Again I yield this space to @ Ricardo_AMASTE because it gives me the real win and he is my friend to post your comments about yesterday, organized by the Department of Culture of the Basque government in Vitoria with the theme "Cultural Enterprises, Creative Industries and Employment Generation." I add some text links to provide more information. The presentations of the speakers who do not appear in this text can be founded in this link.
As soundtrack to a couple of references that often repeated that Ricardo and I agree, signed by a Basque radical rock band of the left known as Eskorbuto: "We Bizkaia rats "(and live on scraps of the culture industry) and " Careful, careful, I warned: we are the same as when we started (and bite the hand that feeds us.)
ECONOMY OF CULTURE VS CREATIVE INDUSTRIES
ENTREPRENEUR ENTREPRENEUR VS VS
COOPERATING AGENCY COMPETE VS
GROWTH-MERGER
AMURRIO VS FLORIDA
Notes on Culture & Employment Week, organized by the Department of Culture of the Basque Government June 14, 2010
Ricardo_AMASTÉ
I know I repeat myself but my only trick is perseverance. So firing the monkey. Here I go with some impressions of memory. Without further ado, a brief summary of what I have given of the day. As always, constructive spirit and not wanting to be unique (or maybe you ... someday I will look at me).
first to acknowledge the effort and intention of the Department of Culture Basque Government and the involvement of lehendakari and lament the absence of Industry and Employment (Patxi, if you really believe this and I think the issue I hope that if she takes the * s responsible for these areas and give them a good slap on the wrist - as bit-).
Secondly remember that culture, regardless of how strategic economic sector and source of employment, is what helps us to transform ourselves, to wonder about us * sa * s themselves individually and as a society (c'mon, all that so Pretty UNESCO declaration). Consider the WHAT. Let us not forget that culture, and an instrument for many things, especially due to be culture, maintaining specificity, its experimental, laboratory ... Because sometimes, it seems that the trees we can not see the forest ...
And from here a battery of questions about what has been said today:
need new organizational models - although this is not a question of culture-specific. And the new models we need, rather than competitive (not want to compete, we COOPERATE) globally (which mania internationalization as possible homogeneous, almost coercive), must be sustainable and based more on fitness than on the productive.
Nor is specific to the culture of creativity. I know of no social, economic, political, that currently do not need creativity to transform (and the need for change is urgent, indispensable). So the term "creative industries" is a truism, for if not, go away.
Moreover, not all people who are dedicated to the culture we want to be industry or company (although obviously we entrepreneurs-have initiative-). As stated in the afternoon, we have a bipolar disorder between belonging to the employer and think that we belong to the union, when in fact we are no longer worth neither related models around work. That does not mean that we are not aware that as cultural brokers, we belong to and are active agents in an economic context (GDP, employment, etc, etc). But the industry is just one of the sectors (secondary), with a long tradition in Euskadi, but can not be totalitarian, tax (among other things is advisable to diversify, because it is less clear that eventually we will be competitive in industrial, at least with regard to production) ... The industrial, business as it looks conditions, behaviors, roles, inertia generates many archaic ... Another problem (or it) is that we do not believe too much of the third sector of the room and not speak. Much
of us * s * s if we do not want to grow and grow, we do not do so using as an employer * s traditional. We do not want to grow individually, or by concentration, but multiply exponentially through agencies and networks. And we need to help us investigate the theory and practice regarding these opportunities, so that as said earlier, defining new organizational models ... I find it significant that always refer to our small size as a problem rather than how a feature-characteristic that can be transformed into strength and opportunity. Tant * s For what we choose to be small * s * s are necessarily wrong? ... To see who is wrong here.
To put it more difficult, some * s not believe in scarcity of talent in the market strategy, or the quest for profit from intellectual property, because we understand the culture as shared knowledge flow. And although many of us * s * s we believe in it at the political level, the "interesting" is that for many doors you want to put the field, with a bit of "luck" that's the model that prevailed in the free end market. So it would be nice to reflect and a commitment from the public, lest we not drawn more by the circumstances (in arbitrary uncertainty have everything to gain by birds of prey neoliberal plan over our heads) ... The commons is there and not (only) an idea of \u200b\u200bcrazy people and romantic.
