Omer Benjakob, 200207876 16/9/2012 CULTURAL INDUSTRIES, SOCIAL SPACES AND URBAN POLICY A socio-spatial comparison of Holon's Mediatheque and Beijing's 798 art district INTODUCTION In my paper I will compare between Holon's cultural hub- The Mediatheque- and Beijing's art village come art district- Factory 798. The comparison is premised on a social-spatial assumption that culture and cultural industries do not take place within a vacuum, but rather are formed within, and have an active role and involvement in social reality, in it they can grow organically or be politically fostered. Such industries can have political, economical, spatial and community or social related power and therefore cannot be treated just as “culture” in the thin, artistic and solely content sense. Firstly I will present a few concepts and definitions, secondly I will present each of the two areas or spaces, and thirdly I will compare between them, focusing on policy, design, history and aims so as to present each as an example of cultural industry development undertaken (either directly or indirectly) with the aim of creating a form of commercial gentrification or artistic urbanization. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND As a short foreword I will now present a few of the main concepts involved in this paper, these concepts will later, in our comparison chapter, be elaborated and exemplified through our two examples- The Mediatheque and Factory 798. In recent years culturally led process have been accredited with almost mystical urban and social powers. Cultural industries are defined as “advertising, architecture, arts and antique markets, crafts, design, designer fashion, film, video and photography, software and electronic publishing, music and visual and performing arts, publishing, and television and radio.” 1 And can be delineated “into four sectors: cultural heritage (traditional cultural expressions and cultural sites), art (visual arts and performing arts), media (publishing and print media, audiovisuals) and functional creation (design, new media and creative services)” 2 . Such industries, seen through an economical and policy perspective, as a businesses are accredited with having almost magical rejuvenation powers for cities and economies 3 ; fostering local economies and real-estate markets 4 ; breathing new life into old structures 5 ; 1 Ren & Sun, 2, see footnote [FT] #3 2 Ren & Sun, 2, FT #3 3 Wang & Li, 875 4 Molotoch and Treskon, 519. 5 Gordach, 475
A socio-spatial comparison between two urban cultural hubs, one that grew independently in the outskirts of Beijing and deals in mostly plastic arts - Factory 798- and the other a well subsidized synthetic attempt at creating a creative center in an up and coming city- Holon's Mediatheque. The comparison is done through a historical and uran planning perspective and tries to understand, through these two examples, the influence and role, both imaginary, and real world, that culture industries can lead in a city. Specifically the paper tries to understand the different connections between these industries and the economy and community life so as to better understand the real motivation and benefits found in an important urban policy trend- cultural led regeneration. Through the comparison we find two stories of privitatizion and nationalization and shed an interesting light on the idea of cultural led urban regeneration and artistic urbanization in two post industrial cities.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Omer Benjakob, 200207876 16/9/2012
CULTURAL INDUSTRIES, SOCIAL SPACES AND URBAN POLICY
A socio-spatial comparison of Holon's Mediatheque and Beijing's 798 art district
INTODUCTION
In my paper I will compare between Holon's cultural hub- The Mediatheque- and Beijing's
art village come art district- Factory 798. The comparison is premised on a social-spatial
assumption that culture and cultural industries do not take place within a vacuum, but
rather are formed within, and have an active role and involvement in social reality, in it
they can grow organically or be politically fostered. Such industries can have political,
economical, spatial and community or social related power and therefore cannot be treated
just as “culture” in the thin, artistic and solely content sense. Firstly I will present a few
concepts and definitions, secondly I will present each of the two areas or spaces, and
thirdly I will compare between them, focusing on policy, design, history and aims so as to
present each as an example of cultural industry development undertaken (either directly or
indirectly) with the aim of creating a form of commercial gentrification or artistic
urbanization.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
As a short foreword I will now present a few of the main concepts involved in this paper,
these concepts will later, in our comparison chapter, be elaborated and exemplified through
our two examples- The Mediatheque and Factory 798. In recent years culturally led process
have been accredited with almost mystical urban and social powers. Cultural industries are
defined as “advertising, architecture, arts and antique markets, crafts, design, designer
fashion, film, video and photography, software and electronic publishing, music and visual
and performing arts, publishing, and television and radio.”1 And can be delineated “into
four sectors: cultural heritage (traditional cultural expressions and cultural sites), art (visual
arts and performing arts), media (publishing and print media, audiovisuals) and functional
creation (design, new media and creative services)”2.
