14th december- Cultural Capital book reflections
14th december-
Cultural Capital book reflections
Cultural Capital- the rise and fall of creative Britain
By Robert Hewison
This book discusses the chronology of creativity within Britain and the growing commodification of such. The act that as government became more industry driven they had to a lot not industrial things into that model also. This was seen as problematic to many who do not value the creative sphere for its own non monetary value. However, under ruthless capitalism, the governments have to put a price upon cultural value do things. This of course is not something you can do without removing the value of the audience. It is the audience that adds value to the work not the predetermined plans. Although the system needs to be economically viable to qualify for public funding, this is often put before the psychological value of the work or creative projects.
'This is a book about culture in its traditional sense, meaning the arts and heritage, but it is also about the political economy of culture. This is a popular prejudice that politics and the arts should not have too much to do with each other: yet they have important things in common. They are both ways of making meaning. They are concerned with values, engage the emotions, and try to change minds. Above all, politics and the arts have a common interest in shaping a society's wider culture-culture, that is, not just a way of like, but a way of organising life' (page 3)
Culture has such a stiff stance throughout history It is difficult to pair and event or historical happening without a cultural backdrop. However, that culture was allows to develop independent of government pressures to be efficient. The ironic aspect of this is that when something is pushed to be good it will not be. The over analysis of culture and culture capital can lead to a disorganisation caused as life hasn't been allowed to organise itself.
'Even those factors that could not be expressed in monetary terms had to be treated as if they had monetary value' (page 4)
The placement of monetary value upon culture, psychology and emotion is crazy, the fact this is the move of the government to justify art is wrong, why should every aspect of public funding Give back to the government and therefore the elite. This public funding into art must almost always in some way gratify the rock once more. A full circle is completed of injustice.
'The acclaimed freedom of individuals to behave unrestrainedly in the market enslaved them to the market, because it is only through the market that Individuals can realise their creativity and measure their success' (page 5)
The commodity culture we live in makes it difficult to exist separate from the market. Therefore establishing culture within that made and purchased world means it will always exist with a monetary value. As artists it is often difficult to exist in this system and hold your own ethics where you would like them to be. This is something I have struggled with personally, you must coincide with the system to survive and this can often be seen by many as 'biting the hand that feeds you' however the world as been designed for no other food sources.
' new labour espouses a version of the entrepreneurial ideal of the early nineteenth century' David Marquand (page 12)
'Manage cultural affairs in their own interest was demonstrated with days of new labour coming into office' (page 25)
'In the 1930's the term cultural industry had been used pejoratively by the Marxist theorists Theodore Adorno and Max Horkheimer, why saw the commercialisation of popular culture as a form of mass deception and exploitation' (page 33)
The same philosophy saw the notion of creative destruction becoming likely within a capitalist structure. The commercialisation of popular culture was deception and has got to a point that the deception has become a reality. There is a type of paradox between the two that doesn't lend itself to creating a strong collectivism within society. This is even present within the arts world. The drive is lessened for some and their less active part makes me question what common good could be worked toward.
'Cultural policy becomes an extension of economic policy, and culture is no longer seen as something distinct from the effects of economic life. The citizen becomes a consumer, competing with other individual consumers, rather than sharing common values expressed through common culture. Social relations are experienced solely through the market, and culture exuded only in commodity form.' (Page 46)
The above structure is something that very few people see. There is a lack of common communication systems between the arts and the rest of society. Although art and the arts world is not what wholly makes culture it contributes massively. Many people feel every disassociated with that and do not see that creative system as necessary as they are condition to exist without it. This is without knowing that their everyday lives have creative and artistic aspect built into them to allude to freedom within life. Many industries can project societal behaviour well into the future and play on that. The lack of self creative thinking means the individual will play into this. Yet the well branded world around them allows them the illusion of freedom and choice. This is where cultural commodification becomes dangerous, as people are built to consume not make/discuss. The relationship with culture is different. Society is produced from culture and if culture is owned and marketed then the culture than follows will be minimal and weak in social relations.
