1、 外文翻译 原文 From Cultural to Creative Industries: Theory, Industry, and Policy Implications Material Source: Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification Author: Stuart Cunningham The paper will present a rationale for distinguishing between notions of cultural and creative industries wh
2、ich have implications for theory, industry and policy analysis. I do this from the standpoint of a researcher and analyst and also from a position of a corporate involvement in a substantial project to grow and diversify a regional economy through the development of its creative industries. This is
3、a creative industries precinct in inner suburban Brisbane involving my university, QUT, the Queensland state government through its Department of State Development, and a variety of industry players, and retail and property developers. There is theoretical purchase in distinguishing the two terms, i
4、n part to put further flesh on the bones of claims about the nature of the knowledge-based economy and its relation to culture and creativity. Shifts in the nature of the industries usually described by the terms also need to be captured effectively, as are different policy regimes that come into pl
5、ay as regulation of and support for cultural and creative industries. Creative industries is a quite recent category in academic, policy and industry discourse. It can claim to capture significant new economy enterprise dynamics that such terms as the arts, media and cultural industries do not. An e
6、arly recognition of the distinct contribution of the creative industries came in the Creative Industries Task Force Mapping Document (CITF (1998)2001)in the UK. This document defined creative industries as activities which have their origin in individual creativity, skill and talent and which have t
7、he potential for wealth and job creation through generation and exploitation of intellectual property. It mapped into the creative industries sector the following activities: Advertising, Architecture, Arts and Antique Markets, Crafts, Design, Designer Fashion, Film, Interactive Leisure Software, Mu
8、sic, Television and Radio, Performing Arts, Publishing and Software. This eclectic list includes the resolutely analogue(arts, crafts, antiques, architecture),established commercial business sectors(TV, radio, film)as well as all-digital new economy sectors (software ,interactive leisure software).
9、Critics point to a rather arbitrary exclusivity in the list, whereby, for example, the heritage sector is omitted despite its economic, creative and cultural characteristics being at least if not more robust than some of the sectors included. Nevertheless, the Task Force approach valuably stresses c
10、ommercial or commercial sable achievements or potential, and also stresses the overall strategic importance of the notion of the creative industries to Britains export profile and international branding. The Task Forces work is claimed to have had a galvanising effect on Britains cultural profile, a
11、nd has been the template overlaid on a good deal of subsequent policy development work in the UK. In March 2001 the then Secretary of State, Chris Smith, put out an update from the Task Force (CITF 2001).A few years on, the significance of the creative industries to the knowledge economy and nationa
12、l wealth has been widely appreciated. Regions and cities, as well as venture capital, are providing, he reported, more focused support measures. There is better career structuring, some reforms of education and training programs, and ownership of intellectual property issues by practitioners. Smith
