Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Europeana Network Association AGM 2017 - 6 December - Developing impact goals for Cultural Heritage 3.0 - Pier Luigi Sacco


Published on

Developing impact goals for Cultural Heritage 3.0 - Pier Luigi Sacco

  • Be the first to comment

Europeana Network Association AGM 2017 - 6 December - Developing impact goals for Cultural Heritage 3.0 - Pier Luigi Sacco

  1. 1. Developing impact goals for Cultural Heritage 3.0 Pier Luigi Sacco IULM & Harvard & EC
  2. 2. The Culture 3.0 paradigm • Culture 1.0 (Patronage): Highbrow vs. lowbrow, culture as spiritual cultivation, no industrial organization • Culture 2.0 (CCIs): copyright, culture as entertainment, market organization • Culture 3.0 (open communities of practice): blurred distinction producers/users, culture as collective sense-making, networks organization
  3. 3. Culture 1.0: patronage • The pre-industrial regime: no possibility of organized markets; culture does not produce major economic value added but absorbs it; small, elite audiences that gradually expand as more sophisticated sub-regimes emerge • Initially founded on the virtue of parsimonia: emphasis on human cultivation and balance – Classical patronage – Strategic patronage – Public patronage – Committed patronage – Civic patronage – Entrepreneurial patronage
  4. 4. Museums 1.0: temples of knowledge • In the patronage regime, the museum is mainly focused upon the conservation, development and presentation of its collections • The creation of value is connected to the strengthening and cultivation of the museum audience, and to the transfer of knowledge and competences that this implies • Economic sustainability concerns are seen as an interference with the pursuit of the mission of the museum, and the very goal of patronage is that of freeing the museum from the pursuit of activities that are extraneous to its educational mandate
  5. 5. Culture 2.0: cultural and creative industries • With the massive urbanization that follows the industrial revolution, and with the ‘cultural’ industrial revolution that happens at the turn of the XX century, cultural markets can finally emerge • The industrialized forms of culture become profitable, the size of the audience expands dramatically, and culture becomes increasingly linked to entertainment • Emphasis on profitability and audience response: – Proto-industry – Mainstream – Counter-mainstream – Subcultures – Fan ecologies
  6. 6. Museums 2.0: entertainment machines • Although the museum cannot be properly ‘industrialized’, there is an increasing expectation that the museum is generating income, is managed efficiently, and contributes to the development of the tourism industry • Economic returns are not seen as an interference in the pursuit of the museum’s mission • Audience response increasingly becomes an explicit success factor and significantly constraints the museum strategies and policies • The museum environment itself performs a spectacular function
  7. 7. Culture 3.0: content communities • Collapse of the separation between producers and audience: a blurred continuum of active/passive participation • A new wave of technological innovation that enables massive, shared and shareable production of content and instant diffusion and circulation • The production of value moves to the social domain and connects to all of the main dimensions of civic functioning: innovation, welfare, sustainability, social cohesion, lifelong learning, social entrepreneurship, local identity, soft power
  8. 8. Museums 3.0: participative platforms • The idea of a passive audience is gradually substituted by a spectrum of forms of direct engagement • Museums can create value in terms of innovation hubs, welfare hotspots, sustainability facilitators, social cohesion gateways, etcetera • The new forms of value entail different forms of social interaction and exchange as constituent factors • The museum opens its collections to the possibility of creative appropriation and remix of its contents by users
  9. 9. The Heritage 3.0 framework • Heritage 1.0 (Conservation): Preserving ‘stones’ is the priority, Heritage is for connoisseurs • Heritage 2.0 (Entertainment machines): Attracting people and making profit is the priority, Heritage is for customers • Heritage 3.0 (Community sense- making): Involving everybody in the production, circulation and conservation of culture is the priority. Heritage is made, preserved and enjoyed by the community
  10. 10. Impact goal 1: Innovation
  11. 11. Innovation/cultural participation Innovation Union Scoreboard 2014 (top 23) Index of Cultural Practice Eurobarometer 2013 (top 23) Sweden Sweden Denmark Denmark Germany Netherlands Finland UK Luxembourg Luxembourg Netherlands France Belgium Spain UK Estonia Ireland Germany Austria Ireland France EU EU Finland Slovenia Slovenia Estonia Malta Cyprus Austria Italy Lithuania Czech Republic Belgium Spain Latvia Portugal Croatia Greece Italy Hungary Czech Republic Slovakia Bulgaria Malta Romania Croatia Poland
