All entries for March 2005
March 08, 2005
Cultural regeneration: to what extent are British/European cities culturally “distinctive” as a result of cultural regeneration?
To investigate whether British/European cities that have been through a process of “cultural regeneration” retain individuality and distinctiveness or, in fact, become homogenous.
•What is cultural regeneration? – What does it intend to do? What does it achieve in reality?
Which definition of culture does regeneration encompass? I.e. culture as art/culture as a whole way of life? What are the consequences of differing definitions of culture?
Is regeneration “cultural” or is it something else? E.g. commercial, economic, tourist, social. Why do cities want to be “culturally” regenerated?
•To what extent do British/European cities look the same as a result of cultural regeneration?
How does this happen?
Why does it happen?
•To what extent do funding priorities and government rhetoric influence the uniformity of culturally regenerated cities? I.e. since New Labour and the rhetoric of social inclusion do cities aim for similar cultural programmes in order to attract funds? Is this instrumental cultural policy and exploitation of culture? And does this result in uniform cities?
•(How) do cities go about achieving a “sense of place”? To what extent is this successful and distinctive?
•What are the consequences of cities being culturally uniform or indeed having being culturally distinctive? Why is cultural regeneration important?
•Is there a “model” of cultural regeneration? If so where did this “model” begin? And how has this influenced further “models” of cultural regeneration?
•To what extent are local people consulted about cultural regeneration and planning? How is this consultation carried out? How does it affect the “distinctiveness” of the city?
•In whose interests does cultural regeneration work in? E.g. the inhabitants of the city, private investors, local business, tourists?
Who benefits from cultural regeneration?
•Does it matter?
What do local people think?
What do tourists think?
•Should cultural regeneration result in cities looking distinct?
March 06, 2005
Writing about web page http://www.cork2005.ie
Mar 4, 2005
Liz Meanay, Arts Officer of the City Council of Cork at 11:00
Lunch at English Market
Cork Vision Centre
Tom McCarthy, the Programme Director for Cork 2005 at 15:30
Mar 5, 2005
Univerisity College Cork
Lewis Glucksman Gallery
Lunch at Harveys Bistro
Crawford Municipal Art Gallery
Triskel Arts Centre
Dinner at Prime@Clancy's
Valuable experience of the success of South Korean Film Industry can inspire Chinese film industry in its current transformation era
1. Why it is valuable to choose the redevelopment mode of South Korean film industry in 1990s as the model to revitalize the current Chinese film industry?
2. What, such as cultural policy, laws and regulations, financial investment and so on, contributed to the renaissance of the South Korean film industry?
3. According to those of South Korean film industry in 1990s, what conditions of current Chinese film industry are advantageous and disadvantageous to its revitalization? What can be done according to the experience of the South Korean film industry in the political, legal and artistic aspects to give impetus to the renaissance of Chinese film industry?
4. Were there any unsuccessful aspect in the development process of South Korean film industry in the 1990s and if yes, how can Chinese film industry avoid it?
5. Are there any main difference between film industry and its related environment in the two countries and how can Chinese film industry make relevant adjust according to its own specific situation?
Rationale for research questions:
Chinese film industry is now experiencing a big transformation due to the internal change, i.e. the reform of cultural system, and external situation, i.e. the gradual and further opening of Chinese cultural market to the world after entering WTO. Those changes can be either opportunities to the revitalization of Chinese film industry or disasters for it due to different cultural policies that will be implemented by the government.
And another country in Asia, South Korea currently enjoys the success of its film industry as the result of its cultural policy and other relevant elements to film industry in 1990s and onwards.
Based on the above fact, in order to revitalize Chinese film industry, it is valuable to get some inspirations from the successful experience of South Korea. But first of all, it is necessary and inevitable to analyze why it is the successful experience of South Korean film industry in 1990s not that of other countries that can better inspire the development of Chinese film industry by showing that there are some similarities in the domestic and international background of the South Korean film industry in late 1980s and current Chinese film industry which make such ‘learning’ feasible and of practical value.
Besides the successful experience of South Korean film industry, the analysis of the unsuccessful one, as a warning, is also valuable to the future healthy development of Chinese film industry.
And without saying, the differences exist in both the internal and external situation of film industries between South Korean in 1990s and current China. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze such differences and make relevant adjust on the policy and other aspects to the practical situation of Chinese film industry.
P.S. Jack & Jinsun, I may need your help, if my proposal isn't rejected.
March 01, 2005
How do memory and identity influence communication in the public sphere?
Proposal for Major Project 2005
‘Memory’ and ‘identity’ may be viewed as important tools that are needed to allow meaningful communication between different people, or groups of people, to take place. They often act as bridges, or stumps of bridges, which can lead to further communication and meaningful relationships. However, they can act as obstacles, as walls, that stop people from seeing beyond their ‘walls’ of prejudice and preoccupations about others, thus making communication and interaction in the public sphere difficult, and possibly harmful. Examples of features of memory and identity include language barriers (in spite of ‘sharing’ English as a common language, the lingua franca may, or may not, be accompanied by a cultura franca), opposing views of history or tradition, and issues related to ethnicity, religion and nationalism.
The project will look at practical instances when different value systems are hegemonized under a standard ‘egalitarian’/’democratic’ framework of a liberal nature. On the other hand, it will consider instances when both sides of the cultural relationship change, transform themselves and go beyond their own limitations (in terms of Sardar’s opposition between ‘acculturation’ and ‘mutuality’). Practical examples might include references to current public debates with regard to faith schools, arranged marriages, initiation rights, commercial practices, tolerance of criticism of one’s values and sexuality in the public sphere.
The project will refer to Habermas’ theories of the public sphere and the public sphere’s potential as a mode of societal integration and a location to work out how different social groups work at communication in public, with special emphasis on how they negotiate their differences with one another and decide to take common action. Issues about public conversation will be seen through a Habermasian light, and the Foucauldian critique of this view (which considers change as an important element – again, the project will have to be very clear on the terms of reference used). The work of both theoreticians will be used to frame the rise of the independent civil society (as distinguished from the bourgeois public sphere and the state’s control of it) and the private person’s public rights. The project will also comment on the relationship between the state and the market and its impact on people’s participation in the public sphere.
MA European Cultural Policy & Management
University of Warwick