13、said of policy settings in the UK: The creative industries have moved from the fringes to the mainstream. But its exclusivity and its lack of differentiation of the cultural and creative industries leave some questions unanswered. They are not only theoretical questions but go to issues of how to me
14、asure the size, nature and prospects of the industries we claim to be analysing or championing, and how to develop policies and programs to most appropriately develop, facilitate or intervene in them. There is almost exasperation in Simon Roodhouses survey of what he calls the tortuous and contorted
15、 definitional history of the arts, cultural and creative industries and he calls for a more inclusive definition than those like the Task Forces from the perspective of one wanting a stable framework for data classification and collection I am not going to go over ground covered by other analysts on
16、 the ideation nail history of the movements from the arts to cultural to creative industries (but see Hartley and Cunningham 2001), but I will probably add to those tortuous contortions while focusing on some strategic aspects of the present moment, where creative industries as a concept and policy
17、instrument is being effectively invented. This is in relation not just to the perhaps too narrow history of articulation to arts and cultural industries. Its also about its articulation to enterprise development more generally, the knowledge-based economy and society, and the service industries. Fro
18、m a business economics perspective, recent canvassing such as that of John Howkins The Creative Economy: How People make Money from Ideas(2001)has given us a very broad but bracing definition: the sum total of four sectorsthe copyright, patent, trademark and design industriestogether constitute the
19、creative industries and the creative economy(Howkins 2001:xiii).What looks like a similar list to that of the UK Task Force is actually a very significant expansion of it, as it includes all patent-based R&D in all science-engineering-technology based sectors.(Along with this omnibus definition, How
20、kins adds the rather dubious criticism that most countries would embrace such a definition linking all industries with creative inputs together, whereas countries like Britain and Australia only define it as arts and cultural industries and exclude the patent industries ,thus perpetuating the arts-s
21、cience divide that has bedevilled the West.) I want now to turn to a few conceptual issues: What are the creative industries sectors and their adjacencies (service industries/knowledge economy)? What is the nature of the policy architecture (culture/industry)? How the creative industries are dispose
22、d (regionalism)? Service industries and knowledge economy models Convergence is a watchword of contemporary understandings of media, communications and creative industries. A somewhat different way into the issue of convergence and creative industries, however, is to consider the degree to which a w
23、ide range of industries, including the audiovisual and cultural industries, are being drawn into a generic services industries framework, and how that is complemented to conflicted by their articulation to knowledge economy models. Cultural and creative enterprise would typically regard itself as fu
24、rther up the food chain from the service industries, given the characteristics of authorial signature, innovation, and risk involved in its production. Caves (2000) list of the nature of creative industries reinforces this sense of not just another business. Nobody knows/demand is uncertain Art for
25、arts sake/Creative workers care about their product Motley crew/some products require diverse skills Infinite variety/differentiated products Time flies/time is of the essence Broader economic and policy trends-such as the growing impacts of international services trade protocols and agreements and
