Whose cultural value? Representation, power and creative industries. Belfiore, E. 26(3):383–397. Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2018.1495713
Whose cultural value? Representation, power and creative industries [link]Paper  doi  abstract   bibtex   
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 over-simplification 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.
@article{belfiore_whose_2020,
	title = {Whose cultural value? Representation, power and creative industries},
	volume = {26},
	issn = {1028-6632},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2018.1495713},
	doi = {10.1080/10286632.2018.1495713},
	shorttitle = {Whose cultural value?},
	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 over-simplification 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.},
	pages = {383--397},
	number = {3},
	journaltitle = {International Journal of Cultural Policy},
	author = {Belfiore, Eleonora},
	urldate = {2020-03-20},
	date = {2020-04-15},
	note = {Publisher: Routledge
\_eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2018.1495713},
	keywords = {creative economy rhetoric, creative industries, cultural policy, Cultural value, media representation, of Gypsy and Traveller communities},
	file = {Full Text PDF:/Users/faktisktmuratsdator/Zotero/storage/NFGCMS2H/Belfiore - 2020 - Whose cultural value Representation, power and cr.pdf:application/pdf;Snapshot:/Users/faktisktmuratsdator/Zotero/storage/AEYRQCKG/10286632.2018.html:text/html}
}
Downloads: 0