文化產(chǎn)業(yè)外文翻譯-文庫吧在線文庫
【正文】 four key themes of creative industries policy are presented as “access”, “excellence”, “education” and “economic value”. In my view, in the pursuit of these aims the shift from cultural to creative industries marks a return to an artistcentred, supplyside cultural support policy and away from that policy direction, which the use of the term “cultural industries” originally signalled, that focused on distribution and consumption (Garnham 2020). It is for that very reason that the arts lobby favours it. The policy problems raised by this supplyside creative industries approach relate to deepseated arts policy dilemmas. Should support be focused on producers or consumers? Is there a restricted range of cultural forms or activities that merit public subsidy and, if so, why? This question of a hierarchy of cultural forms and practices that merit public support, and of judgements of quality, other than those of popularity, is hidden in current policy discourse under the notoriously fluid term “excellence”. The claim is made that current policy is focused on democratising culture by widening access or lowering barriers to the widest possible range of cultural experiences. And this widening of access applies not only to audiences, but also to the production side, thus allowing the maximum number of people to fulfil their creative potential. This is sometimes then linked to the human capital, international petitiveness argument. This pursuit of excellence 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
畢業(yè)設(shè)計相關(guān)推薦
鄂ICP備17016276號-1