留学生作业代写 Economical power of culture
Culture Industries And Creative Industries
The term culture industry has its origins from two prominent German philosophers: Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer. Even though the term may have been used before, their essay regarding culture industry in 1940s has astonishing impact on the scholars as well as societies (Hesmondhalgh, 2002, p. 15). The concept of ‘culture’ in the nineteenth and twenties centuries associates with culture in the context of art, impression, and special human creativity. In the tradition of Hegelian philosophy, art could provide a utopian vision of how it could be the possibilities for the better life. However, the two philosophers used the term in the critique of the commercial production of mass culture. From their point of view, the entire practice of the culture industry transformed the profit motive naked onto cultural structures (Adorno, 1991, p. 87. In other words, the art lost its utopian function because it had become commodified and available to be sold and bought. Culture and industry were supposed to be opposites but in modern capitalism view they juxtaposed together.
By the late 1960s, it was clear to observe that culture, business and society became more intertwined than ever and this tendency which cooperated with mass media took on ever greater social and political significance. This phenomenon turned people’s ideas to make sense of these changes. The term The Culture Industry became widely used in diverge aspects. Since then, the term was converted to the plural cultural industry which is currently employed throughout. This transforming which is lead by French sociologists and activists has a significant meaning. Adorno and Wax used the singular term in order to illustrate a united field where all the different forms of cultural production which exist together are assumed to comply with the same logic. Instead, French activists were concerned to suggest how complex they are, and to identify the diverged logics within different types of cultural production. In Miege’s opinion, for an instance, the editorial models of broadcasting companies could be expressed in different formats such as publishing, radio, or recording industry (Miege, 1987, p. 12). Consequently, they preferred to call it plural term the cultural industries.
Furthermore, the advent of technology came into the industrialization of cultural product, and it did lead to increasing commodification which also led new directions and innovations. This process of variation was more complex than Adorno’s cultural pessimism. Adorno assumed that culture would be unresisted one to the industrialization, and it has been already subsumed by capital. However, French intellectuals saw the cultural industries continuing struggle due to its complex, ambivalent and contested nature.
The point here is related to our assessment the cultural industries. Although Adorno’s idea provides general matter of industrialization of mass culture, it is short of evaluating the alteration of cultural industries and its effects on economy and modern life style.
Regarding Creative industries, ‘Cultural industries’ and ‘Creative industries’ are terms which are likely to be used interchangeably by policymakers. However their meanings and employment differs. As we discuss above, the term ‘cultural industries’ is originated from decades’ discussion between German scholars Adorno and Horkdimer, and French sociologists and politicians.
Initially, the term ‘cultural industry’ is to define the distinction between creative arts, and industrially commodified cultural products. In contrast to this scholarly debate, ‘creative industries’ was adopted by political intention. Whereas ‘culture industries’ refers the classic cultural industries of film, recording, broadcasting and publishing industries; ‘creative industries’ was adopted by Britain’s New Labour government in order to bring the creative arts into an economic policy agenda. Actually, New Labour purposely adopted ‘creative industries’ to substitute ‘cultural industries’ since it was regarded to have a ‘democratising’ and ‘unifying’ notion (Galloway, 2006, p. 35). They intended to bridge the separation between ‘art’ and ‘industry’. And, it also connected high and low culture in the forms of commercial use. Repeatedly, although the term ‘creative industries’ was initially adopted by political purpose, ‘Cultural industries’ and ‘Creative industries’ are currently used interchangeably.
In the next chapter, we will exam the characteristics of culture industries in following chapters in order to see this complexity of the issue regarding cultural industries and to aid for the further discussion.
