Uva-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)

UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)

The art of being different: exploring diversity in the cultural industries

Brandellero, A.M.C.

Publication date 2011 Document Version Final published version

Link to publication

Citation for published version (APA): Brandellero, A. M. C. (2011). The art of being different: exploring diversity in the cultural industries.

General rights It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.

UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl)

Download date:27 Sep 2021 AMANDA_BRANDELLERO_FULL_COVER_351X240.indd 1 4/6/11 7:49 PM THE ART OF BEING DIFFERENT Exploring diversity in the cultural industries

Amanda Brandellero ISBN: 978-94-90371-82-1 Cover illustration: Caroline Money Overall cover design: Marcus Pungetti Layout and printing: Off Page, www.offpage.nl Copyright © 2011 by A. Brandellero. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, without prior permission of the author. THE ART OF BEING DIFFERENT Exploring diversity in the cultural industries

ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT

ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam op gezag van de Rector Magnificus prof. dr. D.C. van den Boom ten overstaan van een door het College voor Promoties ingestelde commissie, in het openbaar te verdedigen in de Agnietenkapel op woensdag 25 mei 2011, te 12:00 uur

door

Amanda Maria Caterina Brandellero geboren te Padova, Italië Pomotiecommir ssie

Promotor: Prof. dr R.C. Kloosterman Overige leden: Prof. dr. E.R. Engelen Prof. dr. G. Kuipers Prof. dr. M. Martiniello Prof. dr. D. Power Prof. dr. J. Rath

Faculteit der Maatschappij- en Gedragswetenschappen.

This research has benefited from the financial support of the Habiforum Research Programme, the Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research (AISSR), University of Amsterdam, the Urban Development Construction and Architecture Plan of the French Ministry of Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development and Sea (M07.03 14/06/2007 / 0002662), the French Ministry of Culture and Communication (3980/60653) the association Les Faubourgs Numériques, the European Cultural Foundation and Swedish Riksbankens Jubileumsfond. Cntento s

1. Prologue 11

2. Introduction 15 2.1 Producing culture 18 2.2 Situating the cultural industries 20 2.1 Epistemological and methodological trajectory 24

3. Crossing cultural borders? Migrant cultural entrepreneurs and diversity in the cultural industries 31 3.1 Prologue 33 3.2 Introduction 34 3.3 Structure and methodology 37 3.4 Cultural industries in perspective 40 3.5 Negotiating the cultural industries’ opportunity structure 50 3.6 Migrants in the cultural industries 57 3.7 Across cultural borders: reflections from the fieldwork 66 3.1 The role of policy in the field of diversity in the cultural industries 85 3.2 Annex – Topic guide 90

4. Parallel worlds? Commodifying ethnic diversity in the Paris world music scene 99 4.1 Introduction 101 4.2 Commodification in the cultural industries 103 4.3 Commodifying world music in Paris: the commodification gradient at work 107 4.4 Defining opportunities for commodification 108 4.5 Implications for research of the commodification gradient 118 4.6 Annex: List of interviewees 120

5. Paris, capital of world music? Exploring the trans-local dynamics of music production 125 5.1 Introduction 127 5.2 Music clusters and the city 129 5.3 Data and methodology 130 5.4 A world of music in Paris: French colonies and migration flows 131 5.5 Unpacking the Paris world music cluster 133 5.6 A trans-local world music cluster 134 5.7 Renewing the cluster: a (trans-local) strategy for the capital of world music? 138 5.8 Conclusions 140 5.9 Acknowledgments 141 6. Multiple and shifting geographies of world music production 147 6.1 Introduction 149 6.2 (World) music and place 149 6.3 Methodology and mapping 151 6.4 Geographies of world music 152 6.5 Conclusions 157

7. Keeping the market at bay: exploring the loci of innovation in the cultural industries 167 7.1 Introduction 169 7.2 On aesthetic value creation and innovation in the cultural industries 170 7.3 From creativity to innovation 172 7.4 Conditions of innovation 175 7.5 A brief illustration: the Dutch case 179 7.6 Implications for further research 181

8. Concluding remarks 187 8.1 Scientific contributions 191 8.2 Limitations and suggestions for further research 192 8.3 Practical implications 193

Summary 197 Samenvatting 203 Curriculum Vitae 209 To the memory of my dear Granny and to my beloved Mum

Aol ckn w edgements Of the many people who have helped me to make this book possible, I am most grateful to Robert Kloosterman, my promoter, who provided me with inspiring intellectual guidance, an encouraging attitude, and very supportive and generous supervision, peppered with great music tips along the way. It has been a great pleasure working with him. From Space and Economy to Geographies of Globalisation, colleagues in the research groups I have been part of have also provided me with a stimulating and encouraging working environment. I am particularly grateful to Michaël Deinema, Ewald Engelen, James Sidaway for inspiring discussions and advice. I also want to thank Joni Hayen, Tom Pauws, Ate Poorthuis for their excellent research assistance. Outside of the University of Amsterdam, I had many fruitful exchanges with fellow researchers at the Nethur Graduate School and at the International Migration, Integration, and Social Cohesion (IMISCOE) Research Network workshops I took part in. To my co-authors, Pierric Calenge, Ludovic Halbert and Karin Pfeffer, I am greatly indebted for very enriching collaborations. Finally, I thank Isabelle Schwarz and Tsveta Andreeva at the European Cultural Foundation for encouraging me in the pursuit of my research interests. When I look back at the past few years, my research is tied in with happy memories shared with many lovely people I met at the UvA: Rogier, Michaël and Tiziana and our dancing session at Korsakoff, girls’ night in de Indische Buurt with Inge and Simea, moshing with Stella and Arka at the Melkweg, Bart who taught me the meaning of the word gezellig, Manuel and the NY in one day tour, Perry (aka PJ) and his hilarious impersonations, celebrating my birthday with my ‘almost twin’ Hebe, Mariangela and our ‘surviving Dutch food and coffee’ crisis sessions, celebrating Queen’s Day along the canals with Toni and Albert, escaping the howling dogs at a conference in Istanbul with Joni and Veronica, and finally all the lovely dinners and laughter shared in the great company of Marcel V., Thomas and Lygia. Over the years, I have also come to see the up side of the ‘flexible workspace’ revolution: Anna L., Bart S., Michaël, Monika, Merijn, Pascal, Robert M., Sylvia and Tineke, it has been great sharing an office with you! Other fellow PhDs and colleagues have also helped make the UvA a very friendly place: thanks to Anita, Anna G., Annika, Aslan, Bas, Brooke, Edith de Meester, Edith van Ewijk Els, Emma, Federico, Fenne, Koen, Marco, Marjolein, Melika, Mendel, Nadav, Robert R., Rodrigo, Sebastian, Stan, Volkan, and Wouter. I also want to thank Puikang, Marianne, Guida, Gert and Barbara for their support. Special thank yous go out to Jurek, without whom this great adventure would not have started in the first place, to Misha, for keeping me company during those cold winter weekends at the office, to Caroline, for giving me a home away from home during fieldwork in Paris, for her lovely cover artwork, and for always being close in spite of the distance, to Marcus for being such a star and working his magic on the cover, to Olivia for being so sweet, and to Franci and Karin, two absolutely wonderful people whose generosity and support have been invaluable to me along the way. Finally, I thank my family for their support and trust in me, and Marcel for his unwavering optimism and infinite patience which kept me going when the thesis got the better of me.

11111

Pogr lo ue Prologue Abaji was born in Lebanon, ‘the country of all exiles’1, to an Armenian-Greek father born in Izmir, and an Armenian-Syrian mother born in Istanbul. He began to play the guitar at the age of ten. He was passionate about music, he told me, but not about music of the Orient. He left his native Lebanon in 1976, at the start of the war, headed for France. There he felt something was missing in his musical skills and started taking Brazilian percussion classes, expanding his understanding of rhythmic structures. Gradually, and by distancing himself from his early experience of war and suffering, the Orient came back to him, through his music. Like a musical magician, when an instrument does not convey the exact sound he is searching for, he assembles a new one. His collection of instruments is so impressive, collected during various travels across continents, that part of it is now exhibited in the entrance of the Quai Branly museum, in Paris. He describes himself as a Parisian Lebanese, representing France’s diversity and his Lebanese roots. He has struggled for recognition by the music industry: his French is fluent, accentless, nor does he don a djellaba. He is not considered exotic enough, he says. I. is a bespoke tailor based in London. Being Asian is not part of her work. Yet as a woman of Asian origin in a quintessentially British, male-dominated environment, she feels she has had to work harder to build up her profile and counter prejudice. For several years, she traded under the name ‘Yours suitably’ because she felt her name would be a barrier and limit the coverage she could get with her track record. When I met her in early 2009, she expressed the wish to be rewarded and recognised for her contribution to the fashion industry, competing with ‘the heavyweights’. Up to then, she had received numerous awards, but they were mostly linked to her Asian background. In 2010, after 20 years in the business, the unconditional award finally came, in the shape of an MBE for services to the fashion industry.

Diversity in the cultural industries is a complex matter, as these brief portraits show. It raises questions about the (expected or actual) positioning of the other in relation to cultural repertoires and symbols. It evokes distant geographies and places, and their articulation in the here and now. It leads to valuations of authenticity and exoticism, at the interface of diverse regimes of value. It opens discussions about one’s creative zeal and inspiration and related chances and opportunities in a business environment. It highlights the potential discrepancy between the process of expressing one’s identity through one’s work, and the reception of the outcome by others. While humble to the claim of offering an exhaustive theoretical and empirical analysis of these questions, the following chapters offer a contribution to our understanding of diversity in the cultural industries from a variety of vantage points, particularly the dynamics of production and valorisation of diverse cultural content in the cultural industries, and the embeddedness of these processes and industries in institutional dynamics and place.

1 Taken from Abaji’s website, www.abaji.net

Pogr lo ue

22222

Itrodn uction Introduction Interest in the cultural industries has flourished in recent years, partly connected to a fresh, polyvalent perspective on the economy, a growing interest in the economy’s embeddedness in the cultural, and attempts to understand better the interaction between the two (Crang 1998). Activities such as fashion, advertising, and the wider arts, have come to be part of the extended field of cultural production (Williams 1981). Cultural industries are defined as activities concerned with the production and marketing of goods and services that have aesthetic or semiotic content (Scott 2000a). Generally speaking, cultural industry products ‘serve an aesthetic or expressive, rather than a clearly utilitarian function’ (Hirsch 1972, p.641). They are considered to reflect an economic and cultural conjuncture where ‘commodity production and in particular our clothing, furniture, buildings and other artefacts are now intimately tied in with styling changes which derive from artistic experimentation’ (Jameson 1998, p.19). Thus, cultural industries are concerned with a specific, historically situated conception and typology of cultural production. Their analysis should concern itself, therefore, with the social relations of its specific means of production and the processes of social and cultural reproduction (Williams 1981, p.30). The looseness of most definitions of cultural industries have provoked fervent debate, and the decisions as to where the boundaries lie between products reliant on semiotic content and those which are not seem at best arbitrary (Power and Scott 2004; Gibson and Kong 2005). Moreover, the cultural industries have drawn attention to themselves in their supposed special relation with creativity and innovation, leading observers to question whether they may not simply be the new ‘snake oils’ of the knowledge economy (Pratt and Jeffcutt 2009). By combining the creative and cultural industries in one definition, Power and Nielsén focus on ‘the creation and provision of marketable outputs (goods, services and activities) that depend on creative and cultural inputs for their value’ (Power and Nielsén 2010b, p.3). While we will turn to these questions shortly, suffice it to say here that, given their nature, cultural industries offer a unique vantage point from which to look into the relation between culture and other forms of social activity. This research takes stock of the theories concerning the production of culture, an overview of which is provided below, and applies them to the study of the relationship between cultural diversity and the dynamics of cultural production in the cultural industries. In doing so, this research offers a fresh perspective on the dynamics at work in the diversification of cultural products in the context of cultural globalisation. Rather than equating the diversity of local populations with a potential for diversity of cultural products, as often appears in policy rhetoric, it advocates an analysis which considers the importance of context, organization and institutions in shaping ideas, and the relevance of feedback systems in the development of innovative outcomes (Hodgson 1993). The potential for this ‘feedback and learning is constituted in situ, in places, and in embodied fashion’ (Pratt and Jeffcutt 2009, p.14). In this sense we look at cultural diversity as a negotiated process, which is played out unevenly in places, sectors, firms and markets. The following chapters explore the relation between cultural diversity and its manifestation in cultural industry products from a multi-level, dialectic perspective.

