A Companion to Motion Pictures and Public Value. Группа авторов

in the sense of having its source solely in the intrinsic properties of a motion picture or other artwork or in the sense of it being good for its own sake or an end in itself; rather, this sort of value is instrumental in a way Paisley Livingston explores in Chapter 1. Following Aristotle, Livingston argues that such instrumental value is only finally valuable if it serves ends that are valuable in their own right. We think this is compatible with the argument sketched above, the force of which is that there is an important sense in which the instrumental value of artifacts is objective despite the fact that the final value of such artifacts depends on the ends served.

      What sorts of intrinsic value might secure the final value of such artifacts? The sections of A Companion to Motion Pictures and Public Value constitute a plausible (if not universally accepted) list. The book is divided into sections that individually focus on values that are plausibly intrinsic (or final) in the sense of being good for their own sake—aesthetic, ethical, spiritual, cognitive, prudential, environmental, and so forth—and that motion pictures can afford. These values are public in a number of senses, including that of being essentially socially embedded in practices that are shared amongst a public.

      In conclusion, it is necessary to speak to an important reservation one might have about the view that motion pictures possess (or at least have the potential to possess) a plurality of values. How do we then weigh up these different species of value and aggregate them? If a particular motion picture, say, The Birth of a Nation (1915) possesses substantive artistic value yet abounds in ethical disvalue (not just the absence of value but negative value in the sense of being ethically flawed), how should we aggregate those values and offer an overall evaluation of the film? We suspect that the intractability of the problem of teaching The Birth of a Nation and films like it is that motion pictures can indeed possess a plurality of values that are neither reducible to a single value, nor comparable in a way that would allow us to aggregate them in a way that facilitates an overall evaluation. As Paisley Livingston puts it in Chapter 1, “In many cases, it may be very hard, or even impossible, to find a single overarching value or norm in relation to which a work’s plurality of valences could be compared and summed up” (32-33). Indeed, as Richard Allen’s discussion in Chapter 12 suggests, it may be central to a film’s aims or purposes to hold two competing values (e.g. religious value and entertainment value) in tension, and it is even plausible that the aesthetic value that inheres in some motion pictures derives from this sort of complex interaction of irreducible values.

Where does that leave us and our prospects for thinking about value in an overarching or global sense? In practical terms, one promising idea is to simply restrict the scope of our judgments or evaluations. Instead of global judgments, we might make do with pro tanto judgments—as Mette Hjort does (following Gaut 2007) in Chapter 7. On this view, a motion picture’s innovative use of editing might yield a pro tanto artistic merit—a merit insofar as it contributes to its art-historical value; yet the same bit of editing might yield a pro tanto ethical flaw—a flaw insofar as it, say, aligns viewers with the Ku Klux Klan, encouraging us to root for them. It might seem unsatisfactory to leave things at that, resisting the urge to say something more definitive about the film’s overall value. But we should take comfort in the fact that a number of philosophers have advanced compelling accounts of why we should not expect such neatness when it comes to our general norms and values (e.g., Nagel 1979; Stocker 1990). This idea might raise the specter of ethical or value relativism, but since we cannot address that question here, we will simply conclude by noting that the very idea of a common good—roughly what we today refer to as a public good—and the empirical fact that it is a common pursuit across historical epochs, societies, and cultures give us reason to suspect and hope that people often converge as well as diverge on the norms and values taken to be central to the good life.²

       Public Value

      The term “public value” acquired salience with the publication of Harvard professor Mark H. Moore’s now classic Creating Public Value (1995), which addressed itself to public managers in the field of public administration. Creating Public Value sought to offer guidance to those charged with spending public funds, for example in the sphere of education, housing, or public health. Based on insights regarding the successful management of commercial enterprises, Creating Public Value explored the extent to which principles from the commercial sector could be transferred to the public sector. In 2013 Moore pursued his arguments further, publishing Recognizing Public Value, an extended reflection on issues of evidence and accountability, on how public managers are able to demonstrate that their policies and actions actually have the effect of realizing public value. Revisiting the aims of the earlier book in the introduction to the companion volume from 2013, Moore highlights his contention that in devising “value-creating” strategies for public organizations, public managers must make reference to the external environment of their operations.” “Public managers,” he claims, had to learn “to look upward toward the political authorizing environment that both provided resources and judged the value of what they were producing and outward toward the task environment where their efforts to produce public value would find success or failure” (Moore 2013, 7).

An example of the influence of Moore’s concept of public value can be found in the BBC’s adoption of relevant principles in its 2004 “Building Public Value: Renewing the BBC for a digital world,” a document developed in connection with the organization’s bid for a renewal of its 10-year charter. Richard Collins finds evidence of the “mediation” of Moore’s ideas “to the UK” in the BBC’s adoption of public value as “a regulatory as well as a management doctrine” (Collins 2007, 164). Collins further contends that the concept of public value offered the BBC a means of responding to “critiques of the BBC’s divergence from public service principles in its broadcasting practice” (164). Matteo Maggiore describes the BBC’s mobilization of “the notion of public value to guide” public service broadcasting and “to assess its performance” as a clear and decisive “break with the traditional arguments developed by public service broadcasters in Europe.” A distinctive feature of the BBC’s “Building Public Value” document was its proposal, “for the first time” to make its “plans for new services directly accountable to the public, including the wider media industry” (Maggiore 2011, 229). To this end, the BBC proposed to introduce a “public values test,” assessments of market impact, and a “performance measurement framework” that would be designed to measure the “reach, quality, impact and value for money” of the broadcaster’s programmes (BBC 2004, 15).

      Seeking to establish a boundary between the roles and obligations of commercial companies and public service organizations, the BBC’s “Building Public Value” asserts that whereas the former exist to “return value to their shareholders or owners” the latter exist to “create public value” (7). Broadcasting is referred to as a “civic art” that is “never a purely private transaction” (BBC 2004, 6). Described as infinitely shareable by an ever expanding public and as thereby qualifying for the status of a “public good” (7), public broadcasting is seen as offering a “shared experience [that] may itself represent a significant public value” (6). According to “Building Public Value,” the aim is to serve “audiences not just as consumers, but as members of a wider society, with programs and services which, while seeking to inform, educate and entertain audiences, also serve wider public purposes” (7–8). “Public value,” we are told, “is a measure of the BBC’s contribution to the quality of life in the UK” (8). The document goes on to identify five types of public value that the BBC is committed to creating: democratic value (which underpins civic life), cultural and creative value (through opportunities for creativity, the celebration of cultural heritage, and capacious national conversations), educational value (that contributes to a knowledge- and skills-based society), social and community value (that fosters social cohesion and tolerance by capturing commonalities and differences), and global value (“by being the world’s most trusted provider of international