文化產(chǎn)業(yè)外文翻譯-免費(fèi)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(zhuǎn)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?yàn)檎呱系乃坪跏桥既坏膮s又是必須的對(duì)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(guó)廣播公司。這有時(shí)與人力資本和國(guó)際競(jìng)爭(zhēng) 力的論點(diǎn)聯(lián)系在一起。它是基于這一原因 ,藝術(shù)游說(shuō)議員們贊成了這一觀點(diǎn)。在大眾教育政策上來(lái)說(shuō)，有一個(gè)觀點(diǎn)是轉(zhuǎn)向服務(wù)部門(mén) 這也受到了具體的勞動(dòng)力市場(chǎng)分析的支持，這些工作對(duì)于技術(shù)的 要求在增長(zhǎng) 不僅僅是對(duì)于高技術(shù)的需求增長(zhǎng)了，而且對(duì)于人際交往和有關(guān)的技能和對(duì)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。（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(yǔ)的第二個(gè)結(jié)果和在電腦軟件中對(duì)于“創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)”的定義是這使得文化部門(mén)使用公眾支持的觀點(diǎn)來(lái)對(duì)“創(chuàng)造性工人”的訓(xùn)練，這本來(lái)是用于信息與通信技術(shù)產(chǎn)業(yè)的。只有在這個(gè)基礎(chǔ)上，才有可能發(fā)表對(duì)于數(shù)量和增長(zhǎng)量的 看法。這些論點(diǎn)來(lái)自《利用信息做筆生意》這篇文章，但是后來(lái)又被聯(lián)想到英國(guó)大眾工作的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)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(guó) 1991 年的無(wú)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(guó)的重要性》的研究和格漢和他的伙伴在 1996 年味英國(guó)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)。 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(shè)計(jì)相關(guān)推薦
鄂ICP備17016276號(hào)-1