Itrodn uction Culture is read as an ongoing process, combining a set of forms to which meaning is attached, and their interpretation (Hannerz 1992), reproduced and renewed through the interaction of perspectives. Hence, the production and consumption of culture should not be read as diametrically opposed, but as part of a ‘cultural circuit’ where products are understood as reflecting and shaping consumers’ behaviour (Zukin and Maguire 2004, p.178) and embedded in processes of mediation and valorisation. Production chains and markets are not juxtaposed entities where products are shaped and circulated respectively, but rather flux entities that co-constitute the commodification and value of products. Innovation within cultural products should be understood, therefore, from a perspective of ‘co-construction of objects, products and effects’ (Pratt and Jeffcutt 2009, p.12). In applying the idea of co-construction to diversity in cultural industry products, we approach the cultural production from the perspective of their situatedness in networks of a collaborative nature (Becker 1982), their embeddedness in diverse regimes of value (Appadurai 1986), and their trans-local articulation, from an organizational (firms’ transnational links) and individual perspective (e.g. artists’ spatial trajectories). The span of the research takes heed of Williams’s perspective on the study of culture, notably the ‘exploration from the known or discoverable character of a general social order to the specific forms taken by its cultural manifestations’ (Williams 1981, p.12). We do so by analysing the organizational and situated nature of cultural production, exploring the embeddedness of cultural industries in sectoral practices and wider socio-economic and political contexts, through the use of selected case studies. The picture that emerges is one of extreme uncertainty, resulting from transient, networked ecologies with fluctuating delineations, and contextually sensitive dynamics of creativity and innovation. Two building blocks are fundamental to our analysis: notably, the understanding of the symbolic and aesthetic content of cultural-industry products and how this is shaped and transferred, and the situatedness of cultural production in particular geographical, historical, economic and social realities. They are particularly relevant to this research since exploring diversity calls into question the symbolic and aesthetic inputs to cultural products and their connection or disconnection to time and place. We now turn to the peculiarities of the production of culture and its contemporary (albeit not exclusive) manifestation in the cultural industries.

2.1od Pr ucing culture Theories of the production of culture have in recent decades placed the accent on the situatedness of the process of production within networks of agents and wider organizational structures and market dynamics. Doing away with the charismatic notion of ‘creation’ and the focus on the supposed producer of cultural objects (Bourdieu 1992), there has been a shift towards an interactive understanding and appreciation of cultural production. Becker’s (1982) seminal book Art Worlds provides a vivid illustration of the collaborative nature of artistic production, identifying the role played by the artist him/herself and the people engaged in support activities requiring

Capterh 2 Introduction varied technical and artistic skills. From this perspective, the cultural industries should be understood as a historical development of cultural production, rather than being in juxtaposition to earlier configurations, such as artisanal, craft or arts patronage (Williams 1981; Hesmondhalgh 2006). The result is a contextualised analysis of the object of art in the setting of a wider, denser ‘art world’ populated by people and organizations who, through their more or less active involvement, contribute to bestowing said object with the status of art (Becker 1982). The social organisation of culture, ‘as a realised signifying system’, is embedded in a variety of activities, relations and institutions, of which only some are ostensibly ‘cultural’ (Williams 1981, p.209). Exploring the social organisation of the art worlds, Becker’s insights refer to the people involved in artistic production and the conventions (ways of doing) and resources which structure the level of competence and participation of individuals, ranging from active co-producers of a work of art to more passive audiences (1982). Cultural production is the process and outcome of interactions within a ‘field’, a structured social space in which the relative standing and interrelations between agents are shaped by various resources or forms of capital (Bourdieu 1992). Moreover, the role of aestheticians in legitimating the recognition of a work of art and in establishing the reputation of artists is elaborated upon (Becker 1982), building up the object’s symbolic capital (Bourdieu 1992). Becker’s conceptualisation of art in its process of ‘becoming’ within a rich web of actors has been highly influential to this research and to the understanding of cultural industries more widely. Recently, the production of culture perspective in sociology has enriched these insights with a focus on the organisational structure and environment in which cultural goods are produced, performed and disseminated and the resulting impact on what is produced and how (Hirsch 1972; Di Maggio 1977; Peterson 1994; Peterson and Anand 2004). Beyond the collaborative nature of cultural production, this perspective emphasises how ‘the symbolic elements of culture are shaped by the systems within which they are created, distributed, evaluated, taught, and preserved’, introducing six variable dimensions in this dynamic process (technology, law, regulation, industry and organization structure, occupational careers and markets) (Peterson and Anand 2004, p.311). However, this resembles more a list of elements which may or may not have an impact rather than a framework for the understanding of the interconnectedness of the various elements (Hesmondhalgh 2006). What is retained though is the notion of culture as situational and capable of rapid change (Peterson and Anand 2004, p.312). Zooming into the cultural industries’ production system, research has drawn attention to the temporary nature of collaboration within the framework of ‘project ecologies’ (Grabher 2002b; 2004), partly linked to the restructuring of production, which has shifted away from system houses towards patterns of flexible specialization (Piore and Sabel 1986; Hesmondhalgh 1996a; Caves 2000; Menger 2006). The cultural industries are thus organisationally kaleidoscopic, their components assembling, dispersing and reassembling around specific assignments and forming temporary, creative fields. The elements within bring together a variety of skills and talent, a ‘motley crew’ of individuals and organizations partaking in the production of cultural

Chapter 2 Itrodn uction goods (Caves 2000). Hence, projects are organised on the market rather than within organisations, in geographical clusters (Lorenzen and Frederiksen 2003). Access to stable and reliable distribution channels provides a strong competitive advantage to producers (Hirsch 1972; Hesmondhalgh 2007). The production of culture can be seen as a Bourdieuan field, structuring demands for products and attempts to satisfy them, with key agents directly or indirectly structuring taste through their practices (Bourdieu 1993). When contemplating the reaction of audiences and consumers to a cultural product in fact, the producer is faced with a merciless state of uncertainty, known as the ‘nobody knows’ property (Caves 2000). Cultural goods display the property of horizontal differentiation, whereby products are similar but not identical (Caves 2000). This property is connected to the infinite variety property, which invokes the plethora of creative possibilities a creative worker can draw upon in his or her work. In this context of variety, making a choice between product A or B becomes complex. Information becomes a crucial element in the decision-making process, yet finding this is often delegated to intermediaries, who rank creative work according to an assessed value differential (Becker 1982; Caves 2000). This comparative appreciation does by no means occur in a vacuum: hence the importance of the dynamics of valorisation of cultural content, the socio-economic and temporal context of production and consumption and their geographical scope.

2.2itting S ua the cultural industries Two characteristics of the cultural industries contribute to defining their situatedness: the symbolic and aesthetic content of their products and their clustering tendencies, particularly in urban environments. We first turn to these elements separately, before exploring the (potential) inter-relation between them, taken against the backdrop of diversifying metropolitan areas and the wider processes of cultural globalization.

S ymbolic and aesthetic content The symbolic and aesthetic component of cultural products is often taken for granted and summarily described, yet it is arguably one of the more complex and singular features of the cultural industries. Referring to the market for symbolic goods, Bourdieu distinguished between ‘pure art’ and the disavowal of and disinterest in economic considerations on the one hand, and products low on symbolic capital and high on commercial exploitation on the other (Bourdieu 1992). Bourdieu asserts that there is an inherent contradiction between popularity, particularly as measured in sales and commercial success, and the prestige of a particular work (for a critical review, see Hesmondhalgh 2006). While this distinction is not upheld here, it is nonetheless useful in providing a defining paradigm against which to position the spectrum of cultural products in relation to their symbolic capital. As a first characteristic, we contend that symbolic and aesthetic content do not represent an immanent, static resource within a cultural industry system or sector, but rather an exogenous one, the mobilisation and transfer of which is related to the

Capterh 2 Introduction elusive processes of creativity and innovation in the wider cultural economy. If we consider creativity as the generation of new ideas, the declination of this process in the cultural industries is based on the authoring, renewal and valorisation of symbolic and aesthetic content. The uncertainty connected to the aesthetic nature of the product means that dynamics of intermediation and value attribution within particular sectors are highly determinant (Hirsch 1972). One reading of the process of recognition and valorisation is offered by Bourdieu’s field of cultural production, which is said to evolve in time as a result of the struggle for positioning, hence contributing to the temporalization of the field itself and shifting the relation between ‘avant-garde’ and ‘consecrated’ art and the balance of legitimacy and appreciation (Bourdieu 1992). The difficulty in predicting demand and taste preferences results in over-production, spreading risk across a range of products (Caves 2000; Hirsch 2000). However, the cultural industries have developed increasingly complex ways of constructing a sense of what the demand for products is (Hesmondhalgh 1996b). One aspect of this is the degree of compartmentalisation in the management of meaning and meaningful forms (Hannerz 1992), and as a result, the symbolic and aesthetic content of products. The dynamic of classification does not adhere to objective qualities of the product itself but is the result of a collective social process, and the separation of products is reproduced by reflexive organizations as a means to claim superiority of their own outputs (Di Maggio 1982). This is evident in the internal reproduction within a cultural genre for instance (Williams 1981), which helps to maintain compartmentalisation and its manifestation in consumption preferences. While value is ascribed to commodities as they move along the pathway of their ‘social life’, framing and transforming their meaning, “the flow of commodities in any given situation is a shifting compromise between socially regulated paths and competitively inspired diversions” (Appadurai 1986, p.3, 17). It is along this spatial and temporal trajectory, through juxtapositions and displacements, where the value and meaning of objects are developed and advanced (Crang 1996). The symbols, which are the outcome of cultural production, act as ‘both the currency of commercial exchange and a language of social identity’ (Zukin 1995, p.24), manifestations of the processes of commodification of culture and the consumers' positioning in relation to these. Production and consumption become processes of construction of difference, linked to the choices of reflexive individuals (Lash and Lury 2007). Innovation in the realm of symbolic and aesthetic content is engendered in a variety of ways. The arrival of newcomers to a cultural field has the effect of shifting the system of tastes, renewing the ‘creative bloodstream’ (Bourdieu 1992; Hall 1998). Attaining a critical mass is important, reaching the point where there is some form of reciprocity between people with similar proclivities (Hannerz 1992). Moreover, innovation in the field of culture may be seen as the personal currency through which individuals may draw attention to themselves (Hannerz 1992, p.199). Lastly, cultural products may also move from one social context to another and in this movement value is added (Lash and Lury 2007). The study of the global circulation of cultural products has highlighted concurrent processes of homogenisation and diversification. Global cultural productions, aimed at

Chapter 2 Itrodn uction maximising audience exposure across the globe, can be interpreted as a case of “banal cosmopolitanism”, as an ‘experience of “globality” embedded in everyday life, operating in this sense as a ‘homogenising cultural force’ (Kuipers and de Kloet 2009, p.17). This ‘cosmopolitan gaze’ is propelled by the blurring of boundaries between identities and cultures, and the global transformations of capitalism and communications, which are attenuating the importance of national borders (Beck 2000, p.79). Parallel to this uniformitarian trend, demand for distinctive cultural experiences and products has heightened. Some examples include ‘food tourism’ and the popularity of world music (Cook and Crang 1996; Connell and Gibson 2003), or in the case of the clothing industry, the emergence of ‘fashioned ethnicities’ in the framework of the ‘making, buying, selling of construction of difference’ (Dwyer and Crang 2002, p.426). Previously regionally embedded cultural products can thrive thanks to the demand for exotic products by consumers based globally (see Aoyama 2007 for an interesting case study on flamenco). A suggested determining factor is consumers’ increasing propensity to ‘soft multiculturalism’, introducing diverse products and practices and generally displaying a higher level of openness in their modes of consumption (Martiniello 2005, p.18). A sign of ‘ethno-cultural and identificational diversity’, it calls for a post- ethnic of identity, rejecting imposed ascriptions and structured community affiliations (Martiniello 2005, p.22). While there is evidence in fashion and trends towards a celebratory approach to multicultural forms and cultural syncretism, there is a need for a better understanding of the invocation of hybridity (Dwyer and Crang 2002). A close observation cautiously warns that the greater visibility of diverse cultural products has not come hand in hand with overcoming socially exclusionary or racist practices (Hutnyk 2000). A more useful perspective lies in the invocation of a ‘commercial culture’ which considers ‘the way that various aspects of cultural production […] are inherently concerned with the commodification of various kinds of cultural difference’ and explores how markets are ‘inescapably embedded within a range of cultural processes’ (Jackson 2002, p.5). On the receiving end, taste is an acquired disposition to differentiate among cultural products and appreciate them differently (Bourdieu 1979). At an individual level, consumption is negotiated within an ‘institutional field’, at the intersection of social structures and cultural practices, and leads to the ‘production of consumers’ and the development of their consumption practices over time (Zukin and Maguire, 2004, p.192, italics in original). Taste reflects dispositions rooted in the ‘habitus’, and cultural practices are established in the relationship between said habitus and field (Bourdieu 2000). Bourdieu recognises a homology between the field of production and of consumption and the places (galleries, theatres for example) in which cultural production and consumption occur, whereby places ‘designate’ an audience and producers locate the ‘natural home’ for their work (Bourdieu 1980, p.278). Understanding the constitution of the symbolic and aesthetic content of cultural industry products and the shifting tastes and preferences thereof is a key element in understanding the dynamics of diversity in the cultural industries. This leads us to two research questions, which we will explore in the following chapters:

Capterh 2 Introduction 1) What are the mechanisms through which cultural diversity is (potentially) activated and valorised as symbolic and aesthetic fuel in processes of commodification of culture? 2) In what ways does the mediation of tastes and trends within the cultural industries come to shape the boundaries between cultural products drawing on diverse cultural and ethnic repertoires?

