Understanding Cultural Productions and Commerce - Essay Example

MS5100 MEDIA INDUSTRIES AND WORK By Understanding Cultural Productions and Commerce In The Cultural Industries, David Hesmondhalgh is assessing and evaluating the current changes in the cultural industries. He uses a lot of energies, aplomb and acuity while describing these particular changes. The book seems to be provocative, direct and insightful. The book primary brings out the concept that no one can study the cultural industries without engagement with its argumentation and vision including commerce and creativity dialect. Cultural production has a significant value in modern societies because of three elements including the capability of making and circulating of products that influence the knowledge, experience and understanding of human beings. Secondly, cultural production has a role as systems meant for knowledge and creativity management. Thirdly, their effects as agents of cultural, social and economic change Holt and Perren, (2009) argues that there is a question of creativity and commerce at the heart of every cultural production or the drive of making up profits and any other values capable of motivating the production. Creativity and commerce give the basis for making up informative, entertaining, pleasurable, intriguing, beautiful and enlightening products. Commencement of bigger corporations dominates the cultural production. Several cultural jobs were based on a slight amount operational autonomy for commerce and creative workers as well as the managers (Hesmondhalgh, 2013, pp.145-189) According Hesmondalgh, the creativity or business dialect must be well understood by understanding cultural production. Thus, the initial consideration should be on the changing position of commercial, cultural production in various economies and societies. He argues that his primary concern is a standing history of cultural production. Hesmondalgh further argues that market professional, as a section of commerce should be understood first before understanding cultural production. For instance, during the nineteenth century and onwards, most artistic works were being offered for sale in addition of being bought for being owned. In other words, symbolic creativity regularly came to be organized as a market. The system could see several works being indirectly sold to the public through the intermediaries, which could be either productive intermediaries such as the publishers or distributors such as the booksellers. Production intermediaries have resulted to a much more complicated of division of labor in cultural production. If many creative workers could work as artisans, it will still be largely under their personal direction. In late period of nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century, intermediaries of production and distributors were more capitalized due to the expansion of disposable income and leisure time in industrial nations. The symbol creators who were successful could achieve a form of professional independence and subsequently is paid in the form of royalties. These arguments by Hesmondalgh could help understand cultural production. The first revelation in answering the question entails the term ‘creativity’, which have been conceived in different ways. Dissimilarly times by the several scholars who pursue the issues that swirl around the notion of creative, cultural or copyright industries. For example, Louw ( 2001), prefers the term cultural industries as he argued persuasively that ‘if I am right in focusing attention on the role of the cultural industries as systems for the management of symbolic creativity then a key issue here will be the relationship between symbol creators and cultural sector organizations’ Conclusion of the exceptional work largely from a political economist’s perspective. Louw argues, through Bill Ryan, that ‘if the “fundamentally irrational” process of symbolic creativity “conflicts with the calculating, accumulative logic of modern capitalism” this helps to explain the very tangled and contradictory dynamics we have observed’ in the cultural industries. Louw himself characterizes the creativity as a process that ‘presumes the free flight of the imagination unbounded by non-artistic considerations’ (Louw, 2001, pp.234-278). However, Fenton (2010, pp.124-167) argues that the creativity is fundamentally irrational thus creating problems for Fenton’s overall critique. Despite the critique, itis clear that ‘however dubious the romantic conceptions of opposing creativity or art to commerce standpoint. It has had the long-term effect of generating very significant tensions between creativity and business, which are vital facets to understanding the cultural industries’ (Hesmondhalgh, 2013, pp.20). He justifiably reinforces this idea by also stating that ‘it is impossible to understand the distinctive nature of cultural production without an understanding of the commerce/creativity dialectic’ (Hesmondhalgh, 2013, pp.20-21). The course is pragmatically necessary since working within many forms of cultural production as though it was an absolute and concrete entity, rather than a discursive construct as Hesmondhalgh points out, often treat this dialectic. It, therefore, needs to be taken seriously. Hesmondhalgh and Baker (2013) in the book Creative Labour: Media Work in Three Cultural Industries (CRES) points to the acceptance of this dialectic, seen in