The issues concerning the industry of culture, creative industry, leisure or copyright industries are being discussed more and more frequently. In fact, the debate focuses on goods and services produced by post-industrial economies where the post-industrial societies create such “products” as: patent, brand, or innovation and in their leisure time their “consume” ideas and lifestyles. Industrialism has given way to informationalism as it is information that constitutes the developmental base for societies and the information product businesses (for example software or copyright businesses) achieve a higher value added than any other sector of economy. Manuel Castells, from the University of Berkeley, one of the most outstanding sociologists, known primarily for the research on the information society observes that ”For the first time in history, the human mind is a direct productive force, not just a decisive element of the production system”. The links between culture and public policies are becoming stronger and increasingly complex. We can observe the relations in developmental policies (culture – economy), spatial planning (culture – residential potential) or social policies (culture – social capital). It is also worth remembering that today’s local governments are increasingly assuming the character of “developmental agencies” which, on the one hand, create strategies and plans and, on the other hand, manage large public property or provide multifaceted support for development on local and regional level. For cultural issues the institutions remain to be of great importance as they are responsible for such matters as identifying the areas of deficit, developing infrastructure, financing revitalisation and providing developmental opportunities for employees. Therefore, it is crucial that their agendas include providing multifaceted support for the “creative class” and creating favourable developmental conditions. Local governments should support the initiatives of entrepreneurs and artists with finance, trainings, technologies, they should also assist in establishing creative and development partnerships. It is, however, important to differentiate the scope, themes and manners of cooperation. While the industry of culture will always be associated with the local level – here, public policies should focus on developing cultural capital and encouraging the participation in culture – creative industries are able to compete on the global market – here, the issues of staff competence, innovation, marketing or the creative potential of companies are more important.
The discussions emphasise the role of cultural competence (gained through active participation and education, including non-formal education) in the development of intellectual capital and their most important conclusions emphasise the necessity of: increasing the importance of culture in socioeconomic development (also by greater participation of cultural and creative sector entities in the development and support supporting and promoting creative partnerships, cooperation of cultural and art education entities with other partners (also within the framework of Public-Private Partnerships ad Public-Social Partnerships) developing and effectively using the creative and cultural potential of the society; developing broadly defined cultural competence (also through improving the access to culture and supporting a variety of cultural and artistic activities and artistic education).
Anna Ochmann, president of Foundation ARTeria