Individualization of cultural practices

Loading...

From the course by National Research University Higher School of Economics

Cultural and creative industries

1 rating

National Research University Higher School of Economics

Cultural and creative industries

1 rating

Main objective of this course is to trace the development of the Cultural and Creative Industries as an idea and as concept and to identify the key points of changes within it in relations with contemporary digital connected world. Another important task of this course is to provide the deep understanding of the difference between cultural and symbolic meaning products (such as films, recorded music, book and periodicals, online media content etc) and other kind of goods. This course will help you to: - Identify main peculiarities of cultural and symbolic goods in their difference with other branches of economy in terms of production chain, risks, relationship between different stages of production. - Be able to analyze cultural products and symbolic goods from the organizational, economic, business model point of view. - Be able to invent new business models and analyze cultural products in terms of their productions risk. - Be able to analyze cultural policies and creative industries/clusters policies. Main prerequisite to this course is to be able to produce analytical texts in humanities. Normally the course addresses all students of master level interested in peculiarities of media and cultural economy and management. This course is strongly not recommended for those who: - Analyse any market or industry only in microeconomic terms (supply and demand, level of competitions etc). This course is not about market but about peculiarities of symbolic goods; - Try to interpret culture only in terms of marketing and management (i.e. culture is considered like a simple good to be sold to the consumer). This course considers it more broadly like a human agency to produce meanings of everyday life. That’s why cultural goods are different and can not be interpreted exclusively in terms of consuming and need more or less state support; - Try to interpret culture like pure “art” and consequently are absolutely not preoccupied by organizational aspect of its working. This course uses a large number of concepts coming from different fields of science: political economy of communications, cultural studies, sociology etc. Some aspects of the course are commented by known scholars in this field such as David Hesmondhalgh (University of Leeds), Phillipe Bouquillion (University Paris 13 Nord), Bernard Miege (Grenoble Alpes University).

From the lesson

Evolution of cultural industries in digital age

During this week we'll learn transformations of cultural industries after digital revolution. We'll touch upon changes in business models, platforms and general logics shaping cultural industries in digital era.

Diversification of channels5:32

Appearance of new products: material vs immaterial8:41

Further industrialization7:34

Mediatization of everyday life8:44

Individualization of cultural practices9:46

Theory of communication needs and its evolution in digital environment9:27

Meet the Instructors

Iliya Kiria
Professor
Department of Media

Another important trend is the Individualization of Cultural Practices.

Such individualization has a very very long history

because it started more than 100 years ago.

In the early era,

we can speak about miniaturization of devices.

So the usage of less voluminous components,

more flexible materials et cetera,

especially in radio industries for example,

which drive for example the radio which became much more compact,

and radio has been progressively moving from

living room as a place of collective practice,

to kitchen, cars et cetera,

and then become absolutely personal.

The same logics with every device.

For example with Video VHS,

or DVD, tablets et cetera.

Television also has been installed separately in kitchen,

in children's rooms etc.

So, from this point of view,

the individualization could be considerate as the mythologies of industrial independence.

In the reality, dependency is very crucial because we are absolutely,

we become as slaves of devices according to some scholars.

If we'll take a look on a very brief evolution of such kind of practices,

we can see that for example,

let's take a music, let's take a music.

What was the music collective practice at the end of 19th century?

It was the collective listening to piano

for example or even the collective reading of newspapers.

But in field of music,

it was a collective usage of piano especially in the living room et cetera.

During the first half of the 20th century,

we can see the evolution of this practice,

where we can see the usage of the gramophone,

phonograph and some other music recording devices.

First of all, such devices replaced piano,

especially living rooms of the city or urban apartments,

where you have no enough space to place the piano always.

Then, such field of collective practices was moved to the radio.

Radio was installed in the center of the living room and the practice

of listening to the radio was mainly family-based, so collective also.

And sometimes, these devices for listening to radio has been combined,

converged with the devices to consume the music.

Then, it was a television era and then the second [inaudible] 20th century,

these radio has been replaced in the living room by the particular television,

by the particular device,

which we call television,

and then by different kind of magnet-based film music recorders.

And then, we can see how progressively the end of 1990s,

1980s, such fields as radio,

as music becomes absolutely personal with not digital but analog Walkman,

the audio cassette Walkman and then digital Walkman with a compact TVs,

which has been able to move for example and installed in the cars et cetera, et cetera.

And of course, it means, such long history,

it's not only the history about the personalization of devices,

it's also the history of the fragmentation of tastes,

of social tastes, and practices of people,

because a number of channels has become much more larger,

which means that it creates a split of tastes

between for example children and the parents,

which would like to watch different kind of television content,

diversity of tastes in field of music,

which created the incompatibility over the music,

which the parents would like to listen

for with their music for younger et cetera, et cetera.

And it drives of course these evolution of devices of course.

And actually, we have dealt with an era of personal consumption and personal devices,

because we can observe that the number of function in

one device is permanently growing actually in the contemporary smartphones.

We can listen to the radio or watch the films,

listen for their music, read books,

and do a lot of other things.

But at the same time,

we can observe that the number of connected devices is permanently growing.

So, it means that multi functionality does not lead to a reduction of number of devices.

It's very interesting trend.

Yes, from one hand,

we could think that the appearance of the smartphones which becomes much more

bigger with a screen will drive the disappearance for example, of tablet PCs.

But that's not the case,

tablets are proliferating also.

Means that the people have a distinction at

the level of usage between tablet and smartphones.

It's different devices in terms of practices

and how the people are organized in such practices.

And according to all different kind of forecasts,

we can see that the number of such connected devices will grow in the future,

which means that even if the functionality of devices is

growing and devices are becoming more universal and actually have a connected TV,

you can use the Internet on your TV sets et cetera.

At the same time, you prefer to use the Internet in

another kind of devices even if your TV set is connected to internet.

So, of course, this fragmentation or de-standartization of the content making of

the individualization also drives

these three odd relationship between content, device, and network.

Content it's the mainly non-material form of content.

Network, it's the service which makes these content accessible to people.

And device, it's some kind of particular technological device,

technological tool without which,

you can't consume the content.

And from this point of view,

it creates a permanent de-standartization because there are different devices,

different standards for such kind of devices and such devices are

also creating a different kind of standard of creation of content.

And sometimes, the incompatibility between one platform and another.

And finally, finally of course,

as it has been pointed out during the first week,

we have dealt with that also

the very strong age and gender dependence in the usage of different kinds of devices.

It means that individual or collective practices are very different

depending on gender and especially depending on their age of users.

And the older generations of users who watch much more television,

than the younger generations.

And the younger generations don't consider TV as their everyday practice.

It doesn't mean that they don't watch it but it means that they prefer

to consider it as the tool inside the high variety of other kind of practices.

Is just an example.

We can find a lot of such examples in other fields,

in other platforms where the radio sets with the reading of books with

their press will say the periodic press etc, etc.

And of course such dependence gender and age dependence also creates

the different relationship to this personalization, personalization of devices.

Explore our Catalog

Join for free and get personalized recommendations, updates and offers.

Coursera provides universal access to the world’s best education, partnering with top universities and organizations to offer courses online.

© 2018 Coursera Inc. All rights reserved.

Download on the App Store

Get it on Google Play