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.