Whose cultural value? Representation, power and creative industries

Abstract

The debate around 'cultural value' has become increasingly central to policy debates on arts and creative industries policy over the past ten years and has mostly focused on the articulation and measurement of 'economic value', at the expense of other forms of value-cultural, social, aesthetic. This paper's goal is to counter this prevalent oversimplification by focusing on the mechanisms through which 'value' is either allocated or denied to cultural forms and practices by certain groups in particular social contexts. We know that different social groups enjoy different access to the power to bestow value and legitimise aesthetic and cultural practices; yet, questions of power, of symbolic violence and misrecognition rarely have any prominence in cultural policy discourse. This article thus makes a distinctive contribution to creative industry scholarship by tackling this neglected question head on: it calls for a commitment to addressing cultural policy's blind spot over power and misrecognition, and for what McGuigan (2006: 138) refers to as 'critique in the public interest'. To achieve this, the article discusses findings of an AHRC-funded project that considered questions of cultural value, power, media representation and misrecognition in relation to a participatory arts project involving the Gypsy and Traveller community in Lincolnshire, England.

Spatializing authoritarian neoliberalism by way of cultural politics: City, nation and the European Union in Gdańsk’s politics of cultural policy formation

“…However, emerging calls in the cultural policy literature emphasize the need to understand the formation of cultural policy as a highly-charged political field (Bailey et al, 2004;Belfiore, 2020;Dinardi, 2015;Grodach andSilver, 2012a, 2012b;Lee, 2016;Marx, 2020;Shin and Stevens, 2013;Vos, 2017;Warren and Jones, 2015; Zili c-Fi ser and Erjavec, 2017). As Grodach and Silver (2012b: 4) argue:…”

Neo-Exoticism as Indonesian Regional Government’s Formula for Developing Ethnic Arts: Concept, Practice, and Criticism

“…When neoliberal capitalism has been adopted into Indonesia's post-Reform economic and political system, cultural policies have been often overlapped between one ideal and the other ideals; contributing to the creation of conditions of multiple ambivalence. Constructively, cultural policy is the government's efforts to make regulations on cultural development and empowerment that involve public participation to foster a form of cultural democracy (Mulcahy 2006(Mulcahy , 2017Hadley & Belfiore 2018;Mennell 1981;Belfiore 2016;Langsted 1989;Gibson & Edwards 2016), strengthen cultural values (Behr et al, 2017;Walmsley 2018;Oman 2019;Manchester & Prett 2015;Oancea et al, 2018;Belfiore 2018), and enrich national identity (Villarroya 2012;Al-Zo'by 2019). Nevertheless, cultural policies in the era of market civilization have always brought diverse business interests for maximum capital accumulation (Wise 2002;Banks 2018;Throsby 2010;Craik 2007;Frey 2000;Bille et al, 2016;Hesmondhalgh & Pratt 2005;Haans & van Witteloostuijn, 2018).…”

Are Supporting Sectors of the Creative Industries Inferior? Current study from Slovakia.

“…While using relevant economic policy tools, the state at national, regional and local levels may help to rise creative industries in general by determining priorities for the socio economic development [2]. This is a useful starting point because it allows us to focus attention on the relational nature of processes of value allocation and cultural validation: cultural value does not operate and is not generated in a social, cultural and political vacuum, but is in fact shaped by the power relations predominant at any one time, and is a site for struggles over meaning, representation and recognition [8].…”