The place and flows of cultural-industry products The spatial manifestations of the cultural industries have attracted significant attention, and cities have emerged as the main playing field of a ‘cultural revolution’ in the new economy. With the displacement of manufacturing, it seems cultural production is increasingly what cities are about (Zukin 1995, p.x). Cultural industries have been noted to display a tendency towards agglomeration, particularly in larger metropolitan areas (Scott 2000a). The characteristics of the local milieus of production and their ability to attract and retain the necessary human and other resources for self-sustaining and enhancing growth have been central to policies aimed at developing creative clusters and supporting the positioning of cities in a competitive global environment (Bianchini and Parkinson 1994; Landry and Bianchini 1995; Florida 2002b). In this research, the city is not considered to be a confined spatial entity, but a place of flows of meaning and objects, and, reflexively, as a place which endows meaning by virtue of association to it (Redfield and Singer 1954; Hall 1998). Hall’s element of serendipity, “something beyond the economy and the inherited cultural dispositions” partly explains this (Hall 1998, p.21). Rather than exchange occurring in a systematic way, people “meet, people talk, people listen to each other’s music and each other’s words, dance each other’s dances, take in each other’s thoughts’ (Hall 1998, p.21). More generally, cities are understood as a field of circulations, opportunities, energies and practices, ‘a composite space with compositional capacities’ (Amin and Thrift 2007, p.150). Cultural consumption in cities fuels what Zukin terms its ‘symbolic economy’, intertwining cultural symbols and entrepreneurial capital in the ability to produce symbols and spaces (Zukin 1995). Cities become ‘test sites’ of theories of global flows and hybridity, ‘borderlands1… where the action is, and hybridity and collage are among our preferred words for characterizing qualities in people and their products’ (Hannerz 1997, p.2). Writing at the beginning of the nineteenth century, Simmel spoke about the metropolis as the ‘genuine arena’, by virtue of the division of labour therein, of growth of “objective culture”, intended as all social substance outside the individual (such as works of arts, science, technology) (Simmel 1950). However, the ‘tragedy of culture’ is that objective culture comes to have a life of its own, constraining and shaping the subjective proclivity and ability of individuals to produce, absorb and control objective culture (Simmel 1988). The ensuing disparity between the level of objective cultural production and the cultural level of the individual represents one of the main sources of dissonance in modern life, as manifested in dissatisfaction with technical progress.

Chapter 2 Itrodn uction As Scott points out, there can be no a priori distinction between cultural products on the basis of the social context in which they arise (Scott 2005). Yet the almost innate reputation attached to products coming from particular places as a ‘place in product’ quality (Molotch 1996; Scott 2000a; Molotch 2002; Scott 2005) presents a compelling argument to the contrary. Cities emerge as key players in cultural production, not only for the clustering tendencies of cultural industries, but also because they are sites of meaning formation and valorisation of cultural content and symbols. Cities constitute a setting and a determinant influence on cultural production. Borrowing from the politics of location perspective, cities capture the spatial situatedness of processes of cultural production, assisting in the understanding of exclusionary and inclusionary practices and the articulation of difference (Kaplan 1994; Trinekens 2004). This perspective opens up a more negotiated approach to cultural production in cities, away from a more normative one concerning the benefits of the metropolis on the availability and access to diverse cultural products. The emphasis is often placed on the diversity and cosmopolitanism in the metropolis as a source of cross-fertilisation of ideas and spill-over effects sustaining the dynamics of cultural production (Scott 2005). Cultural flows are generally directional, and they point towards a reorganisation of culture in space (Hannerz 1992). The causality of this process needs to be questioned though. It is not just a question of receptive audiences, but also of a diversity of markets and cultural syncretism that provide sources of inspiration for cultural producers. While national boundaries have become less relevant in terms of the flows, embeddedness of production and consumption matters in terms of valorisation and mediation of culture. The system of cultural production needs to be analysed from the perspective of uneven cultural production on a transnational scale (Williams 1981, p.231), reconceptualising places as constituted by articulated interconnections on various scales (Massey 1994). While proximity to diverse and cosmopolitan environments may provide stimulus to cultural production, it does not per se imply the participation of diversity to the same ecosystem of production. We explore this aspect by questioning whether there are parallel opportunity structures for migrant cultural entrepreneurs and to what extent the image of diversity is instrumentalised but not actively incorporated. By exploring the structuring quality of culture and diversity in the production, valorisation and consumption of cultural products, we ask a set of key questions: 1) To what extent does the social and spatial embeddedness of processes of commodification of culture affect the diversity of cultural products available? 2) In what ways does this shape the opportunity structures for migrants in the cultural industries?

2.1iemo Ep st logical and methodological trajectory This dissertation offers an original contribution to the study of cultural industries, by bringing together literature from fields hitherto disconnected: economic geography,

Capterh 2 Introduction migration studies and ethnic entrepreneurship, cultural studies and sociology of art. It does so by addressing different, though related, questions regarding the commodification of diversity in the cultural industries. The articles in this dissertation combine a variety of qualitative and quantitative methods, applying various epistemological perspectives. The dissertation process started from a research proposal sketching possible lines of investigation into the role and positioning of migrants as vectors of innovation in a Schumpeterian sense in the field of cultural production. From this initial point, I explored the dynamics at the heart of migrants’ participation in the cultural industries, questioning the role of ethnicity as an engine of creativity and the possible constraints in the positioning of migrants in the wider, situated (temporally and spatially) fields of cultural production. The result was an exploratory analysis of the processes of commodification of diversity and the broader implications for the opportunity structures open to migrant cultural entrepreneurs. The outcome of this is presented in the analytical framework and field research presented in Chapters 3 and 4. In the early stages of my PhD trajectory, I participated in two externally funded projects, one for the French Ministry of Culture and Communication and the other for the City of Paris. The former centred on the sectoral, spatial and organizational dynamics of creativity in the Ile-de-France region; the latter was a feasibility study for a Local Production System initiative on world music, to be based in one of Paris’s more ethnically diverse neighbourhoods. Through this latter project, I gained unprecedented access to key actors in the world music industry in Paris. As I worked on this project, I initially struggled with a dilemma: how could I integrate research on world music in a dissertation about migrants in the cultural industries? Was I not selecting an extreme case, where access for migrants would necessarily be facilitated by virtue of their background? As I proceeded in my research and my survey of references, I came to the conclusion that world music actually provides a highly pertinent case of the bringing together of relational cultural and spatial dynamics, thus offering a unique vantage point in processes of production, valorization and consumption of diversity in the framework of cultural globalization. Two papers (Chapters 4 and 5) make use of extensive in-depth interviews and secondary data collection on the development of the Paris world music cluster, complemented by an online survey with musicians connected professionally to the cluster. Adding to the analysis of world music in situ, the research presented in Chapter 6 opens up a new perspective in analysing spatially interconnected nature of the commodification of world music, revealing a hierarchy of places engaged in its valorization and promotion. Chapter 7 offers a reflection on the dynamics of innovation in the cultural industries and puts forward a framework for analysis that is multi-layered (borrowing elements of political economy, cultural economics and economic geography) and contextually informed.

S tructure of the dissertation The thesis is structured around five articles, offering a variety of vantage points into cultural production, the dynamics of production and valorisation of diverse cultural content, and the embeddedness of these processes in place. Cultural production within the cultural industries is examined from the perspective of the market-structuring

Chapter 2 Itrodn uction power of symbolic and aesthetic content, as in the exploratory research of migrant cultural entrepreneurs and the definition of the opportunity structures in the cultural industries. The analysis of the world music cluster in Paris and the development of product niches with parallel production, valorisation and consumption chains also shed light on the shifting boundary between mainstream and niche products. Chapter 3 explores the extent to which cultural industries can be considered vectors of diversity, taking the perspective of the participation and contribution of migrant cultural entrepreneurs to the production of commodified cultural goods and services. By combining three strands of thought, notably literature on cultural industries, ethnicity and culture, and migrant entrepreneurship, the chapter sheds light on the dynamic interaction between the cultural industries’ typically localised production processes and the global reach of the cultural identities and references on which migrants can draw. The result is a framework for analysis of: 1) the dynamics and opportunity structures through which ethnic diversity is potentially activated as symbolic and aesthetic fuel to drive innovation in processes of commodification of culture; 2) the extent to which the mediation of tastes and trends within the cultural industries come to shape the (perception of) boundaries between ethnic/non-ethnic cultural products. Chapter 4 applies the framework developed in the previous chapter to the case of world music production and the commodification of cultural diversity therein. The cultural or “ethnic” capital of migrants from less-developed countries may bestow a competitive edge in creating cultural products such as textiles, dance, and music. Converting these unique resources into commodities is, however, a complex process. To analyse this process, we introduce a new concept, namely that of the commodification gradient, as a socially embedded negotiated passage, albeit not an irreversible one, between creativity in posse and its commodity status. After unpacking this concept, we explore an interactionist approach to the world music opportunity structure and the dynamics of commodification of culture therein based on interviews and fieldwork in the Paris world music scene. We show the importance of parallel value chains, exemplified in the presence of three market ‘clouts’: notably community, traditional, and contemporary world music markets and we emphasise the role of intermediaries and tastemakers in these distinct processes of commodification. Chapter 5 further explores the dynamics of world music production, valorisation and consumption within the Parisian world music cluster, and highlights the spatially multi-scalar and historically, socially and economically-embedded dimensions of its creative field. Taking a long-term and multi-level perspective, our study reveals that the world music scene in Paris cannot simply be explained by its dense network of producers. The cluster’s competitiveness is tied to trans-local trajectories of knowledge diffusion, its transmission and mediation through individual and collective actions, and the mobilization of public and private actors towards a unitary response to the critical music industry conjuncture. The scene’s historical roots and the role of key individual and collective actors, combining entrepreneurship with an understanding of the societal significance of world music in a diversifying society, are evident, creating a strong, shared social context. Moreover, world music should be understood in the

Capterh 2 Introduction framework of wider processes of cultural globalization, drawing upon multiple spatial dynamics of production and scales of cultural valorisation. In conclusion, our study calls for further analysis in the (formal and informal) collective actions within cultural industry clusters, beyond the temporary project-based pooling of resources. Chapter 6 looks more globally at the production of world music, offering an in-depth analysis into the clustered and transnational dynamics therein. Taking the European world music charts since 1991 as a surrogate measure of the salience of global economic and geographical linkages in world music production, we substantiate the claim that the valorisation of commodified musical content has traditionally been removed from its place of origin and centred on metropolitan areas in Western Europe and the USA. However, the paper suggests a growing diversification in the geography of production, with the emergence of secondary centres with an international and national orientation. It also offers promising avenues for further research into the positionality of cultural mediation and the increasing prominence of hybrid musical output. Chapter 7 focuses on the dynamics of creativity and innovation in the cultural industries more generally. The emergence of cultural industries as engines of economic growth reflects an economic and cultural conjuncture where commodity production has become tied in with artistic experimentation. Research on cultural industries, however, has revealed a latent tension between artistic/l’art pour l’art and commercial or so-called humdrum considerations (Caves 2000; Cowen and Tabarrok 2000; Kloosterman 2010a) As many cultural industries can only survive in the long run through constant product differentiation and innovation, ways have to be found to shield off creative workers – at least temporarily – from direct market pressures to be able to come up with new ideas and innovations. We theorise that sector-specific capital requirements, the nature of the production process and markets, and the aesthetic and functional value of the object impact on how experimentation can be organised. Notwithstanding the basic similarities in the organisational and spatial format of cultural industries, we anticipate that there are various institutional configurations which can shield off market pressures and allow creative workers to pursue new roads. To illustrate our point, we briefly present findings from the Amsterdam case. Chapter 8 brings together the key contributions made in this thesis, and offers elements of conclusion and fruitful avenues for further research.

