David Hesmondhalgh, Sarah Baker, The Open University, Royaume-Uni
«Creative Work in the Cultural Industries»
>>> Download the communication

Marc Hiver, Université Paris 10-Nanterre, France
«The aesthetic aspects of the instrumentalisation of reception reception»
>>> Download the communication (French)

Anolga Rodionoff, Université Paris 8, CEMTI, MSH Paris Nord, France
« Digital art as an analytic tool »

«Innovative Artists Transformations of Work and Arts organizations with ICT»

Jean-Paul Fourmentraux
EHESS, ENSMP, Paris, France

The process of technological innovation heralds the reconfiguration of the organization of research in the media arts. The imperatives of innovation and creativity have become the driving force for industry-transferable research and creation.  In this context, “artistic talent” is a highly sought-after resource that is actively encouraged. So much so that the identity and role of contemporary artists are being transformed: no longer only creators, they are expected to be researchers and entrepreneurs, experts in the “new economy.”  Although wagering on these new “workers” may be politically correct, the relationship between artistic creativity and innovation remains problematic.

At present, new forms of consortiums are created to foster innovative “research and creation” that has the potential to generate spinoffs and added value, not only from an artistic perspective, but a scientific and industrial one as well. Such alliances are difficult to establish: first because the interdisciplinary hybrid known as “research and creation” lacks a stable identity ;  second, because the products created are not distributed under the same conditions or through the same channels as  traditional art or more conventional scientific research ; and lastly, because of the uncertainty surrounding the scope  and longevity of such initiatives. This is linked to the absence of explicit demand that would en-able this segment to perpetuate itself socially, recruit practitioners, and provide career opportunities, as well as to the lack of assurances regarding the development and/or commercial potential of what it produces, outside the artistic community. The new “artistic organizations”, which are supposed to promote research and creation with social spinoffs, do not easily fit with the old organizational models in place in academia and industry. As a result, the economy of “research and creation” requires a reconfiguration of organizational management in these establishments, but also a redefinition of the positions, workers, tools, works, and knowledge to be covered.

My research combines an analysis of these concepts, which are at once social utopias and hypotheses on the transformation of industrial societies, with an empirical examination of this sector of activity in Europe and Canada (Montreal). The analysis is based on a survey of entrepreneurs, researchers and artists moving between arts organizations, institutional research labs and the business world.

«Creative Work in the Cultural Industries»

David Hesmondhalgh, Sarah Baker
The Open University, Angleterre

There has been a remarkable lack of attention in social science to the management and organisation of creative work in the cultural industries, to those workers primarily responsible for the creation of texts. Here we report on initial work from a project which aims to investigate creative personnel in the cultural industries.

Few studies have attempted a systematic analysis of how creative work is managed across different cultural industries, rather than in one particular industry. However, Ryan (Making Capital from Culture, 1992) identified common patterns of organisation across the cultural industries, including the importance of marketing personnel and the crucial function of the creative manager. Others, including those working in organisational studies (e.g., Lampel et al., 2000, in Organization Science) have discussed the pressures facing workers in the ‘creative industries’ to reconcile a number of seemingly contradictory goals, such as achieving novelty and yet familiarity, artistic value and yet economic success. However, this move towards analysis of organisation across industries potentially downplays differences between industries. Miège’s identification (in The Capitalization of Cultural Production, 1989) of a number of different models or ‘logics’ of production characteristic of different cultural industries might be helpful here:

• the publishing model (based on setting failures against hits in a catalogue of repertoire, as in the book, music and film industries)
• the flow model (based on a continuous flow of product, and the gaining of audience loyalty, as in radio, television and new media)
• the written press model (regular and loyal consumption of a series of commodities, in newspapers and magazines).

But Miège’s work has not been followed up in terms of systematic empirical work on how these different logics, if valid, might variably affect relationships between creative personnel and others in the cultural industries, and in turn how these relationships might affect textual outcomes. Using Miège’s distinctions as a starting point, the research we report asks: to what extent do three different cultural industries (music recording, magazine publishing and television) organise creative work in distinctive ways and how might we theorise the differences and similarities between the different industries? We report on research investigating this question across a number of genres within these industries.

« The aesthetic aspects of the instrumentalisation of reception reception »

Marc Hiver
Université Paris 10-Nanterre, France

>>> Download the communication (French)

« Digital art as an analytic tool »

Anolga Rodionoff
Université Paris 8, CEMTI, MSH Paris Nord, France

Waiting for abstract