IT seems logical to assume that if we are not creating culture of our own, then we are participating in the culture of others. This brings into question the ‘collective’ nature of culture itself, for whilst many people feel comfortable with the culture into which they have been born the endlessly shifting dynamics that characterise human society may well determine that it becomes increasingly difficult to sustain throughout the course of a single lifetime and, very often, seems to be crying out for revitalisation.

Whilst I am not suggesting that certain forms of culture must be swept aside on the basis that they have simply been around for a long time, or that modern perceptions of ‘progress’ should always prevail, it seems unreasonable for contemporary generations to claim credit for something they merely inherited and which they had no part in bringing to fruition. Naturally, we all have different ideas about what constitutes ‘good’ culture and much of it tends to fall by the wayside as quantity and profit take precedence over quality and authenticity. All of which remains highly subjective, of course, prompting us to question whether the act of creativity itself isn’t more important than wishing to make one form of culture thrive at the expense of another.

The solution, I believe, is to replace mass, sanitised ‘culture’ – be it old or new – with millions of new reference points that offer growth and potential for art, music and manufacturing of a wholly sovereign and autonomous character. When culture is decentralised in this way it returns to the community at the expense of nation-states, corporate sponsors and controlled media. Furthermore, in places where alternative or localised culture is able to thrive people take genuine pride in their achievements and do not experience the pressure of having to sacrifice their own unique vision by satisfying prevailing trends. This, undoubtedly, reflects the true spirit of strengthening the periphery at the expense of the core.