'The arts would also serve the governments social mission. People working in the arts were happy to make their contribution- until they discovered that the machinery of government installed to achieve these aims threaten to crush the very creativity that it was intended to inspire' (page 62)
The above quote comes after discussion of new labour and the Dome disaster that was naively conceived to build 'culture' through economic architecture. This massive waste of public money and the backward involvement of private companies just goes to show how culture is so ill conceived by the ruling elite.
'Use or Ornament: the economic importance of art' '...But it became an influential document whose arguments for the benefit of participating in the arts were extended to the social benefits of the arts in general' (page 73)
The above referenced document (1997) was vital to new labour in deepening understanding of the arts and cultural system. Culture is a method and natural progression of self and joint development not a source of social instruction as it was being treated. Participation is a vitality to the art world and relational aesthetics cemetery's much of what my work concerns. I feel it is an I'll considered aspect by many people.
'As in the wider dialect of inclusion and exclusion, the problem of difference is that it is thought of as just that- a problem' (page 81)
The internal problem of access and inclusion is seen as just that due to the overt continuation of a colonial western power structure still holding economy as the most valued asset. This power structure is more evident within the art world due to the stark generational differences between those emerging with work and those deeming that work worthy or not. The work chosen is then forced upon the masses and those who do not choose to participate are marginalised and analysed. The diversity of this 'inclusion' 'exclusion' is ultimately reflecting the overarching power system that the creative 'machine' is being forced to work under. A machine of not particular shape or size is forced into a square box, those who classically are not also part of the internal area of that box are then seen as a problem, they have no access or reduced access. If the art based machine was allowed to grow and manifest through varying social means then the outsiders of such box would have their own desired and crucially, chosen, branch.
'The term 'cultural diversity' was the next to collapse under the strain of trying to resolve the tensions between unity and difference' ( page 86)
'A small and insular world of politics, structures and hierarchies. A world where things are not what they seem and language loses its meaning. Where new is old, where savings equal costs, and consultation means minds made up' (page 100)
As I have continued reading this book I have realise the issues that arise from in any way forcing creativity to be something it is not. Or in any case, moving the once undrawable lines that the art world can live within. The monetary labels defining modern life means that the economic branch of society is the most densely populated. Instead of the social ideological or political, these lines are their own branches and combining them for vested interest in things that capital creates such as social injustice is a ludacris utopia of modern government. Although art and creativity by default improves lives, forcing this will ultimately lead to a bitter relationship.
'Loudly echoing the government's agenda, 'Ambitions for the arts' proclaimed: as an organisation we will be focused on growth. We will bring the transforming power of the arts to bear on issues of health, crime, education and Inclusion' (page 106)
'But excellence is an empty category, meaningless until one thing is compared with another and consequently judged to be better or worse' (page 143)
The above system of judgment and excellence shows how the current judgement system is built directly on top of the old. However problems arise when that old system is one of social and class injustice where art is concerned.
'Are is no longer the autonomous emblem of western freedom, but, as the art historian Julian Stall rasa has argued, a sign of the triumph of globalisation: Just as global capitalism stepped out from behind the cloak of its defeated opponent after 1989 and, on its rapid transformation, was revealed as the rapacious, inexorable system that it is, so it may be with the art world. The end of its use as a tool in the prosecution of the Cold War has made clear a new role already in development: its core function as a propagandist for neoliberal values' (page 156)
'Bourdieu, who coined the term 'cultural capital' argued that cultural knowledge and cultural experiences are an asset, and that, like economic capital, cultural capital can be accumulated and inherited' (page 209)
'When presented critically and imaginatively, the culture of the past is a source of meaning in the present' (page 219)
Cultural Capital book reflections
Cultural Capital- the rise and fall of creative Britain
By Robert Hewison
This book discusses the chronology of creativity within Britain and the growing commodification of such. The act that as government became more industry driven they had to a lot not industrial things into that model also. This was seen as problematic to many who do not value the creative sphere for its own non monetary value. However, under ruthless capitalism, the governments have to put a price upon cultural value do things. This of course is not something you can do without removing the value of the audience. It is the audience that adds value to the work not the predetermined plans. Although the system needs to be economically viable to qualify for public funding, this is often put before the psychological value of the work or creative projects.
