MIDTERM DUE Sunday October 17, 11:59PM

• Please answer the following questions on the next page.

• Please submit your assignments on Moodle by October 17, 11:59PM 

• Please save your mid-term as: Midterm (Choi, Man, Emily)
• Please cite your source in text (not footnote) and have a separate sheet of your reference.

Reference (in alphabetical order)

Grazer, Brian, and Charles Fishman. 2015. A Curious Mind: The Secret to a Bigger
Life. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Smith, Zadie. 2016. Swing Time. New York: Penguin Press.
In-text citations
(Grazer and Fishman 2015, 12)
(Smith 2016, 315–16)
Question 1: (300 words or fewer / 40 points)
We have encountered several different definitions of “creative industries” / “cultural
industries” in our class so far. Drawing on at least two of our readings (plus additional
works noted in our lecture if you wish), please explain which term you think is the most
useful for describing this sector (e.g., “creative industries” or “cultural industries”), and
provide your own definition (in your own words) and reasoning behind your definition.

To give an exact definition of creative industries, I would generalize it as the mixture

of cultural and business products. From my point of view, culture and economy are
interlinked while both are indispensable as creative industries involve many economic
elements such as capitals, labor, firms, etc. Indeed, innovative ideas, which are one of
core values of this industry, as correlated with the word “creative”, are hardly to be
presented in front of audience without economic dimensions in the mainstream capitalist
society.

I would explain my reasoning behind my own definition of creative industries in the

following two main areas: culture and economy. For cultural perspective, Geertz, an
American anthropologist stated that culture refers to the ordered system of meaning of
symbols, in terms of which social interactions take place. Creative industries play a
requisite role in shaping our understanding and knowledge of the world. There is no
denying that we get exposed to media in everyday life, with agents such as
newspapers, broadcast news programmes. Not only are we influenced by these
informational texts, but we are also affected by the media representations of
entertainment agents such as films, television shows, in a way that they constitute our
self-perception and public selves (Hesmondhalgh 2013, 4).

For economic perspective, they are increasingly significant sources of wealth and
employment in many countries. On the international surface, they are one of the soft
powers of a country. Take Korea as an example, there are about one million workers in
2018 and around HK $279.5 billion is earned in 2019 for the Cultural & Other Service
Sectors. Besides, culture appreciation is often objectified in terms of money (Strinati
2004, 58). For instance, the wealthy worship the price they pay for the artwork rather
than the painting strategies applied.

Question 2: (500-800 words / 60 points)

In today’s digitalized, global economy, do government policies and geographic places
still matter for the production, consumption, and success of cultural industry products?
Drawing on at least two of our readings (plus additional works noted in our lecture if you
wish), explain how you feel policy and place are related to the contemporary global
economy of “cultural industries.”

Regarding government policies and geographic places, I think they have impacts on
the production, consumption, and success of cultural industry products to a certain
extent even in the contemporary global economy. As different countries have diverse
historical and cultural backgrounds, the acceptance level of particular industries may
vary. But for geographical places, the heart of thriving creative industries within
countries are usually located in the capital city so that enough economic resources and
sufficient labor supply could be provided for further development of creative firms. In the
following paragraphs, I will explain the relationship of policy and place toward cultural
industries respectively.

To examine how the cultural backgrounds of countries affect the decision-making of

policymakers, I would first take China as an example for the animation industry. As
given that the animation industry is relatively new in China and not as respectful as in
countries such as Japan and the United States, as well as the long-standing traditional
value system based on patriarchal authority, the policymakers put emphasis on public
opinions so as to build a positive image of animation. Several policies are implemented
to promote the reputation of Chinese animations. The explicit one includes the import of
talents such as anime master Hayao Miyazaki, encouragement of animation training
programmes in colleges (Li 2011, 11-12), financial support and facilities provision for
program productions (Mori 2011, 37). Besides, the National Radio and Television
Administration of China restricts the content related to sex, violence. This reflects that
the policies implemented aim at altering the traditional mindsets in parents consider
animation and games as evil for their children as it inhibits the innovative development
and labor supply in the long term. Although the positive image of animation has not yet
been completely established, it is believed that the policies can help Chinese animation
industry to be accepted by the public step by step.

After analyzing a relatively negative example of creative industry, next would-be

prosperous economies with the aid of its cultural policies, first is Japan. As we all know,
Japanese anime has gained its international popularity along with the globalization of
modes of production. With the recent “Cool Japan” project promoted by the Japanese
government, a transnational production system of cultural products is well-established
to publicize Japan’s attractiveness and allure as a unique culture throughout the world.
For example, Korea had played a vital role in the development of Japanese anime by
participating in their productions as the domestic industry lacked animators and tried to
keep labor costs lower, thus outsourcing to overseas markets (Mori 2011, 32-33). This
process indeed helps spread the Japanese unique culture to other countries.

Another example is the deregulation policy of Korea which promotes the exchange
of cultural products. The open market policy welcomes the overseas innovation ideas
for productions, at the same time, outputting its domestic products abroad, contributing
to the success of Korean wave in terms of K-pop, TV dramas… (Mori 2011, 38).
However, it is argued that cultural policy may not help the development of creative
industries as consumers and markets have their own autonomy (Mori 2011, 37-38). I
would debut that those policies can at least create vivid national brand images and
boost economic growth to a certain level, thus are worthy to do so.

Lastly, I would investigate the effects of geographical places on the development of

cultural industries. Given that creative industries are generally aggregated in major
urban centers such as Paris and London, it is ambiguous that whether the key to
success is the geographical advantage or the cultural features itself. One infers arts and
entertainment thrive in cities such as New York as they are also centers for financial
and professional services while one infers those cities which have distinctive set of
geographic features can catalyze creative industries development (Flew 2010, 89).
Obviously, it is a broad base to discuss, that wise I would take Akihabara in Tokyo as an
example to illustrate a rough picture. It is located in central Tokyo, being well-known for
selling electronic appliances and manga products. As capital city gathers dynamic
talents, its location is easily accessible for consumers and amateur activities, gradually
it becomes a meeting point for people to interact and exchange cultural values. Beyond,
its tolerant environment even allows the existence of subcultures such as cosplaying to
be displayed (Nobuoka 2010, 216). As seen, economic geography and cultural features
complement each other to constitute its vibrant image.

To sum up, policy and place are factors contributing to the success of creative
industries whereas others elements are crucial as well, such as social conditions and
political backgrounds which are also deserved to be explored. The above depicts my
thoughts on how policy and place are related to creative industries, with several
countries covered.
References

Hesmondhalgh, David. 2012. The Cultural Industries: Introduction to the 3rd Edition.

Lei-Lei Li 2010. “Understanding the Chinese animation industry: the nexus of media,
geography, and policy.” Creativity Industries Journal 3 (3): 189-205.

Nobuoka, Jakob. 2010. “User innovation and creative consumption in Japanese culture.
industries: The case of Akihabara, Tokyo.” Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human
Geography 92 (3): 205-218.

Strinati, Dominic. 2004. “The Frankfurt School & The Culture Industry”.

Terry Flew 2010. “Toward a cultural economic geography of creative industries and.
urban development.” The Information Society 26: 85-91.

Yoshitaka Mõri 2011. “The pitfall facing the Cool Japan project: the transnational.
development of the anime industry under the condition of post-Fordism.”
International Journal of Japanese Sociology 20: 30-42.