文化產(chǎn)業(yè)外文翻譯(編輯修改稿)
2025-06-26 01:16 本頁面
【文章內(nèi)容簡介】 , rather than technical scientific, education provides. However, this is not an argument, as the arts college lobby is now trying to construct it, for an expansion of or for special support for arts education and training on the grounds that its products alone are “creative” (for an expansion of this argument, see Garnham 2020). Access, Excellence and Accountability Current creative industries policy is presented as a break with the past in two renaming of the Department of National Heritage as the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is intended, on the one hand, to signal a shift of focus away from support for the “traditional” high arts, with their association with the protection of the values of some golden age, towards the creatively new (often associated with young, trendy and “cool”). On the other hand, the idea is to signify a shift of focus from the marginality of the Ministry of Fun to a serious concern with the central business of economic policy – a shift from circuses to bread. Within this broad shift, the 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
畢業(yè)設(shè)計相關(guān)推薦
鄂ICP備17016276號-1