1 ‘The freedom of the border zone is more creatively exploited by situational shifts and innovative combinations, putting its resources together in new ways, experimenting. In the borderlands, there is scope for agency in the handling of culture’ (Hannerz 1997, p.11).

Chapter 2 Itrodn uction Rferencee s Amin, A. and N. Thrift (2007). “Cultural-economy and cities.” Progress in Human Geography 31(2): 143-161. Aoyama, Y. (2007). “The role of consumption and globalization in a cultural industry: the case of flamenco.” Geoforum 38(1): 103-113. Appadurai, A. (1986). The social life of things: commodities in cultural perspective. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Beck, U. (2000). “The cosmopolitan perspective: sociology of the second age of modernity.” British Journal of Sociology 51(1): 79-105. Becker, H. S. (1982). Art Worlds. Berkeley, University of California Press. Bianchini, F. and M. Parkinson (1994). Cultural policy and urban regeneration: The West European experience. Manchester, Manchester University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1979). La distinction: critique sociale du jugement. Paris, Editions de Minuit. — (1980). “The production of belief: contribution to an economy of symbolic goods.” Media, Culture and Society 2(2): 261-93. — (1992). Les règles de l’art, genèse et structure du champ littéraire Paris, Editions du Seuil. — (1993). The field of cultural production. Cambridge, Polity Press. — (2000). Esquisse d’une théorie de la pratique. Paris, Seuil. Caves, R. E. (2000). Creative industries: Contracts between art and commerce. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. Connell, J. and C. Gibson (2003). Sound Tracks. Popular music, identity and place, Routledge. Cook, I. and P. Crang (1996). “The world on a plate: culinary culture, displacement and geographical knowledges.” Journal of Material Culture 1(2): 131-153. Cowen, T. and A. Tabarrok (2000). “An economic theory of avant-garde and popular art, or high and low culture.” Southern Economic Journal 67(1): 232-253. Crang, P. (1996). “Displacement, consumption and identity.” Environment and Planning A 28(1): 47-67. — (1998). Cultural geography. London, Routledge. Di Maggio, P. (1977). “Market structure, the creative process, and popular culture: toward an organizational reinterpretation of mass-culture theory.” Journal of popular culture 11(2): 436-452. — (1982). “Cultural entrepreneurship in nineteenth-century Boston, Part I: The creation of an organizational base for high-culture in America.” Media, Culture & Society 4(4): 33-50. Dwyer, C. and P. Crang (2002). “Fashioning ethnicities. The commercial space of multiculture.” Ethnicities 2(3): 410-430. Florida, R. (2002). The Rise of the Creative Class. New York, Basic Books. Gibson, C. and L. Kong (2005). “Cultural economy: a critical review.” Progress in Human Geography 29(5): 541-561. Grabher, G. (2002). “The project ecology of advertising: tasks, talents and teams.” Regional Studies 36(3): 245-262. — (2004). “Learning in Projects, Remembering in Networks?: Communality, Sociality, and Connectivity in Project Ecologies.” European Urban and Regional Studies 11(2): 103. Hall, P. (1998). Cities in Civilisation. London, Pantheon. Hannerz, U. (1992). Cultural complexity: Studies in the social organization of meaning, Columbia Univ Pr. — (1997). Flows, boundaries and hybrids: keywords in transnational anthropology. Hesmondhalgh, D. (1996). “Flexibility, post-Fordism and the music industries.” Media, Culture & Society 18(3): 469-488. — (2006). “Bourdieu, the media and cultural production.” Media, Culture & Society 28(2): 211-231. — (2007). The cultural industries. London, Sage.

Capterh 2 Introduction Hirsch, P. M. (1972). “Processing fads and fashions: An organization-set analysis of cultural industry systems.” American journal of sociology 77(4): 639-659. — (2000). “Cultural industries revisited.” Organization Science: 356-361. Hodgson, G. M. (1993). “Institutional economics: surveying the ‘old’ and the ‘new’.” Metroeconomica 44(1). Hutnyk, J. (2000). Critique of exotica: music, politics, and the culture industry. London, Pluto Press. Jackson, P. (2002). “Commercial cultures: transcending the cultural and the economic.” Progress in Human Geography 26(1): 3-18. Jameson, F. (1998). The Cultural Turn: selected writings on the Postmodern, 1983-1998. London, Verso Books. Kaplan, F. E. S. (1994). Museums and the making of ‘ourselves’: the role of objects in national identity. London, Leicester University Press. Kloosterman, R. C. (2010). “Building a career: labour practices and cluster reproduction in Dutch Architectural Design.” Regional Studies 44(7): 859 - 871. Kuipers, G. and J. de Kloet (2009). “Banal cosmopolitanism and the Lord of the Rings: The limited role of national differences in global media consumption.” Poetics 37(2): 99-118. Landry, C. and F. Bianchini (1995). The creative city, Demos. Lash, S. and C. Lury (2007). Global culture industry: The mediation of things. Cambridge, Polity Press. Lorenzen, M. and L. Frederiksen (2003). On the economics of innovation projects: Product experimentation in the music industry. Copenhagen, DRUID. Martiniello, M. (2005). Towards a post-ethnic Europe. Comparative European research in migration, diversity and identities. W. Bosswick and C. Husband. Bilbao, University of Deusto: 13-24. Massey, D. B. (1994). Space, place, and gender, University of Minnesota Press. Molotch, H. (1996). “LA as design product: how art works in a regional economy.” The city: Los Angeles and urban theory at the end of the twentieth century: 225–275. — (2002). “Place in product.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 26(4): 665-688. Peterson, R. A. (1994). Culture studies through the production perspective: Progress and prospects. The sociology of culture. D. Crane. Oxford, Blackwell: 163–89. Peterson, R. A. and N. Anand (2004). “The production of culture perspective.” Annual Review of Sociology 30: 311-334. Power, D. and T. Nielsén (2010). Priority Sector Report: Creative and Cultural Industries – Methodological Appendix, European Cluster Observatory. Power, D. and A. J. Scott (2004). A prelude to cultural industries and the production of culture. Cultural industries and the production of culture. D. Power and A. J. Scott. London, Routledge. Pratt, A. C. and P. Jeffcutt (2009). Creativity, innovation and the cultural economy. Oxford, Routledge. Redfield, R. and M. B. Singer (1954). “The cultural role of the cities.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 8(1). Scott, A. J. (2000). The cultural economy of cities. London, Sage. — (2005). On Hollywood: the place, the industry, Princeton Univ Pr. Simmel, G. (1950). The Sociology of Georg Simmel, Free Pr. — (1988). La tragedie de la culture et autre essais. . Paris Rivages Poche. Trinekens, S. (2004). Urban paradoxes: lived citizenship and the location of diversity in the arts, University of Tilburg. Williams, R. (1981). Culture. London, Fontana. Zukin, S. (1995). The cultures of cities. Cambridge, MA, Blackwell Publishing. Zukin, S. and J. S. Maguire (2004). “Consumers and consumption.” Annual Review of Sociology 30: 173-97.

Chapter 2 Itrodn uction

3333

Cosngr s i cultural borders? Migrant cultural entrepreneurs and diversity in the cultural industries

(This paper is a revised version of Brandellero, A.M.C. (2009), Crossing cultural borders? Migrants and ethnic diversity in the cultural industries, Amsterdam: European Cultural Foundation. This research project was awarded the European Cultural Policy Research Award 2007, attributed by an academic jury1 on behalf of the European Cultural Foundation and the Swedish Riksbankens Jubileumsfond) Crossing cultural borders ‘The creative cities were nearly all cosmopolitan; they drew talent from the four corners of their worlds, and from the very start those worlds were often surprisingly far-flung. Probably, no city has ever been creative without continued renewal of the creative bloodstream’. (Hall 1998, p.285)

3.1o Pr logue Culture is a widely used, yet often vaguely defined term. In its ever-changing nature, it weaves together the past, the present and the future, involving a constant negotiation of the world as we know and experience it, both habitually and creatively (Williams and Gable 1989; Karner 2007). Thus, culture is by nature diverse and dynamic, both in its actual ‘content’ and in the discourses and representations that are developed around it. Reflecting this dynamism, variegated conceptualisations of culture have evolved, spanning from a perspective paralleling culture and the arts, and reaching a more contemporary reading, particularly in the light of processes of globalisation, where culture has come to encompass the ‘distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features of society or a social group, and that it encompasses, in addition to art and literature, lifestyles, ways of living together, value systems, traditions and beliefs’ (UNESCO 2007). This element of distinctiveness signals that diversity matters when conceptualising and experiencing culture: yet this diversity can be contested, recognised, legitimised or not, as the case may be. Diversity in culture may take various forms: it can for instance relate to beliefs or practices in some areas of life (sub-cultural diversity), to societal principles and values sets (perspectival diversity), to different, often community linked, systems of beliefs and practices (communal diversity) (Parekh 2002). Defining culture thus entails an exploration of identity, its representation and recognition, but also an understanding of the systems organising our individual and collective lives. In addition, a more dynamic perspective is needed, understanding culture as a process, and recognising that the boundaries between cultures are porous rather than fixed. The focus of this work is on how cultural diversity is experienced in cultural production: more specifically, how cultural diversity matters in the production and consumption of cultural industry goods. This question becomes extremely pressing and relevant, raising questions about the representations of the world these products put forward, how these representations are shaped and by whom.

Cosngr s i cultural borders 3.2trod In uction Migrants have long been portrayed as key actors of innovation and thriving cultural activities, as a look at the history of cultures and civilizations at the height of their vibrancy has highlighted (Hall 1998). Migrants are ‘a cultural hybrid, ‘living and sharing intimately in the cultural life and traditions of two different people; never quite willing to break, even if he were permitted to do so, with his past and his traditions, and not quite accepted […] in the new society in which he now sought to find a place’ (Park 1928, p.892). It is in the imaginary of these ‘marginal men’ where diverse cultures meet and blend, providing a unique entry point into processes and dynamics of civilization and progress (Park 1928). At the beginning of the nineties, as the study of the ‘cultural economy’ binary started to gain momentum, concerns were voiced over the participation of disadvantaged ethnic and racial community in public and cultural life (Bianchini and Parkinson 1994, p.205). More recently, some observers have gone so far as to argue that cultural diversity linked to ethnic diversity is ‘a source of potential competitiveness, because of the positive relationships between diversity, creativity and innovation’ (Smallbone, Bertotti et al. 2005, p.41). By being at the intersection between the local and the global, as a result of their multiple spatial and ethnic ties, contemporary migrants are seen as important contributors to strengthening the competitive advantage of advanced urban economies (Henry, McEwan et al. 2002; Saxenian 2002; 2007). The ensuing cultural diversity is considered as a living and renewable treasure, stimulating the capacity for expression, creation and innovation (UNESCO 2001). Such diversity is embodied in the plurality of identities, groups, cultural practices and expressions which make up our societies. However, the extent to which migrants are contributing to cultural production from an economic perspective, and the dynamics through which they do so, in the context of the widening research on cultural industries as relatively new sectors of activity, still remains largely unexplored. This research focuses on the extent to which cultural industries provide opportunities to express the diversity of local populations, drawing on the creative sparks and inputs of the variety of cultures which contemporary societies bring together. Here a point of clarification is due: in the context of this research, we focus on the cultural diversity represented by migrant cultural entrepreneurs in the cultural industries. It is however understood that parallels between migrants and ethnic diversity should be handled with care: to state just some caveats, migrants can belong to the same ethnic group as the receiving country, and there can be considerable ethnic diversity among non-migrants. ‘Ethnic’ in this research is used ‘primarily in contexts of cultural difference’, where this ‘is associated above all with an actual or commonly perceived shared ancestry, with language markers and with national or regional origin’ (Fenton 1999, p.4). The potential of this diversity to feed into the production of goods and services in the cultural industries is often considered apparent and goes unquestioned. In his seminal work on culture and cities, Peter Hall (1998, p.285) concluded that “creative cities were nearly all cosmopolitan; they drew talent from the four corners of their worlds, and from the very start those worlds were often surprisingly far-flung. Probably, no city

