An Interim Report Compiled by the Creative Industries Internationalization Committee
An Interim Report Compiled by the Creative Industries Internationalization Committee
复制标题
创意产业国际化委员会编制的中期报告
DOI：
10.1080/09548963.2015.1031488
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
3.1
通讯作者：
Christian
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Morgner;Christian
创意产业国际化委员会的中期报告（以下简称报告）是迄今为止关于日本创意产业和相关政策的最详细的政府报告。此外，该报告书是由经济产业省发布的，而不是由文化厅或文部科学省发布的。关于创意或文化产业的讨论通常与英国相关，包括许多备受瞩目的政策激励措施和计划（例如“酷不列颠”）。因此，在讨论该报告之前向读者介绍日本的发展可能会有所帮助。文化经济活动（音乐产业、电影和电影、动漫、艺术和戏剧）以及被称为当代日本文化的东西在 20 世纪 50 年代末变得越来越重要。结果，文化厅在 20 世纪 60 年代末从文部科学省独立出来。由于日本政府卷入第二次世界大战并干预文化领域，这一举动被视为战后发展（类似于没有官方文化部的德国）。该机构成为日本文化政策的主要政府推动者，主要关注被称为“IEMOTO”（茶道、陶器、插花、书法等）的传统艺术协会，或寻求使来自欧洲的经典艺术（例如意大利和法国绘画）的进口合法化。因此，日本文化市场长期保持高度自给自足（Kawasaki，1996）。然而，日本泡沫经济在20世纪90年代初破裂，对文化艺术经济产生了严重影响(Hiraki, Akitoshi, Spieth, & Takezawa, 2009)。 2003年，首次尝试复制英国创意产业的分类，并将其用于日本市场数据的二次分析（Yoshimoto，2003，2009）。报告中使用的分类不仅展示了日本文化产业的能力，也表明需要开发适合日本市场的类别。 2010年，随着制造业局下属的创意产业促进办公室的成立，创意产业得到了官方的认可。该办公室认为，在“酷日本”的单一和长期概念下，日本的文化产业将在政府的“新增长战略”中发挥重要作用（酷日本咨询委员会，2011）。这一概念涉及开展部际活动，旨在培育海外市场，并通过举办国际活动向海外传播相关信息。本文审查的报告是在日本创意产业期望国际化的背景下制定的，旨在支持相关政策的制定。然而，正如报告中指出的那样：“我国对于‘创意产业’并没有具体的定义。
The Interim Report of the Creative Industries Internationalisation Committee (hereafter the Report) is, to date, the most detailed, governmental account of the creative industries and related policies in Japan. Furthermore, the Report is published by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and not by the Agency for Cultural Affairs or the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. Discussions on creative or cultural industries are most often associated with the UK, including a number of high-profile policy incentives and programmes (eg Cool Britannia). Therefore, it might be helpful to introduce the reader to developments in Japan before discussing the Report.Cultural economic activities (music industry, film and cinema, anime, art and theatre) and what is labelled as Contemporary Japanese Culture became increasingly important in the late 1950s. As a consequence, the Agency of Cultural Affairs was made independent from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology in the late 1960s. Due to the involvement of the Japanese state in the Second World War and its intervention into areas of culture, such a move was seen as postwar development (similar to Germany who has no official Ministry of Culture). This agency became the main governmental driver of cultural policies in Japan and focused mainly on traditional art associations, called IEMOTO (tea ceremonies, pottery, flower arrangements, calligraphy, etc.), or sought to legitimise the importation of classic art from Europe (eg Italian and French paintings). Thus, the Japanese cultural market has remained highly self-sufficient for a long time (Kawasaki, 1996). However, the Japanese bubble economy burst in the early 1990s, which had a severe effect on the cultural and arts economy (Hiraki, Akitoshi, Spieth, & Takezawa, 2009). In 2003, the first attempt was made to copy classifications of creative industries developed in the UK and use them for a secondary analysis of market data in Japan (Yoshimoto, 2003, 2009). The classifications used in the Report not only demonstrate the capacity of the cultural industries in Japan, but also show the need to develop categories thatfit the Japanese market. In 2010, the creative industries gained official recognition with the foundation of the Creative Industries Promotion Office under the Manufacturing Industries Bureau. This office identified that Japan’s cultural industries would play an important role in the government’s ‘New Growth Strategy’under the single and long-term concept of ‘Cool Japan’(Cool Japan Advisory Council, 2011). This concept involved the implementation of inter-ministerial activity intended to cultivate overseas markets and to disseminate relevant information abroad by hosting international events. The Report reviewed here is formulated in the context of the desired internationalisation of Japan’s creative industries and is intended to support the formulation of related policies. However, as stated in the Report:“there is no specific definition of ‘creative industries’ in