Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Introduction to creative industries - 2014 - Lecture 1
Transcript of Introduction to creative industries - 2014 - Lecture 1
Lecturer: Dr Indrek Ibrus
Tech and CCIs -crossfeeding
The cultural industries have moved closer to the centre of the economic action across much of the world. They are not secondary to the 'real' economy anymore.
Conglomeration, convergence - large companies no longer specialize in a particular cultural industry, but operate across a number of different industries.
Horizontalisation - Companies often compete with each other, but increasingly they are connected in complex webs of alliance, partnership and joint venture.
Increasing numbers of SMEs in this sector - increasingly complex relationships between large, medium and small cultural companies.
Cultural products circulate increasingly across national borders.
Fragmentation - remarkable proliferation of new communications technologies, platforms, content pluralisation, better access.
Greater emphasis on audiences, increasing emphasis on audience research, marketing and on addressing 'niche' audiences, audience/user participation.
Shifts in policy-making - traditional forms of public ownership and regulation have been dismantled, important policy decisions are increasingly carried out at an international level.
Quickly increasing amount of money that businesses spend on advertising - has helped to fuel the spectacular growth of the cultural industries.
Network enabled access - perceived to undermine existing business models, enabling new ones.
John Hartley: High-tech ICTs – fat pipes – were crucial to the creative sector, not the death of it.
"European-style ‘analogue’ creative industries and cultural institutions did not amount to much without US-style digital technologies and market-based new-media platforms."
"The European tradition of public culture and cultural institutions met the American tradition of individualism and the entrepreneurial ethos."
"Where ‘Britart’ artists might aspire to place their work in a museum, Californian computer geeks aspired to turn their string of code into a global corporation."
Technological development created the momentum for the emergence of the 'Creative Industries' - the concept, the policies and the phenomena.
EU Green Paper "Unlocking the potential of cultural and creative industries":
"Providing that ICTs are used to the full by cultural content providers and traditional patterns of production and distribution are reviewed, this offers potentially larger audiences and markets for creators and a more diverse cultural offer for citizens......"
....At the same time....
"...the roll out of ICT depends on the availability of high quality and diversified cultural content. Cultural content therefore plays a leading role in the acceptance of these new technologies by the wider public and for the development of the e-skills."
"CCIs provide content to fuel digital devices and networks and so contribute to the acceptance and further development of ICTs, for instance to broadband rollout. As intensive users of technology, their demands also often spur adaptations and new developments of technology, providing innovation impulses to technology producers."
The spillovers of CCIs:
To move towards a creative economy by catalyzing the spill-over effects of CCIs on a wide range of economic and social contexts.
The policy challenge is:
The new environment substantially changes traditional production and consumption models, challenging the system through which the creative community has up to now drawn value from content.
The challenge for enterprises is to cover the costs of "going digital" (digitization of content, skills development and update of staff qualifications and complex issues concerning adequate digital rights management etc.) while also investing in and testing new business models which generate a "pay back" only after some time.
Keeping business going under a traditional business model while managing the transition to new business models still under development could be difficult for many creative enterprises.
Derives from the fact that audiences use cultural commodities in highly volatile and unpredictable ways, often in order to express their difference from other people.
As a result, fashionable performers or styles can suddenly come to be perceived as outmoded, and other forms can become unexpectedly successful.
So: certain risks stem from consumption - from the ways in which audiences tend to use these texts.
The cultural industries are a particularly risky business...
But these risks are made worse by two further factors related to production...
First, companies grant 'symbol creators' a limited autonomy in the hope that the creators will come up with something original and distinctive enough to be a hit. But this means that cultural companies are engaged in a constant struggle to control what symbol creators are likely to come up with.
Second, any particular cultural-industry company is reliant on other cultural industry companies to make audiences aware of the existence of a new product, or of the uses and pleasures which they might get from experiencing the product. Even if company A actually owns company B or F, they can't quite control the kind of publicity the text is likely to get, because it is difficult to predict how critics, journalists, radio and television producers and presenters, and so on, are likely to evaluate texts.
Misses are offset against hits through a repertoire.
Companies tend to offset misses against hits through 'over-production', through the attempt to put together a large catalogue or 'cultural repertoire'.
By 'throwing mud against the wall' and seeing what sticks.
Hence companies that can offer bigger repertoires are more likely to have the hits. This is one of the pressures towards greater size for cultural companies.
Ways to maximise audience:
Horizontal integration - buying companies in the same sector to reduce competition for audiences and their time.
Vertical integration - buying up companies involved in different stages of the process of production and circulation - either 'downstream' or 'upstream'.
Internationalisation - selling more copies.
Multisector and crossmedia integration - buying into other related areas of cultural-industry production, to ensure cross-promotion.
Consequences of not succeeding in growth and integration are greater in the cultural industries than elsewhere, because there is a very high rate of failure of smaller companies. Small companies are unable to spread risk across a repertoire.
Long-standing assumptions about the ethical desirability of creative autonomy, which derive from the romantic conception of symbolic creativity, and traditions of free speech.
But also economic and organisational reasons. Managers assume that major hits and the creation of new genre, star and series brands require originality.
Symbol creators are usually overseen from a certain distance by ‘creative managers’, such as editors or television producers, who act as intermediaries between the creators and the commercial imperatives of the company.
But in order to control the risks associated with managing creativity, senior managers exert much tighter control reproduction, distribution and marketing - altogether circulation - in many cases through vertical integration.
Loose control of symbol creators, tight control of distribution and marketing
Vast inequalities in access to the cultural markets/audience attention.
There are great pressures to produce certain kinds of texts rather than others. Some types of texts are made much more available than others.
Those symbol creators that become stars are very generously rewarded. But most creative workers exist in a vast reservoir of underused and underresourced talent, picking up work here and there.