Capterh 3 Crossing cultural borders has ever been creative without continued renewal of the creative bloodstream”. While recognising the potential and vibrancy of diversity and its flows, concern has been raised over the homogenisation pressures of globalisation, particularly in the case of the emergence of a global ‘popular’ culture, swamping local traditions and expressions of self-definition (UNESCO 1996). Some migrant groups have been deemed more able than others to ‘activate’ their cultural repertoire (Portes and Sensenbrenner 1993). The mobilisation of such repertoire in the context of a cultural endeavour may open up a set of opportunities and competitive advantages in business. Some observers have gone so far as to argue that ‘immigrant entrepreneurs enjoy an advantage over potential competitors outside the group’ given that ethnicity ‘can carve out economic niches that foster immigrant entrepreneurship’ (Evans 1989, p.951), as a form of ‘diversity dividend’. Exotic goods related to the homeland, provide migrants with an opportunity to ‘convert both the contents and the symbols of ethnicity into profit-making commodities’ (Waldinger 2000, p.136). Ethnic content of products ‘can also be created in response to conditions and out of cultural materials in the host society’. There can be a creation of hybrid cultural mix, and expansion of what is ‘normative’ within the mainstream – as can be seen in music for instance, where ‘ethnic’ elements become part of the mainstream repertoire (Alba and Nee 1997, p.833), allowing migrants to break out of ethnic market niches into mainstream markets (Ram and Jones 1998). Taking the perspective of migrant cultural entrepreneurs (potentially) allows us to look at the dynamics of encounter of diverse and plural cultures and their expressions. Potentially, because we should take due care not to fall into a cultural relativism pitfall, equating cultural and artistic outputs with the culture of origin. By combining three strands of thought, notably literature on cultural industries, ethnicity and culture, and migrant entrepreneurship, we aim to shed light on the dynamic interaction between the cultural industries’ typically localised production processes and the global reach of the cultural identities and references on which migrants can draw. We explore this from three perspectives: »» The extent to which ethnic diversity is activated as symbolic and aesthetic fuel to drive innovation in processes of commodification of culture. Here we zoom into the cultural industries creative and production processes, exploring the conditions under which ethnicity can become the object of commodification, as a conscious/unconscious, strategic or spontaneous source of creative inspiration and innovation. »» The dynamics through which the mediation of tastes and trends within the cultural industries come to shape the (perception of) boundaries between ethnic/non-ethnic cultural products. Here we look at the positioning of products linked to ethnic communities’ production and consumption patterns in relation to the mainstream, and the modulating effect of cultural boundaries. Here we will propose a framework for analysis. »» The role of policy in the field of diversity in the cultural industries. To conclude, we offer some policy directions based on our research findings.

Chapter 3 Cosngr s i cultural borders Definitional issues In our exploration of diversity in the cultural industries, from the perspective of migrant cultural entrepreneurs, we first need to zoom into the ‘primary resource’ at hand: that is the cultural repertoire of meanings, values and symbols which an individual’s creativity can draw upon. Here we run into the complex field of defining culture, and relating it to questions of identity and ethnicity and their expression. Definitions become increasingly complex, particularly as globalisation multiplies the contacts, exchanges and multifarious affiliations among communities of belonging, practice and taste. While we will turn to definitional questions more in depth in later sections, we would like to introduce some elements of discussion. Geertz provides a very poignant account of what culture is: ‘Believing, with Max Weber, that man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun, I take culture to be those webs, and the analysis of it to be therefore not an experimental science in search of law but an interpretative one in search of meaning’ (Geertz 1997, p.5). These webs of significance have developed in a diversity of languages, traditions, products, and expressions human creativity. A way of structuring this diversity is ethnicity, as the sharing of culture through ‘descent, group memories, histories and language’ (Karner 2007, p.17). Ethnicity is not a naturally occurring entity, but rather its existence relies ‘upon social processes and discourses that construct and subsequently naturalise/reify group differences’ (Karner 2007, p.17). The Norwegian social anthropologist Frederik Barth made a significant contribution to these discussions by pointing out that ‘the critical focus of the investigation […] becomes the ethnic boundary that defines the group, not the cultural stuff that it encloses’ (Barth 1969, p.15). In doing so, Barth made a step forward in the conceptualisation of ethnicity, by introducing a social constructivist perspective whereby ethnicity is a social organisation based on the drawing and reproduction of group boundaries, rather than their content. This definition of ethnicity acts as a reminder that beyond labels and groups, we should look to the circumstances under which it comes to matter (Fenton 2003). More generally, individual identities should be understood in terms of the socialisation environment and wider context in which they are shaped and negotiated, as an understanding and exploration of individual ‘routes’ rather than ‘roots’ (Hall 1996, p.2-4). The understanding of identity as negotiation, moreover, makes the idea of a straight-line assimilation process (Gordon 1964), which implies a one-way integration of migrants into the host society, redundant. A more pluralist model, which introduces the idea of a two-way interaction between minorities and the mainstream, is needed, highlighting the evolution of a composite culture, resulting from the ‘interpenetration of cultural practices and beliefs’ (Alba and Nee 2003, p.10). Given the internal and external representation of ethnicity and the relevance of group boundaries, the articulation of ethnicity in cultural production appears to necessitate a multi-layered analysis. Under which conditions is ethnicity mobilised in cultural production? Does it constitute an advantage or a drawback in providing the source of creative inspiration? To what extent is the experience of cultural products shaped by group boundaries and identifications?

Capterh 3 Crossing cultural borders 3.3tr S ucture and methodology In order to explore these issues, we first set the scene by examining the theoretical notions and debates around cultural industries. This will allow us to highlight the complex ecosystem of actors contributing to the transformation of creative ideas into cultural-industry products. We then introduce a discussion on the cultural industries’ opportunity structure. Here we will develop some key elements for understanding the dynamics governing access and trajectories within cultural industries, which individuals (migrant or non-migrant) negotiate. Given our focus on ethnic diversity, we will zoom into the relationship between culture and ethnicity, drawing up conceptual pointers for our analysis of how ethnicity matters in cultural industries’ production. Weaving these theoretical elements together, we will develop a framework for exploring the articulation of ethnicity in cultural industries’ production. Finally, an empirical part drawing on semi-structured interviews with cultural producers from three sectors (architecture, fashion and music) will be presented, allowing us to respond to the set research questions and draw policy conclusions and recommendations, in addition to directions for further investigation. This research strives to fill an analytical gap in the understanding of the interaction between ethnic diversity and cultural-product industries. In doing so, it does not seek to be exhaustive in its approach, but rather exploratory, setting out ideas and a new agenda for research in the field. Given its vocation, the research called for a comparative approach, cutting across cultural industry sectors and socio-economic and spatial settings. Rather than present a case study analysis of a particular sector, it seems interesting to explore the question of diversity and culture and related dynamics by approaching it from a cross-sectoral viewpoint. At the same time, the experiences of musicians, architects and fashion designers may vary depending on the institutional, social and economic context in which they are living: hence the decision to carry out interviews in three cities, notably Amsterdam, London and Paris. In line with the exploratory nature of the research, respondents with a migrant background were identified on the basis of their participation and recognition in sectoral awards or showcases. In a number of cases, these initiatives and awards were directly related to the question of diversity in the sector. In a few cases, the respondents were actively involved in the development of these initiatives. Altogether, 29 cultural entrepreneurs were interviewed. Table 3.1 below shows a break up of respondents by country of origin, city, and sector of activity. It also provides an indication of the type of recognition received. The empirical research took the form of semi-structured face-to-face interviews, lasting between one and three hours, at various locations in the three cities, but mainly at the cultural entrepreneurs’ studios or homes. In two cases, email questionnaires were used, while in one case, the interview was carried out via Voice over the Internet Protocol (VoIP). The interviews were recorded and transcribed, allowing for more accurate analysis and quotation. In order to preserve confidentiality, the interviews were given numbered codes.

Chapter 3 Cosngr s i cultural borders Table 3‑1: Overview of interview respondents

Professional Profession/ NAME Origin name Location2 Recognition ABAJI Lebanon Abaji M/P Master classes on world music at the Quai Branly Museum in Paris. ALVAREZ Spain Laura A/Am Europe 40 under 40 award by the LAURA Alvarez European Centre for Architecture, Architecture Art design and urban Studies 2010. ASANTE JAN UK Co-founder F/L Winner of the UK’s Black of Gisella Entertainment, Film, Fashion and Creations Television and Arts Award (BEFFTA) Award for Best Female Fashion Designer 2009. ATIEMO TINA Ghana Tina Atiemo F/L Participated in the Kulture2Couture 2007, an event organised by the Mayor of London to promote emergent Black designers. Participated in Arise Africa Fashion week 2009. AYISSI IMANE Cameroon Imane Ayissi F/P Contributes clothes and accessories to the exhibition “Sensorielle Diaspora” (Diaspora of the senses) at the Quai Branly museum in Paris, 2007-2008. AZHAR Pakistan Azhar A/L Member of the Royal Institute Architecture of Chartered British Architects. Visiting lecturer at several London Universities. BARYEH UK Maame F/L CEO of Fashion Diversity, an event MAAME Baryeh showcasing cross-cultural fashion during the London Fashion Week. Founding director of Untold, a collective which offers fashion designers from diverse backgrounds a platform for visibility. BEE SADIO Guinea/ Sadio Bee F/P Creator of the Mix-tissage concept, Senegal mixing textiles from African and European traditions. CRUZ Spain Ortiz y Cruz A/Am In charge of the Rijksmuseum ANTONIO extension; previously completed the Java-Eiland residential complex in Amsterdam DORREL DAN Italy/ Founding A/P Laureate of the Nouveaux Albums Israel member des Jeunes Architectes et Paysagistes of DGT 2008, a Ministry of Culture and Architects Communication yearly award for young architects and landscape designers.

Capterh 3 Crossing cultural borders Table 3‑1: Continued

Professional Profession/ NAME Origin name Location2 Recognition EGE ECE Turkey Founder F/P Winner of the French prize ‘Femme of prêt-a- en Or’ 2003, given to outstanding porter line female professionals. Dice Kayek ESAM JOSÉ Congo José Esam F/P Pioneer fashion designer of African Kinshasa origin in Paris. ESSINDI Cameroon Founder of M/P Featured in SudPlanete, the French FRANCOIS the band portal on cultural diversity. Otoulbaka GHOTMEH Lebanon Founder A/P Laureate of the Nouveaux Albums LINA of DGT des Jeunes Architectes et Paysagistes Architects 2008. KALSI UK/ Founder of M/L Featured in BBC’s World on Your JOHNNY India the Dhol Street project, on diversity and Foundation. music in the UK. Performances at numerous WOMAD festivals. KHALIQ UK/ Imtaz F/L MBE for Services Rendered to the IMTAZ Pakistan Fashion Industry 2010. Designer of the Year - Asian Woman Magazine awards for Excellence 2008. Finalist Asian Woman of Achievement Award 2008 LAURINDO Curaçao Laurindo F/Am Selected for the Dutch Fashion Talent ANDREA award in 1996 LIM C.J. China Professor at A/L Received four Royal Institute of The Bartlett, British Architects International University Teaching Awards for contribution to College architectural education (the highest London; number to date for a single architect). Director of architectural firm Studio 8. MAHMOUD Comorian Founder A/P Laureate of the Nouveaux Albums KELDI Islands of Keldi des Jeunes Architectes et Paysagistes Architects 2006. MATSUMIYA Japan Founder M/P Recommended by the Auditorium of NOBUKO of the the Guimet Museum, Paris. Ensemble Sakura MSAIDIE Comorian Chebli M/P A&R manager at Cantos, digital CHEBLI Islands Msaidie, distributor of world music. solo musician.