  12. 12. Culture-innovation clusters • Top innovation + culture: Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, UK, Ireland, Luxembourg, France, Germany • Top innovation + culture lagging: Finland, Belgium, Austria • Top culture + innovation lagging: Spain, Estonia • Lagging innovation + culture: Slovenia, Malta, Croatia, Italy, Czech Republic • Bottom innovation + lagging culture: Lithuania, Latvia, Bulgaria, Romania, Poland • Bottom culture + lagging innovation: Cyprus, Portugal, Greece, Slovakia, Hungary
  13. 13. Impact goal 2: Welfare
  14. 14. Hierarchy of factors affecting psychological well-being 1 Diseases 2 Cultural participation 3 Income 4 Age 5 Education 6 Gender 7 Job 8 Geography
  15. 15. Classical music concerts
  16. 16. Theatre
  17. 17. Impact goal 3: Sustaina- bility
  18. 18. Cultural access and waste recycling
  19. 19. Best 10 EU15 Capital cities for waste mgmt & land use Amsterdam Helsinki Berlin Vienna Copenhagen Stockholm Brussels London Paris Dublin
  20. 20. Impact goal 4: Social cohesion
  21. 21. Social cohesion 1 certain types of cultural projects may produce strong and significant effects in terms of juvenile crime prevention, pro-social vocational orientation, or conflict resolution (Abreu program, projeto Axé, etc.) 2 these projects are generally focused on active cultural participation, as it is made possible for instance by programs of music education 3 the indirect effect of cultural participation on social cohesion is the overcoming of self- and others-stereotyping as provoked by incumbent social prejudices, often linked to ethnicity factors 4 the Maisons Folie system of cultural facilities realized by the Région Nord-Pas de Calais in the context of Lille 2004 European Culture Capital
  22. 22. Impact goal 5: Entrepre- neurship
  23. 23. Entrepreneurship the cultural and creative field may be a powerful incubator of new forms of entrepreneurship the rapid growth of the online content industries, just to make a particularly evident example, is creating the stage for a new entrepreneurial cultural with a strong generational basis the development of creative entrepreneurship still lags behind substantially if compared to the attention and resources devoted to development and support of entrepreneurship in other sectors of the economy these new forms of entrepreneurship could improve significantly the employability of graduates from the humanities sectors, which are commonly considered to have a weaker employability potential than the graduates from quantitative and technology areas
  24. 24. Impact goal 6: Learning
  25. 25. Learning the association between active cultural participation and lifelong learning is a pretty natural one, and unlike others is not particularly surprising one might even think of active cultural participation as a specific form of lifelong learning as lifelong learning is well targeted by structural funds programming and takes a central place in EU long-term strategies, it could be of interest to launch and pursue innovative programs and actions that exploit the strategic complementarities between the former and culturally and creatively based communities of practice as instances of advanced platforms of cultural and creative production
  26. 26. Impact goal 7: Soft power
  27. 27. Soft power cultural and creative production may contribute to a great extent to increase the visibility, reputation and authoritativeness of a country/region at all levels of international relationships, from the political to the economic 01 high level of soft power may open up new markets to national/regional products through the identification and emulation dynamics which are typical of post-industrial consumption, may attract more visitors, talents and investments, may stimulate new, sophisticated strategies of value creation through branding and marketing tools 02
  28. 28. The IfG/Monocle ranking of soft power 1 UK 1 France 3USA 4 Germany 5 Switzerland 6 Sweden 7 Denmark 8 Australia 9 Finland 10 Netherlands 11 Spain 12 Canada 13 Singapore 14 Norway 15 Japan 16 Italy 17 China 18 Israel 19 Korea 20 South Africa 20 Brazil 22 Mexico 23 India 24 UAE 25 Turkey 26 Russia
  29. 29. Impact goal 8: Identity
  30. 30. Local identity
  31. 31. Local identity considerable emphasis has been put on the role of the installment of new, spectacular cultural facilities in the catering for global visibility of one specific urban or regional milieu but the developmental potential of a culturally-rebuilt local identity lies in the capacity to stimulate new dynamics of production of cultural content and new modes of cultural access by the local community, as a consequences of the new opportunities created by the attraction of outside resources example: the Newcastle/Gateshead urban renewal strategy, Bilbao, Mons, etc.