Course emphasis on such ambiguities and uncertainties - prevalent and characteristic to the industry.
John Hartley: The early CI definition anchored the idea of the creative industries in the analogue era, where individual artists produced individual works either for public institutions or in a traditional marketplace dominated by single-platform firms (broadcasters, record-labels, film studios, publishers, newspapers, fashion designers etc.).
It missed out not only on the affordances of digital technologies, but more importantly on the internet ethos of ‘knowledge shared is knowledge gained,’ and on the non-market or ‘gift economy’ aspect of social networking, crowd-sourcing and communities of affect. Although ‘big media’ remained prominent as they migrated to the net, it was obvious that online creativity could now also include a bottom-up, peer to peer element, since that’s how the whole thing was invented in the first place.
Postmodernity. Lash and Urry (1994) suggested that symbolic creativity and/or information is increasingly central to social and economic life. The implication of this is that the cultural industries therefore increasingly provide a model for transformations in other industries. (Example "Creative Entrepreneurship")
At QUT they promote the inclusion of creative innovation into national innovation systems, where policy settings in many countries are heavily skewed towards bioscience, ICTs, and nanotechnology.
From the perspective of evolutionary economics economic growth comes from the origination, adoption and retention of novel ideas, and the arts plainly have a role in all three stages of the innovation process of economic evolution.
The value of the arts and culture to an economic system is dynamic: it is change value, and naturally experimental and uncertain. New ideas and technologies are the drivers of economic growth, yet only to the extent that they are adopted and retained by people. The creative industries are the entrepreneurs and manufacturers of this socio-technical process.
Given that the CIs are deeply engaged in the business of representation, experimentation and the search for interesting novelty, they should be recognised as integral components of modern innovation systems.
The arts are not just for entertainment and distraction, but are a crucial part of the modern economy in providing mechanisms for the development of new ideas in the social context.
The creative industries are best thought of as part of the innovation system, and with primarily dynamic not static value.
"Cultural" or "Creative" industries?
"Creative industries" should be seen as a dynamic, evolving concept even during the decade or so of its current usage.
As suggested by QUT researchers
Creative clusters (industry)
Creative services (economy)
Creative citizens (culture)
The dynamics of cultural industries and the texts they produce is complex, ambivalent and contested. That will be the focus of this course.
Normally on Thursdays starting 15:15, ending 18:15
Lectures or seminars.
Precondition: presentation done.
Real exam! 4 "micro-essay questions"
Will take place in "study free week"
Hesmondhalgh, D. "The Cultural Industries". London, SAGE.
My email: firstname.lastname@example.org (use sparingly!)
Administrator Siiri Häidma : email@example.com
What drives the economic development? Technical or cultural/creative industries?
+ Seminar literature (check the reading lists in ÕIS - you can all readings from ÕIS).
Associate Professor at Baltic Film and Media School
Advis0r of Audiovisual Affairs a at Estonian Ministry of Culture
PhD from London School of Economics and Political Science
MPhil from University of Oslo
BA from University of Tartu
Currently researching digital heritage, cross-media, media innovation, the evolution of media industries, cultural policy.
Contact hours: moving target (appointments by email)
1. Introduction (lecture); History (lecture) - 30.10
2. Definitions and Measuring (lecture) - 06.11
3. Work in Creative Industries (lecture), Measuring and Work (seminar); - 13.11
4. Convergence (lecture), Prosumption (lecture) - 20.11
5. Convergence and Prosumption (seminar); Globalisation of Creative Industries - 27.11
6. Urban Dynamics of Creative Industries; Globalisation & Urbanisation (seminar) - 4.12
7. Creative Industries' Policies; Revision 11.10
Group size: 2-4 people
Literature: 5+ pieces to read (see reading list)
You make joint presentation, but you don't have to present together!
Presentation needs to synthesise the readings and apply the acquired knowledge to make sense of a 'real-life' creative industry.
I don't want to see: "Each one of us read one paper and now each of us will present you one slide about what we read :("
- you will lose points instantly!
Discuss ideas with me beforehand!
Length: 15 minutes and no more.
Send me the presentation by Thursday morning, I will need your written report soon after the presentation
Creative and cultural industries create culture - 'texts' that influence our understanding and knowledge of the world.
Increasingly more of us are 'creators' in the information economy - much of the economy is now 'like' creative industries - we need to learn to know it better as workers, as employers and as consumers.
This "industrial" process is not simple or linear in any way - it is instead complex, ambivalent and contested.
Creative industries are agents of economic, social and cultural change (context: 'Information Society')
The approach of this course:
"Cultural Industries" - a term deriving from the sociology of culture and the political economy of media. (See: Hesmondhalgh's "The Cultural Industries")
Still used to separate "proper cultural industries" from others;
and to use a non-ideological term.
For the political economy/critical theorists the "Creative Industries" carries a neoliberal ethos.
"Creative Industries" - in late 1990s UK government departments sought to benefit from the ‘new’ or ‘weightless’ information or knowledge-based economy, from existing competitive advantage in certain industry sectors, which boasted a large creative economy in the capital, and from seeking to redefine culture as an earning sector (growth) rather than spending one (heritage, welfare).
The important policy move here was to get culture away from the back door of the economy where it traditionally sat and to drag it to the front and centre of innovation strategy, where it was revealed as a high-growth sector, outperforming other services.
It is presented as dynamic and emergent, with multiplier effects on other sectors, a high rate of entrepreneurial initiative, and lots of start-ups, micro-businesses, etc.
In time a new question emerged: "Is it possible to have a ‘creative economy’ based on the creativity of the whole population, not just on existing artistic elites, professional designers and an ‘expert pipeline’ model of copyright-protected creativity?" (John Hartley)