Chapter 3 Cosngr s i cultural borders Table 3‑1: Continued

Professional Profession/ NAME Origin name Location2 Recognition ONWUKA Nigeria Fonder of F/L Winner of the Phoenix Award 2007 NKWO fashion label at the Kulture2Couture event for Nkwo and emerging Black fashion designers, Afromania organised by the Mayor of London. OSUNKOYA Nigeria Founder F/L Winner of the UK’s Black YEMI of Kosibah Entertainment, Film, Fashion and Creations Television and Arts Award (BEFFTA) Award for Fashion Designer Icon 2009. Diamond Recognition from National Weddings UK, Sep 2005. OWUSU ELSIE Ghana/ Partner at A/L Founding Member of UK the Society UK Fielden + of Black Architects (1990). Founding Mawon LLP member of the Black International Construction Organisation (BICO). Order of the British Empire (OBE) for services to architecture in 2003. PAPE ASSANE Senegal Founder of M/Am Participated in the World Cup in SOW the Mam Amsterdam 2009 festival, on diversity Bambe band and cultures in the city. PELAEZ Venezuela Diego Pelaez M/P Recommended by radio Nova world DIEGO music DJ Remy Kolpakopoul. SAADOUN N Algeria Abdelkaar M/L Featured in BBC’s World on Your ABDELKADER Sadoun Street project, on diversity and music in the UK. TANE Japan Founder A/P Laureate of the Nouveaux Albums TSUYOSHI of DGT des Jeunes Architectes et Paysagistes Architects 2008. UEHARA Japan Founder of A/Am Guest Professor at the Berlage in YUSHI Zerodegree Rotterdam and TU Delft. Architecture

3.4 Cultural industries in perspective The cultural economy has emerged as a major source of employment and growth in many countries and cities globally, and its potential for supporting the regeneration of deprived and stagnating areas has been widely explored by academics and government agencies alike (Markusen and Schrock 2006; Miles 2007). The culture-generating capabilities of cities are being harnessed to productive purposes, creating new kinds of competitive advantages with major employment and income-enhancing effects (Scott 2000). The spatial manifestations of the cultural economy have attracted significant attention, and cities have emerged as the main playing field of a ‘cultural revolution’ in the new economy. The characteristics of the local milieus of production and their ability

Capterh 3 Crossing cultural borders to attract and retain the necessary human and other resources for self-sustaining and enhancing growth have been central to policies aimed at developing creative clusters and supporting the positioning of cities in a competitive global environment. In the policy realm particularly, the debate around the creative city has gained momentum, particularly following the work of Richard Florida on the rise of the creative class and how it is shaping economic and urban development3 (Landry and Bianchini 1995; Florida 2004).

Cultural industries: from art to industry? Considerable attention has been given to the specificity of cultural industries’ production, not always in a positive vein. At the beginning of the last century, concerns were voiced that the ‘aura’ and uniqueness of the object of art would wither as a result of its mechanical reproduction: “Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be. This unique existence of the work of art determined the history to which it was subject throughout the time of its existence” (Benjamin 1936, p.2). Adorno and Horkheimer, members of the Frankfurt School, referred to the ‘culture industry’ to highlight the organisational features of a cultural production system geared towards disseminating cultural products for mass consumption. This industry was seen as founded on entertainment and amusement, deleting all distinction between this and culture as tradition and personal experience (Adorno and Horkheimer 2002; Fleury and Singly 2006). The transformation of culture into commodity was thus seen as affecting the definition of culture itself, diluting it to an act of mass production and consumption (Adorno and Bernstein 2001). Bernard Miège introduced a note of optimism by arguing that the introduction of new technologies in cultural production, counter to Adorno’s expectations, would lead to innovative and interesting developments in the field (Miège 1989; Scott 2000). Interest in the cultural industries heightened with a growing realization that changes in contemporary capitalism had resulted in a growing interconnectedness of culture and the economy, and an increasing aesthetisation of the latter. ‘What has happened’ in the words of Jameson, ‘is that aesthetic production today has become integrated into commodity production generally: the frantic economic urgency of producing fresh waves of ever more novel-seeming goods (from clothing to airplanes), at ever greater rates of turnover, now assigns an increasingly essential structural function and position to aesthetic innovation and experimentation” (Jameson 1991, p.56). The emerging ‘cognitive-cultural capitalism’ has resulted in productive activity today thriving not only on advanced scientific knowledge and continuous innovation, but also on product multiplicity and symbolic elaboration (Scott 2008). As a result, cultural industries have become emblematic ‘of the hybrid and complex relationships between production and consumption, the symbolic and material’ (Pratt 2008, p.3). According to a recently published report on the cultural economy of Europe, the cultural and creative sector in the enlarged European Union (30 Members States) contributed to 2.6% of the EU GDP in 2003, while the overall growth of the sector’s

Chapter 3 Cosngr s i cultural borders value added was 19.7% in the period 1999-2003. In addition the sector employed 5.8 million people in 2004, equivalent to 3.1% of the total employed population of the EU25 (KEA 2006, p.6). Accordingly, cultural industries can no longer be considered as ‘secondary to the ‘real’ economy where durable, ‘useful’ goods are manufactured (Hesmondhalgh 2007, p.1). The collection of data on the cultural industries and the measurement of the growth and impact of the sector have been hampered by definitional disagreements, characterised in particular by the contentious relationship between purely artistic professions and their industrial counterparts, and between core professions and complementary ones. We here give a brief overview of different perspectives adopted. We note that for the purpose of this research, we focus on ‘cultural industries’, as opposed to ‘creative industries’, a term which has emerged as a definitional challenger to the former. The argument at the heart of this definitional discussion lies in the emergence of creativity as a source of competitive advantage in the knowledge economy. The shortcoming of ‘creative industries’, in agreement with Pratt, lies with the vagueness of the term ‘creativity’ as a constructive basis for mapping sectors of activity: arguably in fact, all sectors are ‘creative’ in their own way (for a discussion of this point, see Pratt 2007, p.6-7).

Defining the sector ‘Cultural industries produce and distribute cultural goods or services which, at the time they are considered as a specific attribute, use or purpose, embody or convey cultural expressions, irrespective of the commercial value they may have’, according to the terms of the Convention on the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions adopted by UNESCO in 2005 (UNESCO 2005). This definition reflects the duality of cultural industries, at the intersection of culture and the economy: cultural products are in fact at the same time bearers of identity, values and meaning and factors of economic and social development (UNESCO 2006). How these general terms, which mainly refer to the characteristics of cultural industries products, have translated into definitions and measurements of the cultural economy differs widely across the EU. Hence we find approaches respectively emphasizing the ‘creative’, copyright, experience or cultural aspects. These diverging emphases have also lead to statistical compatibility issues and a subsequent difficulty in actually measuring the sector across the board. As a result, the delineation of the cultural industries varies greatly across countries (for an overview and mapping of the economy of culture in Europe, see KEA 2006, p.48; Power and Nielsén 2010a; b). In exploring the cultural economy in Europe, KEA reached a three-circles definition, which highlights the links between cultural and creative industries. In the proposed model, we find a central ‘arts field’, characterized primarily by non-industrial, one-of- a-kind products (e.g. visual arts, heritage); a ‘cultural industries circle’, where products are exclusively cultural, produced and reproduced in larger numbers and based on copyright (e.g. film and music); ‘the creative industries and activities circle’ where products may be non-industrial and can be prototypes (e.g. design, architecture); and

Capterh 3 Crossing cultural borders finally a circle containing ‘related industries’, made up of sub-sectors which facilitate the work of the first three circles (KEA 2006, pp.53-54). A more recent analysis by the European Cluster Observatory offers an understanding of ‘Creative and Cultural Industries’ as an aggregate rather than unified category, approaching the definitional debate from the perspective that while these industries share many common features, they also differ significantly in intra-sectoral and cluster dynamics (Power and Nielsén 2010a). By combining the creative and cultural industries in one definition, the authors focus on ‘those concerned with the creation and provision of marketable outputs (goods, services and activities) that depend on creative and cultural inputs for their value’(Power and Nielsén 2010b, p.3). This ties the valuation of products to the creative and cultural inputs, thus highlighting the interlinkages between the conditions and resources of production and consumption in these industries. For the purpose of this study, we base our research on the definition put forward by the economic geographer Allen Scott, emphasising the cultural dimension of production. According to his definition, cultural-products industries are concerned with the production and marketing of goods and services that have aesthetic or semiotic content (Scott 2000), reflecting an economic and cultural conjuncture where ‘commodity production and in particular our clothing, furniture, buildings and other artefacts are now intimately tied in with styling changes which derive from artistic experimentation’ (Jameson 1998, p.19). Scott distinguishes between cultural product- industries, which offer services outputs focusing on entertainment, edification and information and those offering manufactured products, which contribute to shaping the individuality and self-assertion of their consumers (2000; 2004). Furthermore, Scott explores the shift from a first generation of cultural economy (based mainly on place marketing, the commercialization of historical heritage and the production of large-scale investment in artefacts of collective cultural consumption in the interest of urban regeneration) to a second (focused on the development of localised complexes of cultural-products industries). Building upon Bourdieu’s work on symbolic products, Scott defines the modern cultural economy as cultural-product industries that produce goods and services whose subjective meaning […] is high in comparison with their utilitarian purpose (Bourdieu 1971; Scott 2004, p.462). This subjective meaning results in a form of production that is design-intensive – hence involving a cognitive and aesthetic reflexive component – linked to differentiated and differentiating consumer tastes and demands (Lash and Urry 1994). In addition, more work is proportionally going into developing models, and less work in producing them, so that the research and development part is the main activity, while the actual manufacturing of the product (for instance, printing copies of a book or a CD) becomes secondary (Hesmondhalgh 2007). Alongside the complex inter-relations of locationally convergent networks of production, there are however global networks of transactions (Amin and Thrift 1992), with intermediaries channelling information and outputs from producers to consumers and vice versa. This decoupling of knowledge and design-intensive inputs has led to a decentralization of the production stages, leading in turn to a concentration

Chapter 3 Cosngr s i cultural borders of the more ‘cultural’ and ‘artistic’ stages in metropolitan areas and a delocalization of the manufacturing elements of production. In addition, structural changes related to enhancements in information and communication technologies have fundamentally changed the ways of production, distribution and consumption in many cultural industries, opening up new interfaces between cultural producers and consumers. New technologies have impacted the valuation of creativity, particularly in the recognition and remuneration of intellectual property rights. This holds true especially in the audiovisual industry.

Exploring the cultural industries’ production chain and networks The organization of production in the cultural industries is characterized by a ‘transaction-rich nexus of markets’, linking small-sized firms or individual actors in complex interconnected stages of flexible production relations (Lash and Urry 1994, p.123). Given these features, cultural industries were ‘post-Fordist avant la lettre’, providing a model for our understanding of post-industrial transformations in other industries (Lash and Urry 1994, p.123). The outcome is a networked production ecology, where the finished product is realized through the collaborative effort of different individuals, requiring various more or less specialized inputs and a complex division of labour (Becker 1982; Negus 1996; Scott 2000; Leyshon 2001). We can therefore identify a ‘project team’, ranging from primary creative personnel, technical workers to creative managers, marketing personnel, owners and executives and unskilled and semi-skilled labour (Hesmondhalgh 2007, pp.64-5, building upon work by Bill Ryan). These interconnections take the form of contracting, sub-contracting relations, technical and organisational innovation, and labour markets, and may partly explain the co-location of many cultural industries (Pratt 1997). The specificities of the sector, such as the risks of production and volatility of demand, which we will explore in later sections, call for an atypical contractual governance in the cultural industries, striking a fine balance between economic and cultural motivations (Caves 2000). Moreover, as exemplified in the case of the Swedish music industry, the development of a post-industrial music economy is based on the development of services and related products around the core music and its survival depends on building innovative products and channels of distribution, crossing music and ICTs (Power and Jansson 2004). The picture that emerges is one of a complex ecology of actors, bringing together a variety of complementary skills and expertise. As way of an example, the analysis of the ecology of the music economy distinguishes four distinctive yet overlapping networks (Leyshon 2001; Leyshon, Webb et al. 2005): creativity (or original production, where music is made and performed), reproduction (or manufacturing processes involved in the commodification of culture, as in the case of music, which is placed on media such as CDs), distribution (including the actual distribution of the product, but also marketing and promotion) and consumption (from retail outlets to the consumer). These networks represent stages through which cultural material flows and becomes commodified (Leyshon 2001; Leyshon, Webb et al. 2005). The networks of creativity are shaped in dense, spatially agglomerated interactions between actors and agencies,

Capterh 3 Crossing cultural borders echoing Scott’s own analysis of the music economy as rooted in ‘communities of workers anchored to particular places’ which self-perpetuate themselves by acting as a magnet for other talented individuals (Scott 1999). Among these, we can distinguish between those engaged in producing primary creative output, those engaged in interpretative activity, i.e. people who help bring the work of original creation to its audiences, and finally those supplying creative services to support arts and cultural production. Here a distinction can be made between ‘imaginative’ and ‘utilitarian’ creative occupations, thus allowing for a distinction between artists and creative workers who, while engaged in cultural industries, are non-artists (Throsby 2001). An additional layer of analysis is provided by the distinction between art for art’s sake and humdrum inputs in the cultural industries, as described by Caves (2000): the former refers to the utility drawn by artists in performing creative work, whereas the latter refers to ordinary economic incentives. These can be combined in the creative worker or decoupled as the case may be, as in the case of the writer and the publisher, the visual artist and the art gallery (Caves 2000). Given the nature of our investigation, we chose to focus on imaginative rather than utilitarian occupations, as this will give us more of an insight into the dynamics of cultural representation and diversity within the wider sector, as opposed to more technically bound and less openly ‘creative’ occupations. The ecology of actors highlights a shift away from the romantic vision of the artist as an ‘isolated genius’. Production in the cultural industries takes place within an ‘art world’, characterised by the presence of gatekeepers and processes of cultural mediation. Art exists in a social context and requires more than individual action to create it (Becker 1982; Hesmondhalgh 2007). According to Scott, the production system can be described as “a filtering device through which some kinds of (exogenously-given) novelties are allowed to pass while others are rejected along the way” (Scott 2000, p.34). Cultural industries have been examined not only from the perspective of the inputs used in the making of culture, as well as the activities related to the dissemination of the end product (DCMS 2002). Pratt has been a main proponent of this approach, exploring the original production and authoring of cultural industries products (including performance, fine art and literature), their actual production, reproduction and mass distribution (e.g. in the form of books, journal magazines, newspapers, film, radio, television, recording on disc or tape) and their exhibition and exchange. The representation of a production chain raises the question of the value of the cultural commodity and how it develops. Commodities are seen as having only the meaning which is ascribed to them by the individuals, rather than having a meaning of their own. In order to understand the value and meaning of commodities it is therefore necessary to follow their trajectories, their forms and uses (Appadurai 1988). The contextual life of the commodity is intrinsic in them. ‘Let’s approach commodities as things in a certain situation, a situation that can characterise many different kinds of thing, at different points in their social lives. This […] means breaking significantly with the production-dominated Marxian view of the commodity and focusing on its total trajectory from production through exchange/distribution, to consumption’ (Appadurai 1988, p.13).