Landing on specific interventions, my bet trident:
1. Addressing the report which spoke Montse sounded very believable (I have sooo many prejudice to the reports, I love finding examples to think otherwise.) And relativize such magic formulas decontextualized Richard Florida (VS empower its agents to attract local talent.)
2. Guillermo attend Cabinet Youth Initiative and its proposed naive innocent ... (when it comes to economics, serious things, names such as innocent, naive, romantic, take a contemptuous look ... and then leave us, though perhaps this is just my perspective too suspicious).
3. Ptqk attend (not just because I receive her blog) and speaking from personal, since the personal is political and cultural policies are political. And the autoprecarización and the unsustainability of the personal-professional model, BEWARE! [Ricardo referred to this text and that other ]
Perhaps as a counterpoint, I have missed a business-industrial vision powerful, innovative, really serves to relativize my question "certainties" (yes, I know that I am a pretenciosillo). A view not from the technocracy, from management, consulting ... And is that perhaps the real examples of these supposedly desirable large cultural-creative industries, if they exist and are not a mirage, can be counted on the fingers of one hand, do not give of themselves to justify a credible role model and / or are not something to be taught out there beyond the mere consumer-entertainment culture (if it turns out that what we are talking about is Rock in Rio, I I prefer running me down I'm too busy ... and I'm not worth it to build bridges and find points).
Then, almost to end, one thing that I DEEPLY UPSET. Being accused of cultural agents of our dependence on the public, that only aspire to the grant, which do not risk, that we are not very productive ... I wish I knew why they lived and live here for many "strategic" sectors, how are sustainable and productive technology centers (for instance), which is the rate applicable on the market and direct profitability of investment in R + D + i, supported by a high% direct and / or indirectly by the public. I'd settle for that I apply the same standards based on the same conditions (otherwise they are little fair and biased comparisons.) Demand targeted policies (which does not mean segmented by sub-sectors) and specific actions to help us improve on what we want to be and not force us to be what others expect us to be. From the co-responsibility and shared risks, agreed but be careful do not go asking for something then do not go to be able to offer (because we have spent years taking risks and asking for involvement beyond the mere grant). I do not remember the moral is that the pork and chicken and eggs and bacon for breakfast.
And now if the final. You need to change the formats of these events. We must dare to break the rules, you have to play more, you have to foster interaction, exchange and the mixture is to leave the hotels and their stale devices ... If I'm going to make the excuse that this was a first time and such, as well. For the second and not enough for me. Because we talk a lot of creativity, but what is needed is to note that this is done ... Time for Action!
first to acknowledge the effort and intention of the Department of Culture Basque Government and the involvement of lehendakari and lament the absence of Industry and Employment (Patxi, if you really believe this and I think the issue I hope that if she takes the * s responsible for these areas and give them a good slap on the wrist - as bit-).
Secondly remember that culture, regardless of how strategic economic sector and source of employment, is what helps us to transform ourselves, to wonder about us * sa * s themselves individually and as a society (c'mon, all that so Pretty UNESCO declaration). Consider the WHAT. Let us not forget that culture, and an instrument for many things, especially due to be culture, maintaining specificity, its experimental, laboratory ... Because sometimes, it seems that the trees we can not see the forest ...
And from here a battery of questions about what has been said today:
need new organizational models - although this is not a question of culture-specific. And the new models we need, rather than competitive (not want to compete, we COOPERATE) globally (which mania internationalization as possible homogeneous, almost coercive), must be sustainable and based more on fitness than on the productive.
Nor is specific to the culture of creativity. I know of no social, economic, political, that currently do not need creativity to transform (and the need for change is urgent, indispensable). So the term "creative industries" is a truism, for if not, go away.