26、the growing importance of knowledge-based inputs into advanced economiesare the larger frames that these pressures are working within. A future-oriented sense of place of the creative industries might begin with the idea of its growing convergence with the service industries model. Like prototypical
27、 service industriestelecommunications, health, education, financial servicesthe creative industries involve higher value-added inputs at the digital content and other applications upstream end of the value chain. This is where the claims for their place in the knowledge-based economy come in, where
28、issues of copyright and IP ownership and exploitation are key. A converged service industries model implies that content creation will become more important than it is in the current content industries(distribution, not production, is where most profit-making currently occurs),and the creative indus
29、tries will be characterized increasingly by their being inputs into other(service, but also manufacturing and even primary)industries. Like the prototypical service industries, the downstream or retail part of the value chain is where most turnover but least value adding might occur. This model will
30、 continue to sit uncomfortably with the current arts and culture value chain of culturally valuable art works and activity with variable and variably-defined market value distributed and exhibited in analogue formats with digital as ancillary modes of circulation. It is important that the not just a
31、nother business justification for the special nature of the cultural industries doesnt turn into just not a business at all. Its not all one-way modelling, of course. We can also think of the service industries coming further toward the cultural industries: Lash and Urry argue that manufacturing and
32、 service industries are increasingly taking on characteristics of the cultural industries Cultural/Industry Policy The domain of what counted as cultura l policy, as Tom ORegan argues it, expanded during the 1980s and 1990s and now it is beginning to shrink. In part, he argues, this is a function of
33、 having arguments about the importance of culture and creativity taken seriously by more than the traditiona l arts portfolios. Cultural policy is by definition nation-state specific and so is being squeezed by globally- dispersed creative industries and by international trade rules that seek by def
34、inition to limit national exceptionalism. Content convergence means that cultural policy has a shrinking sector-specific envelope to work as a bigger mix of new content policies come to the fore, and a set of formidable challenges in collaboration, and the design and delivery of policy and programs
35、The arts, cultural and creative industry sectors will need to get used to thinking of themselves and acting as part of a broader coalescence of interests encompassing the content-rich service industries such as education and learning, publishing, design, communications devices, and e-commerce. These
36、 sectors, says consultant and adviser Malcolm Long, are notoriously non-collaborative with each other living within their separate smokestacks. Culture was divorced from industry policy arguably more so than in other countries because in the 1980s economic orthodoxy focused on microeconomic reform,
37、tariff reduction or abandonment, globalization and liberalization in this context, there was no place for old-style industry policy based on tariff protection, subsidisation of declining manufacturing sectors, and the new international trade frameworks beginning to impact national policy making. Thi