Chapter 3 Cosngr s i cultural borders Cultural industries: the diversity of a sector While the distinguishing features of cultural industries, both in the features of their products and the way of production, have been highlighted above, it remains to be said that much diversity can be found within the sector. For our exploration, we have chosen to focus on three sectors: architecture, fashion and music. The reasons behind this choice are manifold, as exemplified in Table 3.2 below.

Architecture As the activity to design and construct buildings and other physical structures, architecture combines a visionary approach (imagining the building) with its technical application (what is possible and feasible in the given circumstances). Due to its semi- permanent nature, works of architects are a lasting reflection of the symbols and signs of a specific era and place. In this sense, architecture has played a significant role in place-promotion campaigns (lest us think for instance of the much cited Sydney Opera House or the Bilbao Guggenheim museum) and in the identity or brand of the ‘strong idea place’ (see McNeill 2005). This is also what makes architecture a ‘technically and aesthetically rooted’ cultural industry, insofar as it has to comply with the rules, regulations and planning environment of the place, but also the history, discourses and symbols pertinent to where the architecture product is located. A striking element of architecture is its high level of globalisation: the irruption in recent years of the so-called Superdutch generation of architects on the international scene and the emergence of the figure of the ‘global architect have been elsewhere noted (McNeill 2005; Kloosterman 2008). A study of diversity in architecture in the United States has highlighted the experiences of women and minorities in the sector: some of the main conclusions were pointing towards high levels of discrimination, glass-ceilings, salary inequality. However, the most striking point was the low level of diversity overall: architecture is still predominantly a white, male, middle class profession. In 2004, Zaha Hadid, of British Iraqi origin, became the first woman to win the prestigious Pritzker Architecture Prize, the profession’s highest recognition. In addition, architecture’s value system was deemed ‘out of touch’ with the experiences and needs of increasingly diverse users (Anthony 2001). Research in the UK, carried out by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, also indicated low levels of participation by black and minority ethnic groups in related education and professions, citing ‘eroding confidence’ as one causal explanation of low levels of progression of minorities within the sector (CABE 2005). In the UK, several initiatives have been set up to address the issue of lack of diversity and visibility for minority groups. In 2000, the Royal Institute for British Architects (RIBA) set up the forum Architects for Change, to ‘challenge and support’ the institute in its strive towards equality of opportunities and diversity in the architectural profession. This forum brings together, among others, the networks Society for Black Architects and Women in Architecture. The forum’s mission has a dual field of operation, focusing on both architectural education and practice. One of the initiatives

Capterh 3 Crossing cultural borders Table 3-2: The cultural industries’ inter-sectoral diversity

Human capital The entry-level requirements in terms of human capital vary greatly across the three sectors. In architecture, rigorous formal training is a must, whereas in music and fashion the trajectories may also be informal and based on learning by doing. In fashion though, the role of specific schools is increasingly becoming a ‘quality assurance’ element (see for instance the London School of Fashion). Financial capital Investment needed to start and the costs involved in the production of cultural products in these three sectors also vary. Social capital and Architects work alongside other (technical) professionals, such CAPITAL CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS networks as planners, decorators, engineers etc. Degree of In architecture, the degree of functionality is high. Fashion can functionality be considered as hybrid in this respect, combining functionality with symbolic value. In music, the level of functionality is relatively low Individual and A work of architecture is generally speaking for multiple users. group use In fashion, there might be unique, tailor-made pieces or ready- to-wear creations. Music presents on the one side a mechanical OF THE OBJECT SYMBOLIC AND reproduction side, and on the other the place and time specific

FUNCTIONAL VALUE FUNCTIONAL VALUE characteristics of live performances.

Place-based Due to its immobile nature, a work of architecture is specificities. inextricably linked to the place where it is located. This also translates in its need to comply with the rules, regulations and planning environment in which is it located. Mobile and Building on the last point, the three industries vary in their immobile nature. degree of mobility. While architectural products are generally speaking immobile, the products of music and fashion can travel more easily. In some cases, the place of production is important: if we take the case of the Paris fashion designers can aspire to receiving the appellation of haute couture only if their studios and creations are based in the city. The immobile aspect of architecture results in a need to take into account the wider historical, social, economic and cultural field in which a work is located, making the question of ‘fitting in’ more pressing. Degree of Architecture gives rise to objects with a longer lifespan, as

SPACE AND TIMESPACE IMPLICATIONS permanence opposed to fashion. In music, the objects can ‘fall into oblivion’ or simply become obsolete because of changes to the musical formats (the switch from vinyl to CD for instance meant that a lot of previously recorded music became inaccessible).

taken by the forum has been a world-touring exhibition showcasing the diversity of London architecture (see Diversecity-architects.com), which took place between 2003 and 2008. In the Netherlands, a similar, albeit local exhibition, was organised by the Amsterdam Centre for Architecture (ARCAM) in 2008, giving an insight into the diversity among architects living and working in Amsterdam.

Chapter 3 Cosngr s i cultural borders The DGT Architectes team: Tsuyoshi Tane, Lina Ghotmeh and Dan Dorrel

Fashion Fashion has been widely researched in terms of its connection to identity, culture and representations of self (Davis 1994) and the idea that ‘we say things with the clothes we wear’ (Barthes 1990). Initially the prerogative of the aristocracy, fashion has over the centuries become linked to an industrial form of production. Fashion is an interesting ‘hybrid’ cultural industry, insofar as it combines the functionality and utility of its product with its symbolic and signification value (Hesmondhalgh 2007, p.17). The ability of the designer to translate symbolic content into clothing has been seen as his/ her key skills, over and above technical capabilities of actually putting the clothing together (Bourdieu 2004). The influence of the commercial interests on consumers’ tastes has been noted in the case of fashion (see Barthes 1990). Others have noted that most trends are born ‘on the streets’ as spontaneous, individual events or the expression of sub-cultures: the role of the designer would thus re-appropriate what is already out there (notable cases are those of punk and hip hop). Elements of ‘ethnic’ fashion are also increasingly integrated into more mainstream trends: Dior’s autumn 2008 show saw for instance the mixing of an 80s and African look. The level of institutionalization of fashion as a cultural industry can be noted in the wide-ranging scope of sector-specific press and the highly visible and high profile calendar of fashion events. Celebrity endorsement has also been noted as key in determining trends and the fate of styles and brands. According to some observers, the front row at a catwalk is the raison d’être of the modern fashion show, given the high level of publicity which ensues (see also Currid 2007; Cartner-Mortley 2009).

Capterh 3 Crossing cultural borders Imtaz Khalik, beskpoke tailor (photo courtey of Imtaz Khaliq)

The lack of diversity in the world of fashion, particularly in the world of modelling, is a well-known, often discussed ‘open secret’. In an interview, a black fashion designer with a modelling past, reported having been taken off the catwalk at the last minute because ‘important clients and investors who did not wish to see [a black model] in the show had arrived’ (Interview no19). In the UK, the initiative Mahogany models has in recent years sought to raise the profile of these issues and provide a platform for Black and minority ethnic models. Kulture2Couture is another project aimed at showcasing and promoting London’s black African and Caribbean fashion designers ‘by raising their profile, acknowledging their contribution to the fashion industry and helping them to achieve their potential’4. At the time of writing however, the future of this initiative, partly linked to the former Mayor of London, appears unclear.

Music The music industry is an interesting cultural industry case, insofar as it has in recent years in particular been the arena of a struggle between musical content and supporting formats (see Leyshon 2001). In this sense, technological advances have brought drastic changes to the ‘ways of consumption’ of music, while the reward system for the artistic and creative element is at pains to keep up the pace. Yet music is not only mediated by a series of technological transformations: cultural, historical, geographical and political factors play a significant role here too (Negus 1996, p.65). The diversity of musical genres though reflects the openness of the sector to influences and niche interests. In the traditional framework of music production,

Chapter 3 Cosngr s i cultural borders Abaji in his studio

involving a relation between a record company and an artist, the struggle between what is creative and what is commercial (and as a result, viable in economic terms) gave way to a ‘hierarchy’ of musical categories, with apparent priority given to the industry (Negus 1996). A peculiarity in this sense is the question of world music: an umbrella term rather than genre in its own right, this encompasses all types of music of the ‘other’ (see 1993; 1993; Guilbault 1997; Connell and Gibson 2003). ‘Global flows of music have become more rapid and numerous as movements of people, whether voluntary or not, have become more widespread. Diasporic networks now connect metropolitan communities across continents; migration maps out lines of cultural flow between cities and homelands’ (Connell and Gibson 2003, p.144). An interesting initiative run by the BBC called ‘World on your Street’ aimed at putting the spotlight on the musical diversity present just around the corner, across the UK. In both the Netherlands and France, many initiatives, particularly under the world music banner, have been taken to showcase locally-based (migrant) musicians (see for instance the Dutch Blend World Music Guide and the French Music Export Office 2004 publication on French World Music. In a study of popular music, some observers have even gone so far as to posit that the “diversity and innovation available to the public […] has more to do with the market structures and organisational environments of specific industries than with strongly felt demands of either the masses or their masters for certain kinds of cultural materials (DiMaggio 1977, p.448).

3.5 NeGOTIATING the cultural industries’ opportunity structure Much has been discussed about the cultural homogenization or heterogenization impact of globalization. As new forces from across the globe enter our societies, they

Capterh 3 Crossing cultural borders become ‘indigenized’ (Appadurai 1990; for an interesting perspective on German- Turkish rap/hip-hop in Berlin, see Caglar 1998). The cultural economy can no longer be understood in terms of separate entities manifested in the diversity of nation-states: we are now looking at an ‘overlapping, disjunctive order, which cannot any longer be understood in terms of center-periphery models […] nor is it susceptible to simple models of push and pull (in terms of migration theory) […] or of producers and consumers’ (Appadurai 1990, p.296). The recognition of the impact of globalisation and growing internationalisation is fundamental to a greater understanding cultural diversity and cultural processes altogether (UNESCO 1998). The de-territorialisation of people, cultures and commodities and the resulting increasing interconnectivities among space shape the consumer tastes in large metropolitan areas, the arenas where such flows are primarily played out, are transformed (Appadurai 1990). This leads to a shift in the demand side for cultural products, with globalisation effectively broadening consumer demand for culturally exotic and specialised products and services (Collins, Morrissey et al. 1995, p.101). In general terms, ‘growing consumer acceptance of, and effective demand for, foreign products, strengthens ethnic minority and immigrant businesses’ (Light 2005). On the supply side, open and diverse societies are seen as catalysts for innovation,

Réné Sanchez, owner of a Cap Verdian music record shop in Paris

Chapter 3 Cosngr s i cultural borders entrepreneurship and economic development (Florida 2005), or as we have seen earlier, as thriving centres of cultural and artistic production (Hall 1998). We argue that the question of diversity in the cultural industries needs to be looked at from the perspective of the interaction between the demand and supply within a wider ‘opportunity structure’ framework. We define this as the combination of place and time, sector specific factors, which shape the progression of creative workers in the sector. Several elements are at work in shaping the cultural industries’ opportunity structure (considered here as the set of exogenous factors limiting or supporting action) and its openness to diversity. First of all, cultural industries’ strong anchor in metropolitan areas is simultaneously the object and the reflection of strong cultural cross-fertilisation, shaping trajectories within the cultural industries. Secondly, we delve into the definition of ethnicity and its relation to culture, to find cognitive constituents for our analysis of the dynamic interaction of ethnicity with processes of commodification of culture within the cultural industries. Finally, we explore the mechanisms of mediation within the cultural industries, and how these might affect trends and tastes of consumers and, in turn, the production (and popularity) of cultural goods. We seek here to find the mechanism at work in shaping the diversity of cultural products and hence the shifting boundaries between ethnic and mainstream markets in which migrant cultural entrepreneurs might operate.