Moreover, not all people who are dedicated to the culture we want to be industry or company (although obviously we entrepreneurs-have initiative-). As stated in the afternoon, we have a bipolar disorder between belonging to the employer and think that we belong to the union, when in fact we are no longer worth neither related models around work. That does not mean that we are not aware that as cultural brokers, we belong to and are active agents in an economic context (GDP, employment, etc, etc). But the industry is just one of the sectors (secondary), with a long tradition in Euskadi, but can not be totalitarian, tax (among other things is advisable to diversify, because it is less clear that eventually we will be competitive in industrial, at least with regard to production) ... The industrial, business as it looks conditions, behaviors, roles, inertia generates many archaic ... Another problem (or it) is that we do not believe too much of the third sector of the room and not speak. Much
of us * s * s if we do not want to grow and grow, we do not do so using as an employer * s traditional. We do not want to grow individually, or by concentration, but multiply exponentially through agencies and networks. And we need to help us investigate the theory and practice regarding these opportunities, so that as said earlier, defining new organizational models ... I find it significant that always refer to our small size as a problem rather than how a feature-characteristic that can be transformed into strength and opportunity. Tant * s For what we choose to be small * s * s are necessarily wrong? ... To see who is wrong here.
To put it more difficult, some * s not believe in scarcity of talent in the market strategy, or the quest for profit from intellectual property, because we understand the culture as shared knowledge flow. And although many of us * s * s we believe in it at the political level, the "interesting" is that for many doors you want to put the field, with a bit of "luck" that's the model that prevailed in the free end market. So it would be nice to reflect and a commitment from the public, lest we not drawn more by the circumstances (in arbitrary uncertainty have everything to gain by birds of prey neoliberal plan over our heads) ... The commons is there and not (only) an idea of \u200b\u200bcrazy people and romantic.
Landing on specific interventions, my bet trident:
1. Addressing the report which spoke Montse sounded very believable (I have sooo many prejudice to the reports, I love finding examples to think otherwise.) And relativize such magic formulas decontextualized Richard Florida (VS empower its agents to attract local talent.)
2. Guillermo attend Cabinet Youth Initiative and its proposed naive innocent ... (when it comes to economics, serious things, names such as innocent, naive, romantic, take a contemptuous look ... and then leave us, though perhaps this is just my perspective too suspicious).
3. Ptqk attend (not just because I receive her blog) and speaking from personal, since the personal is political and cultural policies are political. And the autoprecarización and the unsustainability of the personal-professional model, BEWARE! [Ricardo referred to this text and that other ]
Perhaps as a counterpoint, I have missed a business-industrial vision powerful, innovative, really serves to relativize my question "certainties" (yes, I know that I am a pretenciosillo). A view not from the technocracy, from management, consulting ... And is that perhaps the real examples of these supposedly desirable large cultural-creative industries, if they exist and are not a mirage, can be counted on the fingers of one hand, do not give of themselves to justify a credible role model and / or are not something to be taught out there beyond the mere consumer-entertainment culture (if it turns out that what we are talking about is Rock in Rio, I I prefer running me down I'm too busy ... and I'm not worth it to build bridges and find points).
Then, almost to end, one thing that I DEEPLY UPSET. Being accused of cultural agents of our dependence on the public, that only aspire to the grant, which do not risk, that we are not very productive ... I wish I knew why they lived and live here for many "strategic" sectors, how are sustainable and productive technology centers (for instance), which is the rate applicable on the market and direct profitability of investment in R + D + i, supported by a high% direct and / or indirectly by the public. I'd settle for that I apply the same standards based on the same conditions (otherwise they are little fair and biased comparisons.) Demand targeted policies (which does not mean segmented by sub-sectors) and specific actions to help us improve on what we want to be and not force us to be what others expect us to be. From the co-responsibility and shared risks, agreed but be careful do not go asking for something then do not go to be able to offer (because we have spent years taking risks and asking for involvement beyond the mere grant). I do not remember the moral is that the pork and chicken and eggs and bacon for breakfast.
And now if the final. You need to change the formats of these events. We must dare to break the rules, you have to play more, you have to foster interaction, exchange and the mixture is to leave the hotels and their stale devices ... If I'm going to make the excuse that this was a first time and such, as well. For the second and not enough for me. Because we talk a lot of creativity, but what is needed is to note that this is done ... Time for Action!
0 comments:
Post a Comment