Such industries, seen through an economical and policy perspective, as a businesses are
accredited with having almost magical rejuvenation powers for cities and economies3;
fostering local economies and real-estate markets4; breathing new life into old structures5;
1 Ren & Sun, 2, see footnote [FT] #32 Ren & Sun, 2, FT #33 Wang & Li, 8754 Molotoch and Treskon, 519. 5 Gordach, 475
rebranding cities and districts in a certain light6 and 'aestheticizing' them in certain light
(think of Los Angeles without the Hollywood brand or New York without the “village” and
SoHo art scene). Such industries and processes are credited with attracting a certain, and
very much desired type of population and economic life. These industries either cater to, or
stem from, what Richard Florida calls “the creative class” and the desire to lure such a
population and their “creative industries” into certain areas or cities7 so as to lead to a type
of non residential or commercial gentrification8.
The creative class is a concept which assumes that “the driving force of the economy [is
not] technological or organizational, but [rather] human”9. At the local or micro level this
process can we termed culturally led urban regeneration10, a wide process of both
economical, urban and spatial processes that aims at creating not just a market and real-
estate in the thin sense but also a “scene” or a “buzz”11 at local level. From this perspective
“[c]ulture is suggested to be the solution to all, serving not only as “a source of prosperity
and cosmopolitanism”, [but] also “a means of defining a rich, shared identity and thus
engenders pride of place””12. This influence is not solely economical gentrification that
displaces one type of population with another for economic reasons but rather attempts at
creating a creative and bohemian buzz, in mostly commercial form, and this in turn is done
both for economical but also social reasons.
In this sense “[a]rtistic presence, involving not only the artists themselves but also the
establishments that service their needs and sensibilities, encourage [...] creativity['s] full
force”13. And this force is economical but also social. Through the creation of “Third
Places”14, meeting places that foster interaction, there are created “establishments that
facilitate a quasi-serendipitous meeting across occupational spheres — a scene [sic] in
which people from different sectors network, exchange knowledge and start deals [in]
specific venues through which artistic currents can connect to other sectors in ways that
amplify the arts impact”15. Gordach [2009] terms these places as “community art spaces”,
and defines them as “[f]lexible and multifunctional” spaces that “not only present art, but
6 Wang & Li, 8757 Wang & Li, 875, Ren & Sun, 48 Moltoch & Trekson, 517-5189 Wang & Li, 875 Citing: Vanolo, A., The image of the creative city: Some reflections on urban branding in
Turin. Cities, 2008. 25(6): p. 370-382. 10 See Wang & Li, 2009, THE RHETORIC AND REALITY OF CULTURE-LED URBAN
REGNERATION – A COMPARISON OF BEIJING AND SHANGHAI, CHINA 11 Moltoch & Trekson, 51712 Wang & Li, 875 (aka Jun, find original citation or state “citing:”)13 Moltoch & Trekson, 517-51814 Moltoch Trekson, 518, Citing (Oldenburg, 1999; see also Lloyd, 2005) find original or cite citing.15 Moltoch Trekson, 518, Citing Currid, 2007; see also Saxenian, 1994; Pratt, 2002; Indergaard, 2004
often serve as art school, resource and outreach center, and community gathering space”16.
These types of spaces can be created by “non profit organization”, governmental, usually
“municipalities [which] operate their own art space” while others “are run cooperatively by
artists”17. But what is important for us is to understand that they fall well within cultural
industries and show that such industries hold both local social and economical advantages.
Specifically “[w]hen located in proximity to one another, galleries, in particular, generate
continuous flows of individuals and small groups from one spot to the next”18, a new and
specific mode of pedestrian and urban “choreography” if you will. Other types of
“‘culture’, such as music and dance production, [...] also bring people together in particular
places, [that] tend to affect sidewalks and streets [...] before and after performances”. The
presence and life force “of galleries and coffee houses [is] that they bring in [and] attract
intermediaries who translate the cultural edge into entrepreneurial initiative [and] designate
the ‘buzz’ that results as a fundamental economic resource”19. So “scene” and “buzz” go
hand in hand with both economical as well as social and communal benefits,
supplementing one-another.
Historically, cultural led development, or the active endeavor of promoting such industries
within a city was an idea that “gained prominence among many entrepreneurial mayors
who attempt[ed] to accelerate economic growth and finally project their cities to higher tier
in the global city hierarchy [and] produce a distinctive hybrid identity with a promise to
offer a unique living or visiting experience”20. While such industries are always part of the
free market, Ren & Sun [2011], quoting Kong [2000] claim that “the development of
cultural policy in the advanced economies has undergone three phases, with its focus
shifting from building high-culture institutions (in the 1950s and 1960s), to community
development and social welfare functions (in the 1970s), and then to generating local
revenues (since the 1980s)”. (Ren, 3). More so, as a policy “the creation and sustenance of
arts districts has thus become a focus [...] at the local and regional level in the US and
Europe, reaching up to national agents, as well as the European Union.”21 In this regard, at
face value this seems to be a liberal project, one that requires “forging an inclusive and rich
multi-cultural air that is claimed to be valued by the creative class”22 however as we shall
see, specifically in the case of China, this is not always either the case nor the end result,
and it's true identity is one of economical, cultural and social process in a post industrial