the idea of the supposed existence of heteronomous art and autonomous art within the field of art itself (Gibson, 2008, pp.189-212). He also points to the illusion held there, that is, ‘the collective adhesion to the game that cause and effect of the existence of the game’ (Gibson, 2008, pp.134-167). He was referring to the illusion that results from the collective internalization of the structures of the field of art which are so well naturalized they are no longer visible to the players in that area. Bourdieu’s research reveals that the emperor of Art has no clothes other than the illusion of the universe the field of art has constructed for itself. From this underlying position, the art versus commerce debate is only a valid opposition because of the profound belief in the rules of art. Rules of art’s illusion are currently embedded in tacit form of data in the field continually by that field to justify its beliefs and action. Therefore, it operates within a neatly contained circle of logic. Nevertheless, as Thomas’ dictum states, ‘if men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences’ (Gibson, 2008, pp.134-167). Once a person takes on the belief and acts as though it is in effect real then ‘gradually a whole life 5 policy and the personality of the individual himself’, (Thomas, 1967, pp.42) becomes premised on the belief system and they act according to that belief system. Despite these critiques of the box of art and the distinctions between art and commerce that reside within them, appear to have been also accepted uncritically Hartley. In his book, Key Concepts in Creative Industries, he tends to see creativity through the narrow prism of artistic activity. However, much of the research literature on creativity recognizes that creativity is a fundamental human attribute just as applicable to science, engineering, and mathematics as it is to painting, sculpture, movie-making and music production. Hartley, (2013) was pointing to when he saw that the future of cities around the planet depended on capacity to attract the creative people necessary to sustain and motivate economic activity. He introduced the notion of super-creative. Super creative is located in both the arts and sciences, which are charged with the function of creating new ideas, objects, technologies and cultural content, all of which are necessary for a modern economy to survive. Florida also adds another group to that of the super-creative. The secondary hierarchical group of ‘creative professionals’ includes those in law, business, finance and other necessary areas who convert the work of the super-creative into a usable form to be exploited in the broader economy. The course is pragmatically necessary and comes in many forms of cultural production as though it was an complete and concrete entity at the expense of conversational construct. Hesmondhalgh points out that conversational construct often treat this dialectic hence requiring serious attention regarding the cultural aspects. The point here is that Florida implicitly recognizes that creativity is not simply the same thing as artistic activity since creative industries; as do many others; depend on all sorts of creative activity in order to function. Hartley et al. (2013) hints at this in his elucidation of a broad definition of creative industries. Production intermediaries have led to a much more complicated of division of labor in cultural production. Numerous creative workers could work as artisans; it will still be principally under their personal direction Examination and evaluation of the underlying changes in the cultural industries uses a lot of energies, aplomb and acuity while describing these particular changes. The book surfaces provocative, direct and insightful thus bring out the primary concept of study pertaining to the cultural industries exclusive of the engagement argumentation and vision. Cultural production possesses significant value in modern societies due to its fundamental elements encompassing the capability of making and circulating of products that influence the knowledge, experience and understanding of human beings. Cultural production plays a central role in systems of offering knowledge and creativity management. The questions of creativity and commerce at the heart of every cultural production thus acting as the drive of making up profits and any other values capable of motivating the production (Louw, 2001, pp.234-278). Creativity and commerce grants fundamental basement of constructing informative, entertaining, pleasurable, intriguing, beautiful and enlightening products. Larger corporations started to dominate the cultural production. Moreover, numerous, artistic jobs were based on the quantity operational autonomy for commerce, creative workers, and managers. On the contrary, a whole range of new opportunities has emerged as shown through the global intersection of sectors of telecommunication and media due to the revolution in digital distribution (Thusu, D. 2006, 99). Industries that have utilized the opportunity provided by these developments are referred to as copyright, creative or cultural industries regardless of the nature, which is modern or traditional (Hartley, 2005, pp. 30-31). Terry Flew, in his recent book, discusses the creativity of industries by looking at their policy and cultural prowess. However, terminology used to refer to these industries differs depending on the