The Distinctive Features Of Cultural industries
Compared with conventional industries, the culture industries have unique characteristics in many aspects. So, knowing these facts is imperative in order to make proper policy for the industries. In the light of work by research so far, it is possible to sketch the distinctive features of cultural industries which are to be compared with other forms of conventional industry production. These are summarized as below:
Value for ‘meaning’
High production costs and low reproduction costs
Individual and Industrial Business
These four keys can be both main feature and the distinctive problems at the same time. Dealing with these matters has important implications in the rest of this paper. Furthermore, it helps to elucidate recurring strategies of cultural-industry companies in terms of how the companies manage and produce cultural production. First we will look at the first issue: value for ‘meaning’
Value For ‘Meaning’
Lawrence’s idea of cultural products is that those are goods and services which are valued for their meaning (Lawrence, 2002, p. 431). Cultural products are not evaluated by the physical function such as heaters which can protest the consumers from the cold or move the consumers to the certain point. Rather, the products are valued because the consumer or others can understand them in a way of valuing by the consumer. The products are consumed in way of interpretation rather than being used to solve some practical problem. The products of conventional industries are consumed materially but rather symbolically. The consumers of cultural products are satisfied by the meaning of the products. Regarding this respect, the issue raised here is that the ‘meaning’ has been changing by times and spaces.
Accordingly, managing cultural industries is not about proficiently producing a product, but about creating the needs of the consumer and maintain an organization which can produce ‘meaning’ But, the point is that although cultural industries produce cultural products, ‘meaning’ is not a type of utility like any other. Conventional goods have a utility such as it can transport people from A to B or it can heat the house. Regarding cultural products, however, some products have only ‘meaning’ without physical function, others have the both, and the others has the utility which can be interpreted as ‘meaning’. This complexity brings about the uncertainty of the success of the business. Furthermore, the ‘meaning’ has been changing rapidly in times and places (Lawrence, 2002, pp.431-432).
Consequently, policy makers and management researchers should create innovative structure in order to deal with a new type of organization which is not a capital or knowledge-intensive commerce, but a symbolic-intensive. In this regard, Connor’s research has emphasized a fundamental understanding of local cultures and global change. Also, he stresses the importance of receptiveness and flexibility to associate with symbolic flows in local and global context (O’Connor & et al).
In a traditional theory of the economics, the principle function of the entrepreneur is to bear risk for the chance of a profit (Knight, 1927). Accroding to Knight’s famous distinction, ‘risk’ is interconnected with a probability of success or failure as such can be calculated and expected. The implication is that this ability to measure risk is turning into entrepreneur’s key role in order to control the company. However, in culture industries, the conventional consideration cannot be adopted because managing cultural industries needs to be conducted in a new mingled way of thoughts: through the economic, political, and cultural and artistic concerns (Dempster, 2006, p. 2). Due to this complexity, cultural-product industries are usually managed in high level of uncertainty and risk. (Caves, 2002, 146-147).
Furthermore, as we discussed above, the ‘meaning’ of the culture products are fragile (Lawrence, 2002, pp.431-432). In this regard, Cave explicates that this risk is mainly due to the uncertain demand of consumer tastes. Consumers’ demands for new goods and services are very time-sensitive in varying degrees. This unpredictable variety plays a dominant role in the consuming market. Accordingly, manufacturer and vendor are facing difficulties of selecting and dealing in quantities and time. Additionally, because of the fact that major firms and small independent producers competing for the market share, cultural-product industries have a tendency to be disintegrated (Hirsch, 1997). This trend also accelerates the risky aspects of the cultural industries. Another risky factor is that production cost is relatively higher than other business.
High Production Costs And Low Reproduction Costs
Many of the costs incurred in creative industries have both high fixed costs and variable fixed costs (Caves, 2000, p. 223). Fixed costs do not diverge with the the quantity of the products. For an instance, a music record cost a lot to produce because of all the efforts and the time that should go into composition, recording, mixing, and mastering to get the correct sound for the potential audience. However, after ‘the first copy’ has been made, all subsequent copies are relatively cheap to be reproduced. Unlikely, nails, for example, have a low devising input to make the first nail and each copy costs not much less. The point here is the ratio between production and reproduction costs. The higher ratio of fixed costs to variable one indicates that huge hits are extremely profitable (Hesmondhalgh, 2002, p. 19). The reason is that once beyond the break-even point, the profit from the sale of every extra unit can be relatively significant. In addition the profit can compensate for the inevitable misses that bring about as a consequence of the unpredictable and volatile nature of customer’s demand. This tendency leads to an intense orientation towards ‘audience maximisation’ in the cultural industries (Garnham, 1990, p. 160).