文化產(chǎn)業(yè)外文翻譯-wenkub.com
2025-05-07 01:16 本頁面
【正文】 預(yù)想的成功并不是在聯(lián)合國擴大準入或者取得更高質(zhì)量，但是就業(yè)機會和出口收入在全球經(jīng)濟競爭都是非常激烈的。 在有創(chuàng)造力的英國，前文化，媒體及運動國務(wù)卿（ 1998）表示“準入是我們文化政策的基石，體驗最高質(zhì)量的品質(zhì)必須被最廣泛的用戶所享受”。這樣的行業(yè)正式被市場驅(qū)動的，來吸引盡可能不同層次的顧客，就是為了不停留在一個層次的藝術(shù)形式和實踐上。目前一個很好的說明來自于奧卡姆嘗試對“公眾服務(wù)”做一個清楚的定義。首先，如果我們拒絕那些被稱為是最嚴苛的對于成功市場測試，我們?nèi)绾未_定支持哪個藝術(shù)家或者“創(chuàng)造者”？（傳統(tǒng)上來說，藝術(shù)委員會會把這個留給同行來審查）第二，如果觀眾無法欣賞這種創(chuàng)造力，我們?nèi)绾蝸碜稣{(diào)和？在現(xiàn)行的政策和教育的方法和對于“創(chuàng)造核心”的定義的壓力之間有十分明顯的矛盾，這是驚人的。使用的擴大不僅適用于觀眾 ,而且也使用與生產(chǎn)方面。此創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)的方法與長期以來的的藝術(shù)政策困境有關(guān)。 在我看來，要達到這些目的，就要從文化向創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)變。（這個論點的擴展見格漢 2020） 三、準入，成功和責任 與過去相比，目前的創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)政策在兩方面中有所突破。美國可以稱霸全球的媒體事業(yè)主要是由于高質(zhì)量的教育或訓(xùn)練，而英國就缺少那些能通過嚴苛考試的“創(chuàng)造性”工人。這后來又轉(zhuǎn)變成對在通信行業(yè)缺少技術(shù)是經(jīng)濟增長和相對競爭力的阻礙的指責。它對把這些出售版權(quán)的利益和那些在道德層面上和“創(chuàng)造藝術(shù)家”聯(lián)系在一起的“創(chuàng)造者”的利益沖突做了研究。它能使得軟件制造商和主要的出版及媒體集團和文化工作者，小型的文化公司形成一個聯(lián)盟，加強對版權(quán)的保護。（斯密斯， 1998 年，第 25 頁） 從這些說法和政策來看，使用“創(chuàng)造性”這個術(shù)語已經(jīng)是至關(guān)重要的了。 這是工黨在“創(chuàng)造文萊”會議上所表達的觀點，認為文化產(chǎn)業(yè)在創(chuàng)造就業(yè)機會和發(fā)展經(jīng)濟上都是至關(guān)重要的。 it has bee known in popular journalistic parlance as “dumbing down”. The desire not to give up on either traditional support for the artist or a hierarchy of quality is covered by the terms “creative” and “excellence”. In Creative Britain, the former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Chris Smith (1998), stated that “access will be the corner stone of our cultural policy. Experience of the highest quality must be available to the widest possible audience.” Yet the problem here is that quality and excellence are open to the market test of consumer preference and access is, by definition, not a problem, since a successful creative industry has solved the access problem through the market. If it is successful, why does it need public support? If it is unsuccessful, why does it merit public support? The shift in nomenclature from “cultural” to “creative” industries serves to disguise these policy dilemmas and contradictions. The claims on public funds are justified not in terms of arts policy, but in terms of information society policy. The supposed pay off is not widened access or even higher quality within the United Kingdom, but jobs and export earnings in a petitive global economy. 譯 文： 從文化產(chǎn)業(yè)到創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè) — 對于英國涵蓋在“創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)”方式下對于藝術(shù)和媒體政策形成的分析 一、創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)政策 我們現(xiàn)在可以回歸到“創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)”這個術(shù)語所隱含的性質(zhì)和有效性以及它們的政策的影響了。 畢業(yè)論文外文 文獻 翻譯 外文題目 : FORM CULTURAL TO CREATIVE INDUSTRIES An analysis of the implications of the “creative industries” approach to arts and media policy making in the United Kingdom 出 處 : International Journal of Cultural Policy 作 者 : Nicholas Garnham 原 文： Creative Industries Policy We can now return to the nature and validity of the implicit claims being made by the mobilisation of the term “creative industries” and their policy impacts. These can be reduced to two: that the creative industries are the key new growth sector of the economy, both nationally and globally, and thus, against a background of manufacturing sector decline, they are the key source of future employment growth and export earnings. This general line of argument stemmed from the original Making a Business of Information report, but it was then linked to more general work on the petit
畢業(yè)設(shè)計相關(guān)推薦
鄂ICP備17016276號-1