'This is a book about culture in its traditional sense, meaning the arts and heritage, but it is also about the political economy of culture. This is a popular prejudice that politics and the arts should not have too much to do with each other: yet they have important things in common. They are both ways of making meaning. They are concerned with values, engage the emotions, and try to change minds. Above all, politics and the arts have a common interest in shaping a society's wider culture-culture, that is, not just a way of like, but a way of organising life' (page 3)
Culture has such a stiff stance throughout history It is difficult to pair and event or historical happening without a cultural backdrop. However, that culture was allows to develop independent of government pressures to be efficient. The ironic aspect of this is that when something is pushed to be good it will not be. The over analysis of culture and culture capital can lead to a disorganisation caused as life hasn't been allowed to organise itself.
'Even those factors that could not be expressed in monetary terms had to be treated as if they had monetary value' (page 4)
The placement of monetary value upon culture, psychology and emotion is crazy, the fact this is the move of the government to justify art is wrong, why should every aspect of public funding Give back to the government and therefore the elite. This public funding into art must almost always in some way gratify the rock once more. A full circle is completed of injustice.
'The acclaimed freedom of individuals to behave unrestrainedly in the market enslaved them to the market, because it is only through the market that Individuals can realise their creativity and measure their success' (page 5)
The commodity culture we live in makes it difficult to exist separate from the market. Therefore establishing culture within that made and purchased world means it will always exist with a monetary value. As artists it is often difficult to exist in this system and hold your own ethics where you would like them to be. This is something I have struggled with personally, you must coincide with the system to survive and this can often be seen by many as 'biting the hand that feeds you' however the world as been designed for no other food sources.
' new labour espouses a version of the entrepreneurial ideal of the early nineteenth century' David Marquand (page 12)
'Manage cultural affairs in their own interest was demonstrated with days of new labour coming into office' (page 25)
'In the 1930's the term cultural industry had been used pejoratively by the Marxist theorists Theodore Adorno and Max Horkheimer, why saw the commercialisation of popular culture as a form of mass deception and exploitation' (page 33)
The same philosophy saw the notion of creative destruction becoming likely within a capitalist structure. The commercialisation of popular culture was deception and has got to a point that the deception has become a reality. There is a type of paradox between the two that doesn't lend itself to creating a strong collectivism within society. This is even present within the arts world. The drive is lessened for some and their less active part makes me question what common good could be worked toward.
'Cultural policy becomes an extension of economic policy, and culture is no longer seen as something distinct from the effects of economic life. The citizen becomes a consumer, competing with other individual consumers, rather than sharing common values expressed through common culture. Social relations are experienced solely through the market, and culture exuded only in commodity form.' (Page 46)
The above structure is something that very few people see. There is a lack of common communication systems between the arts and the rest of society. Although art and the arts world is not what wholly makes culture it contributes massively. Many people feel every disassociated with that and do not see that creative system as necessary as they are condition to exist without it. This is without knowing that their everyday lives have creative and artistic aspect built into them to allude to freedom within life. Many industries can project societal behaviour well into the future and play on that. The lack of self creative thinking means the individual will play into this. Yet the well branded world around them allows them the illusion of freedom and choice. This is where cultural commodification becomes dangerous, as people are built to consume not make/discuss. The relationship with culture is different. Society is produced from culture and if culture is owned and marketed then the culture than follows will be minimal and weak in social relations.
