory and research that allows for multiple, non-hierarchical entry and exit points in data representation and interpretation.

EN-MAP
CATCHMENT 43 ... On The Tamar for instance, in an attempt to downplay cultural considerations, and to focus on more pragmatic issues with added ‘scientific’ accuracy, the ‘water catchment‘ has been given the number 43 – or more precisely the name, Catchment 43 … likewise 40 for the Macquarie system; 41 for the South Esk; and 42 for the North Esk. It’s a ‘place’ that finds its physicality in a ‘waterway’ as well as the adjoining land and placescaping located at the confluence of the Tamar and Tasmania’s two Esk Rivers. Catchment 43 is a place that might be understood, even if somewhat differently, as ponrabbel if we invoke palawa-kani, Tasmanian Aboriginal language, and thus invoke palawa (Tasmanian Aboriginal!)cultural imperatives. Here palawa understandings and palawa knowledge systems created a cultural landscape. ponrabbel is a palawa understanding and imagining of place and the place’s utility and amenity.... Map Link