文化產(chǎn)業(yè)外文翻譯-預(yù)覽頁
【正文】 llence as a standard for public support under the creative industries banner continues to raise two key policy problems. First, if we reject the market test, which many hold to be the most rigorous test of excellence, how do we identify which artists or “creatives” to support? (Classically, with the Arts Council, this was left to peer review.) Second, how do we reconcile this with access if audiences fail to appreciate this creativity? It is striking that there is a clear contradiction at the heart of current policy between the stress on access and education and the emphasis on excellence and the “creative core”. The key problem is that if we wish to place an emphasis on excellence and reject the simple test of popularity, we are left with the difficult problem of defining and measuring excellence (Selwood 2020). In fact we are left with the unavoidable conclusion that the term “excellence” within arts policy discourse can only be a code for exclusivity, for the hierarchy of forms and activities (where excellence is found) as opposed to the normal everyday cultural products produced by the cultural/creative industries and consumed by their paying publics. It is a debate with which those involved in broadcasting are familiar under the terms “quality” and “public service”. A good current illustration of this is the attempt by Of to arrive at a clear and measurable definition of “public service”. I hate to say this, but it has been tried before and cannot be done. All current efforts are likely to result in is the transfer of the, necessarily arbitrary but conjunctural, political and cultural power to define public service, from broadcasters and their managers, especially the BBC, to Of. From one perspective, the claimed success of the creative industries might lead one to suppose that the problem of democratisation of access was on the way to solution. Such industries are driven by market imperatives to attract the widest possible range of consumers and precisely for that reason do not sustain a hierarchy of artistic forms and practices. Indeed their opponents criticise their cultural effects for exactly this reason。 the stress on the training of creative workers。這些論點(diǎn)來自《利用信息做筆生意》這篇文章，但是后來又被聯(lián)想到英國大眾工作的競爭壓力，和一些管理專家的文章激勵(lì)，例如邁克爾 .波特，它為統(tǒng)計(jì)創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)的出口創(chuàng)匯和潛力提 供了數(shù)據(jù)（英國 1991 年的無形貿(mào)易），同時(shí)為麥若薩歐克在 1988 關(guān)于《藝術(shù)產(chǎn)業(yè)在英國的重要性》的研究和格漢和他的伙伴在 1996 年味英國進(jìn)出口委員會(huì)所作的《創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)的出口潛力》研究也提供了數(shù)據(jù)。（工黨 1997）請注意這個(gè)階段創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)和傳媒行業(yè)之間的區(qū)別。只有在這個(gè)基礎(chǔ)上，才有可能發(fā)表對于數(shù)量和增長量的 看法。全球主要媒體氣團(tuán)想要延長版權(quán)保護(hù)并且加強(qiáng)流通管制。（復(fù)習(xí)一下這些接受“創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)”議程的觀點(diǎn)，看霍金斯， 2020） 二、作為藝術(shù)家的創(chuàng)意工人 選擇“創(chuàng)造性”這個(gè)術(shù)語的第二個(gè)結(jié)果和在電腦軟件中對于“創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)”的定義是這使得文化部門使用公眾支持的觀點(diǎn)來對“創(chuàng)造性工人”的訓(xùn)練，這本來是用于信息與通信技術(shù)產(chǎn)業(yè)的。 這整個(gè)的論點(diǎn)有非常廣泛的政策影響，因?yàn)檫@日益驅(qū)動(dòng)著教育政策。在大眾教育政策上來說，有一個(gè)觀點(diǎn)是轉(zhuǎn)向服務(wù)部門 這也受到了具體的勞動(dòng)力市場分析的支持，這些工作對于技術(shù)的 要求在增長 不僅僅是對于高技術(shù)的需求增長了，而且對于人際交往和有關(guān)的技能和對于人道主義信息的分析恩能力，而不僅限于人文科學(xué)，教育技術(shù)了。另一方面，也標(biāo)志著將重心從娛樂部門的邊緣性轉(zhuǎn)移到對中心商業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì)政策的高度關(guān)注，這個(gè)一個(gè)從娛樂到面包的轉(zhuǎn)變。它是基于這一原因 ,藝術(shù)游說議員們贊成了這一觀點(diǎn)。是隱藏在目前策略演講中的那些最臭名昭著的流行性術(shù)語“卓越”。這有時(shí)與人力資本和國際競爭 力的論點(diǎn)聯(lián)系在一起。（希爾伍德 2020）事實(shí)上我們無法回避有關(guān)于藝術(shù)政策的“優(yōu)點(diǎn)”的這個(gè)術(shù)語的總結(jié)只是排他性的代碼而已，因?yàn)槲幕a(chǎn)業(yè)和創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)所生產(chǎn)出來的產(chǎn)品和日常生活中吸引消費(fèi)者消費(fèi)的文化產(chǎn)品（優(yōu)點(diǎn)發(fā)現(xiàn)之處）是截然不同的。所有目前的努力都是因?yàn)檎呱系乃坪跏桥既坏膮s又是必須的對于公眾服務(wù)的定義的轉(zhuǎn)變，從廣播公司和他們的經(jīng)理，特別是英國廣播公司。這在廣大新聞工作者中都被稱為“簡化當(dāng)中”。如果它成功了，那么它為什么還要公眾支持呢？如果它不成功，它又怎么值得公眾支持呢？從“文化”到“創(chuàng)造”的命名轉(zhuǎn)變就是為了掩蓋這些政策的困境和矛盾
畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)相關(guān)推薦
鄂ICP備17016276號-1