'The arts would also serve the governments social mission. People working in the arts were happy to make their contribution- until they discovered that the machinery of government installed to achieve these aims threaten to crush the very creativity that it was intended to inspire' (page 62)
The above quote comes after discussion of new labour and the Dome disaster that was naively conceived to build 'culture' through economic architecture. This massive waste of public money and the backward involvement of private companies just goes to show how culture is so ill conceived by the ruling elite.
'Use or Ornament: the economic importance of art' '...But it became an influential document whose arguments for the benefit of participating in the arts were extended to the social benefits of the arts in general' (page 73)
The above referenced document (1997) was vital to new labour in deepening understanding of the arts and cultural system. Culture is a method and natural progression of self and joint development not a source of social instruction as it was being treated. Participation is a vitality to the art world and relational aesthetics cemetery's much of what my work concerns. I feel it is an I'll considered aspect by many people.
'As in the wider dialect of inclusion and exclusion, the problem of difference is that it is thought of as just that- a problem' (page 81)
The internal problem of access and inclusion is seen as just that due to the overt continuation of a colonial western power structure still holding economy as the most valued asset. This power structure is more evident within the art world due to the stark generational differences between those emerging with work and those deeming that work worthy or not. The work chosen is then forced upon the masses and those who do not choose to participate are marginalised and analysed. The diversity of this 'inclusion' 'exclusion' is ultimately reflecting the overarching power system that the creative 'machine' is being forced to work under. A machine of not particular shape or size is forced into a square box, those who classically are not also part of the internal area of that box are then seen as a problem, they have no access or reduced access. If the art based machine was allowed to grow and manifest through varying social means then the outsiders of such box would have their own desired and crucially, chosen, branch.
'The term 'cultural diversity' was the next to collapse under the strain of trying to resolve the tensions between unity and difference' ( page 86)
'A small and insular world of politics, structures and hierarchies. A world where things are not what they seem and language loses its meaning. Where new is old, where savings equal costs, and consultation means minds made up' (page 100)
As I have continued reading this book I have realise the issues that arise from in any way forcing creativity to be something it is not. Or in any case, moving the once undrawable lines that the art world can live within. The monetary labels defining modern life means that the economic branch of society is the most densely populated. Instead of the social ideological or political, these lines are their own branches and combining them for vested interest in things that capital creates such as social injustice is a ludacris utopia of modern government. Although art and creativity by default improves lives, forcing this will ultimately lead to a bitter relationship.
'Loudly echoing the government's agenda, 'Ambitions for the arts' proclaimed: as an organisation we will be focused on growth. We will bring the transforming power of the arts to bear on issues of health, crime, education and Inclusion' (page 106)
'But excellence is an empty category, meaningless until one thing is compared with another and consequently judged to be better or worse' (page 143)
The above system of judgment and excellence shows how the current judgement system is built directly on top of the old. However problems arise when that old system is one of social and class injustice where art is concerned.
'Are is no longer the autonomous emblem of western freedom, but, as the art historian Julian Stall rasa has argued, a sign of the triumph of globalisation: Just as global capitalism stepped out from behind the cloak of its defeated opponent after 1989 and, on its rapid transformation, was revealed as the rapacious, inexorable system that it is, so it may be with the art world. The end of its use as a tool in the prosecution of the Cold War has made clear a new role already in development: its core function as a propagandist for neoliberal values' (page 156)
'Bourdieu, who coined the term 'cultural capital' argued that cultural knowledge and cultural experiences are an asset, and that, like economic capital, cultural capital can be accumulated and inherited' (page 209)
'When presented critically and imaginatively, the culture of the past is a source of meaning in the present' (page 219)
The above quote reminded me of the fact that no piece of work, much the same with writing, can be analysed in separation from the historical factors present during compilation. An idea examined in 'The political Unconscious' by Fredric Jameson. Culture, is even more tricky to define as it is not set in a physical realm as art or writing may be. It is this difficulty that a aim based government struggle to value the magic off.