38、s has resulted in two decades of arid argument grappling with the bifurcation of culture (which is institution based) and entertainment (which is industry based).The challenges are not just on the side of cultural policy to remodel/reinvent itself. One of the ways forward is to centre new policy aro
39、und a small business development agenda which has potentially as much to do with a portfolio like industry, IT or the information economy as it has with culture and the arts. Just as the Canadians did some forum shifting after they lost the split run magazine case in the WTO, working with the Networ
40、k for Cultural Diversity, and the US did after the Uruguay Round when it tried to set the agenda through the MAI, so the cultural lobby might have to do some forum shifting, from cultural policy to the new economy. The policy mix might see a range of forms of facilitation of creative content enterpr
41、ises access to and comfort with industry support schemes. These can take the form of venture capital support, other forms of equity investment, enforcement of competition regulation, and structural regulation. These can sit alongside, but are other than straight subsidy or content regulation. They m
42、ight include test beds, clustering strategies and support to develop them. (For aninteresting list of such support measures, see Senator Alstons comments launching the Digital Content and Applications Review. 译文 从文化到创 意 产业：理论 、 产业和政策启示 资料来源 :澳大利亚和新西兰标准研究及写作 作者： 坎宁安斯图尔特 本文将论述了文化和创意产业之间的区别： 概念、基本原理、理论
43、 ，产业和政策分析 。 作者从一个研究者和分析家的观点 ， 也从 一个重大项目的企业成长和区域经济多样化视角来分析创意产业的发展。“ 创意产业专用区 ” 靠近昆士兰科技大学 ， 由昆士兰州政府开发 ， 聚集很多业内人士 、 零售及物业发展商 。有理论可以区别这两方面 ， 知 识型经济的本质及文化和创造力 。 在对各行业的性质通常所描述的位移条款 还需要有效地捕获 ， 因为是不同的政策制度的生效发挥调控和文化创意产业的支持 。 “创意产业” 是 最近在学术 ， 政策和行业话语 很多的一个产业 。 它可以采集重大声称 “新经济” 的企业动力 ：“ 艺术 ” 、 “媒体”和“文化产业”。 本文定义的
44、创意行业为 “ 活动 、 个人的创造力， 技能和才华的起源 ， 通过一代人创造财富和就业潜力 、 知识产权的开发 。 ”创意产业界包括下列活动 ： 广告 、 建筑 、艺术及古董市场 、 手工艺 、 设计 、 设计师时装 、 电影 、 互动休闲软件 、 音乐 、电视和收音机 、 表演艺术 、 出版和软件。这个名单包括了模拟 （ 艺术 、 工艺品 、古董 、 建筑）， 设立的商 业企业部门 （ 电视 、 广播 、 电影），以及全数字化的新经济领域（ 软件 、 互动休闲软件） 。批评者指出 ， 在清单中是任意的 ， 例如 ， 文化遗产部门被忽略 ， 尽管其经济 、 创意和文化的特点比较强大 。 不过
45、 ， 专 业 小组的做法可贵 ， 因为它 强调商业成就或潜力 ， 并强调这一概念的整体战略的重要性对英国的出口形象和国际品牌 影响 。 专 业 小组的工作是声称已 参考了 对英国的文化背景的影响 。 2001 年 3 月 ， 当时的国务卿 ， 克里斯 史密斯 ， 更新 了这项任务 。 几年后 ，创意产业的意义 、 知识经济和国家财富已被广泛的 赏识 。 实践者 有更好的职业结构 、 一些改革的教育和培训计划 ， 但也存在 知识产权 的 问题 。 它的排他性 也留下了 一些 让 人待解的问题 。 他们不 只 是理论问题 ， 而是去如何衡量大小 、 性质的问题和 “ 产业 ” ， 我们要前景分析或
46、倡导 ， 以及 对于如何制定政策和方案的最适度发展要 协助或介入其中 。 Simon Roodhouse 对他所说的定义和历史的艺术 、 文化和创意产业做调查 。 我 呼吁建立一个特别工作 组 而不是像从那些更具包容性的定义角度对一对数据进行分类和收集 。 我 不打算像其他分析师一样从艺术的动作来分析文化创意产业 ， 但 我 很可能会 用 一个概念和创意产业的政策手段有效地发明一些战略问题 。 这不仅是关系到历史衔接 到艺术和文化产业 ，这也涉及其衔接发展更普遍的企业 、 知识型经济与社会 和 服务性行业 。 从商业经济学的角度看 ， 最近的学说 ，如约翰霍金斯“创意经济： 人们如何通过想法挣
47、钱”给了我们一个很广泛 的 支撑定义 ， 定义 为四个：版权 、 专利的总和 、 商标和设计等行业 ， 共同构成了创意产业和创意经济 。 像英国 ， 它包括所有基础的研发部门在科学与工程技术的专利 。（ 随着这一综合性的定义，大部分国家会接受 这样一个定义， 创意产业连接所有输入 者 ， 而 像英国和澳大利亚等国家只定义它作为艺术和文化工业但排除专利业 。） 我现在想要转向一些概念问题 ： 有 哪些是 创意产业部门和他们的相关部门 （ 服务行业 知识经济 ）？ 是什么性质的政策体系结构 (文化 行业 )？ 服务业和知识经济模型 收敛性是当代媒体 、 通讯等创意产业的一个 特征 。 各类收敛问题
48、不尽相同 。然而 ， 创意产业是考虑到一定程度上 的 广泛的行业 ， 包括视听和文化产业也被包括入 了服务业框架 ， 以及如何调节矛盾使其向知识型经济模式发展 。 文化创意企业通常会认为自己在服务行业是属于食物链的上层 。 没有人知道 需求是不确定的 ， 为了艺术而艺术 有创造性的工人关心他们的产品 成份混杂 一些产品需要不同 的技能 无限多样 分化产品 时间过得真快 /时间是非常重要的 更广泛的经济和政策趋势 ， 如日益增长的国际影响 ， 服务贸易协定和协议 ，以知识为基础的重要性日益增加进入发达经济体 ， 这是大框架 。 一个地方的创意产业面向未来的感觉可能 是 不断增长的 收敛 。 像原
49、型服务工业、农业、卫生、教育、金融等创意产业涉及的运输投入的附加值高的数字内容和其他 上游端口推出 的 应用价值链 ， 问题版权和 IP 的有权和开发是关键 。 一个融合服务行业 的 模型暗示内容创作将变得更为重要而不是在当前的内容工业 （ 分布、不生产 ,是目前大部分盈利发生 ）， 创意产业的特点 是他们 将 被投入到其他行业 （ 服务 、 制造，甚至 是 低级行业 ）。 就像典型的服务行业 ， 下游的价值链或零售部分 的 多数营业额 可能 增值 。这种模式将继续与当前宝贵的艺术和文化艺术的文化价值链 一样 。 重要的是 ，一个企业的特殊性质 是 文化产业不 完全 变成一个企业的 。 这还不是全部单向 转型 。 当然 ， 我们也可以想到的服务行业今后对文化产业的进一步 发展 ： 绑扎和厄里认为 ， 制造业及服务行业 将 越来越重视文化产业 。 文化 产业政策 关于什么算作文化政策 ， Tom ORegan认为 ， 这一过程在 20 世纪 80 年代和 90 年代期间开始发展 ， 现在又 开始萎缩 。 在某种程度上 ， 他认为 ， 这是一个有关于