country, with some countries relating to these industries as cultural, creative, copyright or digital industries. Flews (2012, pp. 4). Moreover, digital media seems to support Hesmondhalgh (2013), idea concerning the impossibility of understanding the distinctive nature of cultural production without an understanding of commerce or creativity dialectic. It is inevitable when he argues that regardless of the nomenclature, each industry share similar misfortunes as far as the underlying questions brought because of the debate on the creative industry is concerned. Understanding the notion of creativity and commerce is critical to these industries. Hence, it becomes complicated when you want to understand the distinctive nature of cultural production without understanding the dialectic of commerce or creativity. McIntyre (2012) also supports Hesmondhalgh’s idea through his statement concerning the systematic steps of understanding creativity. He states that the first step you need to take is to ask yourself what you already know concerning creativity and commerce. He goes further to explain the importance of this question as a way of necessitating research’s perusal on creativity and commerce. According McIntyre, the study provides a platform for knowing the emergence of creativity, and factors that lead to creativity production are characterization of social network structures and agency of idiosyncratic application. Hennessey and Amabile (2010) simplify McIntyre’s emerging a consensus when they state that the dialectic of creativity or commerce arises from a series of action. Flews argument often sparks a debate whose references is foundational definition extracted from Creative Industries Task Force Mapping Document from United Kingdom. The definition of creative industries have embraced those industries and is based on individual creativity, talent, and skills. Moreover, the definition possesses a potential for wealth generation and job creation through intellectual property’s exploitation and production (Cunningham, 2002, pp.1). Therefore, it is vital to understand the terminology of creativity given that that notion of creativity dialectic is the backbone to this definition. According to Hesmondhalgh (2011, pp.69), the intense focus attention on the cultural industries’ roles as systems for symbolic creativity management, which is the primary issue is likely to be the relationship between the organizations of cultural industries and symbol creators. Creativity recognizes is a fundamental human characteristic just as applicable to science, engineering, and mathematics as it is to painting, sculpture, movie-making and music production. Hartley, (2013) was pointing to when he saw that the future of cities around the planet depended on capacity to attract the creative people necessary to sustain and motivate economic activity. He introduced the notion of super-creative. Understanding of creativity and corresponding commerce dialect comes from understanding cultural production. The initial consideration should be on the changing position of commercial, cultural production in numerous economies and societies. Moreover, primary concern is a standing history of cultural production. In summation, market professional is a part of commerce that aids understanding cultural production. For instance, during the nineteenth century, most artistic works were offered for sale. Moreover, symbolic creativity regularly was organized as a market. This system could see several works being indirectly sold to the public through the intermediaries, which could be either productive intermediaries such as the publishers or distributors such as the booksellers. Consequently, it resulted to more complicated of division of labor in cultural production. Moreover, in case many creative workers could work as artisans, it will still be largely under their personal direction. In late period nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century both intermediaries of productive and distributive became much capitalized than ever before. There was an expansion of disposable income and leisure time in industrial nations. The symbol creators who were successful could achieve a form of professional independence and subsequently were being paid in the form of royalties. The augments help understand cultural production. Cultural production also manages and circulates creativity. Therefore, there is an essence to understand how this circulation operates. References Hesmondhalgh, David.2013. The Cultural Industries. 3nd edn. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Deuze, M. .2013. Media Work: Digital Media and Society. London: Polity Hartley, J. et al. .2013. Key Concepts in Creative Industries. London: Sage Publications Deuze, M,.2011. Managing Media Work. Calif. USA: Thousand Oaks Fenton, N. 2010. New Media, Old News: Journalism and Democracy in the Digital Age. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Freedman, D,.2013. The Politics of Media Policy. Cambridge: Polity Gibson, J,.2008. Media 08: The Essential Guide to the Changing Media Landscape. London: The Guardian Hesmondhalgh, D. & Baker, S. 2013. Creative Labour: Media Work in Three Cultural Industries (CRESC). London: Routledge Holt, J. & Perren, A. Eds. (2009) Media Industries: History, Theory, and Method. Chicester: Wiley- Blackwell Louw, E. (2001) The Media and Cultural Production. Basingstoke: Sage Publications Ltd. Read More