'Cultural capitalism treated official culture as an economic activity driving economic grounds' (page 220)
'The state is the guarantor of a free market, but it should also guarantee the freedom of the individual against the exploitation of the market, and against the depredations of the environment that the market engenders. As the guarantor of the public realm, it's must protect the right to open information and Deandre. Abound all, the state must revive a public, as opposed to private, property right- the right freely to access the co-created culture that is held as common property in the public realm' (page 227)
The above quote embodies much of the frustration I later go on to talk about. The revived public would have so much more to offer than a 'strengthened' private sector. However as money as queen and is as the pawns the system is difficult to overthrow and talk of revolutions instantly makes many people uncomfortable. This is due to many people not noticing any void ;that (once filled with culture) is now filled with commodities.
'The cultural sector cannot solve the problems of education on its own' (page 229)
It is frustrating as the solution may seem so simple, educate the young and let them have access to creativity. However the governments systems are in place to reduce this and reduce creative contact hours. Therefore, the issue is taken to a higher level as the power structures are question greatly. Economic growth is valued more and schooling is tailored to achieve this also. As artists it is frustrating seeing this in place and it is disheartening that many opportunities are missed at the hands of the system in place to protect public interest.
'Young people have to be encouraged to acquire cultural capabilities that enlarge the imagination, encourage empathy and stimulate cooperation. This is not a question of 'access' but if positive empowerment that ensnarled people to make informed choices, values outcomes of this. Houses and participate in the public realm' (page 230)
The stressing of the younger generations involvement the arts is a real vitality. It is something g I have identified many times and am beginning to look at within my own work. This is to the voices of the future will become more 'informed'. This is less about class and more about the opportunities that come with creativity, not just personal but global. These more well informed choices will benefit society and other countries that suffer at the hands of our consumer capital. If more exchanges were social and free from the market then our overall impact would be reduced. It is difficult to think of how this may be implemented though, independent schemes are in place in some schools but a blanket type system is needed to allow equal development across all counties.
'Cultural capitalism treated official culture as an economic activity driving economic grounds' (page 220)
'The state is the guarantor of a free market, but it should also guarantee the freedom of the individual against the exploitation of the market, and against the depredations of the environment that the market engenders. As the guarantor of the public realm, it's must protect the right to open information and Deandre. Abound all, the state must revive a public, as opposed to private, property right- the right freely to access the co-created culture that is held as common property in the public realm' (page 227)
The above quote embodies much of the frustration I later go on to talk about. The revived public would have so much more to offer than a 'strengthened' private sector. However as money as queen and is as the pawns the system is difficult to overthrow and talk of revolutions instantly makes many people uncomfortable. This is due to many people not noticing any void ;that (once filled with culture) is now filled with commodities.
'The cultural sector cannot solve the problems of education on its own' (page 229)
It is frustrating as the solution may seem so simple, educate the young and let them have access to creativity. However the governments systems are in place to reduce this and reduce creative contact hours. Therefore, the issue is taken to a higher level as the power structures are question greatly. Economic growth is valued more and schooling is tailored to achieve this also. As artists it is frustrating seeing this in place and it is disheartening that many opportunities are missed at the hands of the system in place to protect public interest.
'Young people have to be encouraged to acquire cultural capabilities that enlarge the imagination, encourage empathy and stimulate cooperation. This is not a question of 'access' but if positive empowerment that ensnarled people to make informed choices, values outcomes of this. Houses and participate in the public realm' (page 230)
The stressing of the younger generations involvement the arts is a real vitality. It is something g I have identified many times and am beginning to look at within my own work. This is to the voices of the future will become more 'informed'. This is less about class and more about the opportunities that come with creativity, not just personal but global. These more well informed choices will benefit society and other countries that suffer at the hands of our consumer capital. If more exchanges were social and free from the market then our overall impact would be reduced. It is difficult to think of how this may be implemented though, independent schemes are in place in some schools but a blanket type system is needed to allow equal development across all counties.
Comments
Post a Comment