创意产业-发展模式

Rouslan Khestanov
{"title":"创意产业-发展模式","authors":"Rouslan Khestanov","doi":"10.17323/1728-192X-2018-3-173-196","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"With the rise of the concept of “culture”, numerous attempts were made to integrate it into state policy, but failed. “Culture” then required a clear and unambiguous definition. A new effort, known as the “debate about cultural and creative industries”, was undertaken in a new historical context at the beginning of this century. This article tries to clarify the main arguments and positions in these recent debates, and to analyze the attempt of a new operationalization of culture by means of economic discourse in the critical perspective. This attempt was carried out under the new academic slogan of “creative industries”, with which politicians, international and national functionaries, as well as representatives of the academic community pinned their hopes on the invention of a new model of economic growth. One of the principal theses of the article is that this kind of operationalization is not realistic because “creativity”, like “culture”, is not amenable to any mathematization, commodification, or unambiguous interpretation. The policy of “creative industries” is considered through a tendency to a total commercialization of cultural production and its global standardization. The article analyzes different national models of its implementation, as well as the results. One of the most important outcomes of this policy is a growing distrust of the “archaic” forms of cultural knowledge that have been formed in and by national states: the statistical approach as well as its instruments are inappropriate and inadequate as state-of-the-art when the corporate sector almost completely defines rules and standards of a cultural production. This raises the question of whether the state needs a holistic view of culture and the exercising of control functions in this sector of production. In this perspective, the article raises the problem of whether the policy of creative industries is adequate and appropriate for the Russian Federation.","PeriodicalId":137616,"journal":{"name":"The Russian Sociological Review","volume":"69 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Creative Industries - Models of Development\",\"authors\":\"Rouslan Khestanov\",\"doi\":\"10.17323/1728-192X-2018-3-173-196\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"With the rise of the concept of “culture”, numerous attempts were made to integrate it into state policy, but failed. “Culture” then required a clear and unambiguous definition. A new effort, known as the “debate about cultural and creative industries”, was undertaken in a new historical context at the beginning of this century. This article tries to clarify the main arguments and positions in these recent debates, and to analyze the attempt of a new operationalization of culture by means of economic discourse in the critical perspective. This attempt was carried out under the new academic slogan of “creative industries”, with which politicians, international and national functionaries, as well as representatives of the academic community pinned their hopes on the invention of a new model of economic growth. One of the principal theses of the article is that this kind of operationalization is not realistic because “creativity”, like “culture”, is not amenable to any mathematization, commodification, or unambiguous interpretation. The policy of “creative industries” is considered through a tendency to a total commercialization of cultural production and its global standardization. The article analyzes different national models of its implementation, as well as the results. One of the most important outcomes of this policy is a growing distrust of the “archaic” forms of cultural knowledge that have been formed in and by national states: the statistical approach as well as its instruments are inappropriate and inadequate as state-of-the-art when the corporate sector almost completely defines rules and standards of a cultural production. This raises the question of whether the state needs a holistic view of culture and the exercising of control functions in this sector of production. In this perspective, the article raises the problem of whether the policy of creative industries is adequate and appropriate for the Russian Federation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":137616,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Russian Sociological Review\",\"volume\":\"69 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Russian Sociological Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192X-2018-3-173-196\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Russian Sociological Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192X-2018-3-173-196","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

随着“文化”概念的兴起,人们曾多次尝试将其纳入国家政策,但都以失败告终。“文化”需要一个清晰而明确的定义。本世纪初,在一个新的历史背景下,一场被称为“文化与创意产业之争”的新努力开始了。本文试图澄清这些争论中的主要论点和立场,并从批判的角度分析经济话语对文化的新操作化的尝试。这一尝试是在“创意产业”这一新的学术口号下进行的,政治家、国际和国家官员以及学术界的代表都把希望寄托在发明一种新的经济增长模式上。这篇文章的主要论点之一是,这种操作化是不现实的,因为“创造力”,就像“文化”一样,不适合任何数学化、商品化或明确的解释。“创意产业”政策是通过文化生产的全面商业化及其全球标准化的趋势来考虑的。文章分析了不同国家的实施模式,以及实施效果。这一政策最重要的结果之一是,人们越来越不信任在民族国家内部和由民族国家形成的“古老”文化知识形式:当企业部门几乎完全定义了文化生产的规则和标准时,统计方法及其工具作为最先进的技术是不合适和不充分的。这就提出了一个问题,即国家是否需要对文化有一个整体的看法,并在这一生产部门行使控制职能。从这个角度来看,本文提出了一个问题,即俄罗斯联邦的创意产业政策是否充分和适当。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Creative Industries - Models of Development
With the rise of the concept of “culture”, numerous attempts were made to integrate it into state policy, but failed. “Culture” then required a clear and unambiguous definition. A new effort, known as the “debate about cultural and creative industries”, was undertaken in a new historical context at the beginning of this century. This article tries to clarify the main arguments and positions in these recent debates, and to analyze the attempt of a new operationalization of culture by means of economic discourse in the critical perspective. This attempt was carried out under the new academic slogan of “creative industries”, with which politicians, international and national functionaries, as well as representatives of the academic community pinned their hopes on the invention of a new model of economic growth. One of the principal theses of the article is that this kind of operationalization is not realistic because “creativity”, like “culture”, is not amenable to any mathematization, commodification, or unambiguous interpretation. The policy of “creative industries” is considered through a tendency to a total commercialization of cultural production and its global standardization. The article analyzes different national models of its implementation, as well as the results. One of the most important outcomes of this policy is a growing distrust of the “archaic” forms of cultural knowledge that have been formed in and by national states: the statistical approach as well as its instruments are inappropriate and inadequate as state-of-the-art when the corporate sector almost completely defines rules and standards of a cultural production. This raises the question of whether the state needs a holistic view of culture and the exercising of control functions in this sector of production. In this perspective, the article raises the problem of whether the policy of creative industries is adequate and appropriate for the Russian Federation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信