文化產(chǎn)業(yè)外文翻譯-免費閱讀
【正文】 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”的命名轉變就是為了掩蓋這些政策的困境和矛盾。所有目前的努力都是因為政策上的似乎是偶然的卻又是必須的對于公眾服務的定義的轉變，從廣播公司和他們的經(jīng)理，特別是英國廣播公司。這有時與人力資本和國際競爭 力的論點聯(lián)系在一起。它是基于這一原因 ,藝術游說議員們贊成了這一觀點。在大眾教育政策上來說，有一個觀點是轉向服務部門 這也受到了具體的勞動力市場分析的支持，這些工作對于技術的 要求在增長 不僅僅是對于高技術的需求增長了，而且對于人際交往和有關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，教育技術了。（復習一下這些接受“創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)”議程的觀點，看霍金斯， 2020） 二、作為藝術家的創(chuàng)意工人 選擇“創(chuàng)造性”這個術語的第二個結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來對“創(chuàng)造性工人”的訓練，這本來是用于信息與通信技術產(chǎn)業(yè)的。只有在這個基礎上，才有可能發(fā)表對于數(shù)量和增長量的 看法。這些論點來自《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，例如邁克爾 .波特，它為統(tǒng)計創(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），同時為麥若薩歐克在 1988 關于《藝術產(chǎn)業(yè)在英國的重要性》的研究和格漢和他的伙伴在 1996 年味英國進出口委員會所作的《創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)的出口潛力》研究也提供了數(shù)據(jù)。 and the stress on the protection of intellectual property. This is the source of the view expressed in the Labour Party’s Create the Future that the cultural industries “are vital to the creation of jobs and the growth of our economy. The creative and media industries world wide are growing rapidly – we must grasp the opportunities presented” (Labour Party 1997). Note the distinction made at this stage between creative and media industries. It is also the source of Chris Smith’s claim (at the time, the responsible government minister) in his Creative Britain that “given the levels of growth already experienced in these fields, given the flow of changing technology and digitalisation, given our continuing ability to develop talented people, these creative areas are surely where many of the jobs and much of the wealth of the next century are going to e from” (Smith 1998, p. 25). It is in justifying these claims and the policies that derive from them that the use of the term “creative” has been crucial. In the Mapping Document, the term “creative” was chosen so that the whole of the puter software sector could be included. Only on this basis was it possible to make the claims about size and growth stand up. However, this inclusion had two valuable policy consequences for the interests involved. It enabled software producers and the major publishing and media conglomerates to construct an alliance with cultural workers, and with smallscale cultural entrepreneurs, around a strengthening of copyright protection. The software industry was pushing for the contentious widening of intellectual property protection of software. The major media conglomerates wanted an extension of copyright protection and its reinforced policing. In all cases, this involved the undermining of existing public use provisions and also, according to some analysts, a break on innovation rather than its encouragement. It suited these interests to sell the extension of copyright as a defence of the interest of “creators” with all the moral prestige associated with the “creative artist”. Whether recent intellectual property reforms in the Millennium Copyright Act in the United States or the Information Society Copyright Directive in the European Union do in fact foster creativity or protect the economic interest of artists is in fact highly dubious. (For a general review of these arguments that accepts the “creative industries” agenda, see Howkins 2020.) The Artist as Creative Worker The seco
畢業(yè)設計相關推薦
鄂ICP備17016276號-1