Cultural industries and the diverse metropolis Cities have historically been thriving centres of cultural and economic activity, as highlighted in the seminal work by Peter Hall, Cities in Civilization. Here, the author explores the evolution of cultural capitals such as Vienna, Paris, Athens, during their golden ages (Hall 1998). More recently, the question of how particular places have done well out of the cultural industries has attracted significant attention, particularly as the sector has become central to regeneration strategies across deprived areas. Large metropolitan areas ‘represent nodes of location-specific interactions and emergent effects in which the stimulus to cultural experimentation and renewal tends to be high’ (Scott 2000, p.4). Importantly, we are witnessing the emergence of shifting landscapes of global cultural flows, which characterise the disjuncture between economy, culture and politics: the most relevant for our investigation are ‘ethnoscapes’, the ‘landscape of persons who constitute the shifting world in which we live: tourists, immigrants, refugees, exiles, guest-workers, and other moving groups and persons’ (Appadurai 1990, p.297). Here the focus is less on ethnicity per se, but rather more on the correlation between people across transnational landscapes. Place-based communities in large metropolitan areas such as Paris, London and Amsterdam are not just repositories of cultural and creative labour, they also represent ‘active hubs of social reproduction in which crucial cultural competences are maintained and circulated’ (Scott 2000, p.33). Arguably more than other sectors of economic activity, cultural industries illustrate the strong interconnectedness of place, and particularly the metropolis, and culture: local activities become imbued with the social and cultural character of the surrounding urban area. At the same time, the existing and emerging economic activities contribute to the dynamism of culture-generating and innovative capacities

Capterh 3 Crossing cultural borders of specific places (Zukin 1995; Scott 2000). Zukin argues that cities have always had symbolic economies, insofar as their elites have made use of symbolic language to put forward a certain image of the city, as a representation of the dominant powers. She defines the symbolic economy as ‘(T)he look and feel of cities [which] reflect decisions about what – and who – should be visible and what should not, concepts of order and disorder, and on uses of aesthetic power’. Within this symbolic economy, migrants and ethnic minorities are placing pressures on public institutions and high culture to diversify their offerings to appeal to a wider and more diverse public (Zukin 1995, p.7). The production of symbols and products within this symbolic economy becomes both a ‘currency for commercial exchange and a language of social identity’ (Zukin 1995, pp.23-4). Not only socially, but also economically, urban diversity is of great importance, according to Jacobs. In an area of the city with different kinds of suppliers and buyers, entrepreneurs can share their facilities, such as office spaces and machines, and profit from a varied supply of knowledge and expertise (Jacobs 1961; 1969). Peter Hall gives a prominent role to the exchanges and serendipity of encounters in cities. Reflecting on Gardner’s work on highly creative XX century individuals, Hall reflected that creativity was often linked to individuals originating from localities peripheral to the centres of power and influence, yet not completely cut off. These individuals were socially marginal, as a result of their ethnicity, gender, nationality or social class, yet their positioning ‘at the edge’ allowed them to thrive (Hall 2000a, pp.642-5). The metropolitan area therefore becomes the scene for interconnections between a diversity of people and places and a potential source of creative inspiration: the vibrant metropolis thrives off diversity, while diversity finds a natural habitat in the metropolis, where being different is part of the ‘norm’ and peculiarity of denizens. In the words of one respondent, ‘everybody is a small slice of this wonderful jigsaw we call London’ (interview no 31, architect). Creativity and innovation are not seen as the prerogative of the individual, indeed, a key role is played by the social conditions of production of the cultural economy. Places can thus be seen as ‘articulated moments in networks of social relations and understandings’ (Massey 1994, p.154)5. Cultural economies are indeed inclined to exhibit well-developed individual identities, as a consequence of the play of history, agglomeration and locational specialisation. As a result, products become inextricably linked to specific places and imbued with a time-and-place-specific ‘aura’, adding value to the products themselves. Such connection between place and product ‘yields a kind of monopoly rent that adheres to places, their insignia, and the brand names that may attach to them. Their industries grow as a result, and the local economic base takes shape. Favourable images create entry barriers for products from competing places’ (Molotch 1996, p.229). Many metropolitan areas also exhibit the concomitant development of separate yet interwoven cultural industries sectors, benefiting from proximity and complex project ecologies (Scott 2004). Yet cultural industries are often subject to competitive pressures that encourage agglomeration of production combined with global output circulation (Scott 2004). This has often been linked to discussions about the threat of cultural homogenisation

Chapter 3 Cosngr s i cultural borders or even ‘imperialism, as the circulation of cultural products and symbols mainly originating from the West is perceived to lead to a levelling of cultural consumption across the globe (for a discussion, see Throsby 2001, p.156-7). We would argue that we are witnessing parallel processes of homogenisation and differentiation, as global and local forces interact. This raises questions concerning our opportunity structure analysis: understanding what the impact of the socialisation experience might be in approaching diversity and exploring the extent to which the symbolic content of products is mediated through the prism of cultural diversity and ethnicity of their creators and the cultural repertoire they may draw upon. We now turn to the structuring power of ethnicity in the field of cultural production.

Ethnicity, culture and diversity Culture and ethnicity are intertwined in multiple ways. Discussions have often been centred around the question of culture, the individual and his/her relation to a wider group of ‘belonging’ (Karner 2007). Ethnicity is ‘widely associated with culture, descent, group memories, histories and language’ (Karner 2007, p.17). Ethnicity, and to the same extent, race are not naturally occurring entities, but rather ‘rely upon social processes and discourses that construct and subsequently naturalise/reify group differences’ (Karner 2007, p.17). ‘Ethnie’ is defined as a ‘named population with myths of common ancestry, shared historical memories, one or more elements of common culture [e.g. religion, customs, language], a [frequent] link with a homeland and a sense of solidarity among at least some of its members’ (Hutchinson and Smith 1996, p.6). This draws the attention to the question of names or labels, which members of an ethnic group or ‘outsiders’ use to define the group itself (Karner 2007). It should here be noted that the history of incorporation of migrants and ethnic groups cannot be separated from the changes in ethnic and racial boundaries, which have been stretched over time (Lee and Bean 2004). The Norwegian social anthropologist Frederik Barth made a significant contribution to these discussions by pointing out that ‘the critical focus of the investigation […] becomes the ethnic boundary that defines the group, not the cultural stuff that it encloses’ (Barth 1969, p.15). In doing so, Barth made a step forward in the conceptualisation of ethnicity, by introducing a social constructivist perspective whereby ethnicity is a social organisation based on the drawing and reproduction of group boundaries. His criticism of traditional associations of race=language=culture were mainly based on the idea that ‘while purporting to give an ideal type model of a recurring empirical form, it implies a preconceived view of what are the significant factors in the genesis, structure, and function of such groups’ (Barth 1969, p.11). Hence, the study of ethnic identities is rather problematic in the sense that it runs the risk of being reductionist and limiting the scope of human agency by suggesting that individuals are fully determined by their group belonging or culture (Karner 2007, p.91). Here we touch upon the concept of ‘homology’, one of the basic principles of the sociology of culture, meaning the notion that the boundaries between cultural forms align with the boundaries between groups. Following Barth in a less determinist

Capterh 3 Crossing cultural borders François Essindi and Jimi Sofo of Abakuya

approach, ethnic categories constitute ‘an organizational vessel that may be given varying amounts and forms of content in different socio-cultural systems. They may be of great relevance to behaviour, but they need not be; they may pervade all social life, or they may be relevant only in limited sectors of activity” (Barth 1969, p.14). The critical element then becomes self-ascription or ascription by others. Another aspect which is often overlooked is the question of multiple identities and the distinction between discourse and practice. In this context, Baumann has referred to ‘dual discursive competence’ stating that ‘most people practice a double discursive competence when it comes to their discourses about culture, and they develop this dual discursive competence more strongly the more they expose themselves to multicultural practices […]. We thus cannot advance a multicultural understanding of culture if we treat the essentialist view and the processual view as two opposite theories and call one of them true and the other one false’ (Baumann 1999, pp.93-4). Individuals may ascribe strongly to one culture in its ideal form, yet display practices which borrow from a variety of cultures. Ethnicity emerges therefore not as a unitary phenomenon but as a reminder that we should look beyond labels and groups, at the circumstances under which it comes to matter (Fenton 2003). ‘Difference in the sense of social relations may be understood as the historical and contemporary trajectories of material circumstances and cultural

Chapter 3 Cosngr s i cultural borders practices which produce the conditions for the construction of group identities Benedict Anderson (1991). As a result, we should look at ethnicity from the set of structures which constrain and enable simultaneously social action, the cognitive way of interpreting it, and the biographically grounded, emotionally charged way of living (see Karner 2007). Moreover, identification with a group is the result of a highly negotiated process of construction, rather than being natural and predetermined (Hall 2000b). Stuart Hall points out the importance of the socialisation environment and wider context in shaping and negotiating individual identities (Hall 1997; 2000b). In the case of ethnicity, we therefore distinguish two dynamics, one reflecting the external imposition of a classification grid on populations, involving powerful outsiders and the reproduction of boundaries, and the other, reflecting people’s experience of solidarity and meaning as self-identifying group members (Jenkins 1997). These phenomena are inextricably linked, constituting two distinct processes of ‘ascription’, that is of ascribing specific characteristics to a group or to oneself (Karner 2007). These two perspectives provide two viewpoints from which biographies are lived and observed. The question of ascription raises the discussion around assimilation, a term which in its history and use has rather dramatically changed from a description of an inevitable progression to the observation of a more complex two-way dynamic process of incorporation (Alba and Nee 2003). Here it is interesting to note that while acculturation (as a process of adaptation) and cultural accommodation (a process of adjustment) have in the past been given high attention in dynamics of assimilation, more structural elements of incorporation, including social, economic and residential status, have also been identified as critical (for a review of literature, see Alba and Nee 2003). The idea of a straight line assimilation process, which implies a one way integration of migrants into the host society (Gordon 1964), has been supplanted by a more pluralist model, which introduces the idea of a two-way interaction between minorities and the mainstream, reviving the Chicago School approach of the evolution of a composite culture, resulting from the ‘interpenetration of cultural practices and beliefs’ (Alba and Nee 2003, p.10).

Institutional approaches to ethnicity and diversity This research zooms into three metropolises in three different countries: Amsterdam, London and Paris. The background to the research is therefore provided by three different approaches to the question of ethnicity and diversity and their reflection in the policy domain Multi-culturalism is the ‘recognition of group difference within the public sphere of laws, democratic discourses and the terms of a shared citizenship and national identity’ (Modood 2007, p.2). In France, the idea that a person can be both a French citizen and have an ethnic or religious identity is unacceptable, while in Britain community cohesion promotes the combining of race or faith with the idea of being British (for a comparative study of ethnic minorities in France and Britain, see Raymond and Modood 2007). In France, the major classification of people is in terms of nationality: you are either a national or a foreigner (étranger), there being no official or institutional categories to define people once they have French nationality (Dubet 1989). In France,

Capterh 3 Crossing cultural borders republican anti-multiculturalism has always been the dominant, accepted model across the political spectrum, culminating in the banning of headscarves in schools in 2004 (Modood 2007), though in recent months a discussion has been open on the question of recognising ethnic categories. This is clearly different from the British case where ‘ethnic origin’ is recognised institutionally within the national community (Silverman 1992). The Netherlands was in many ways a pioneer of multiculturalism with its Ethnic Minorities Policy (Minderhedennota) of 1983 and ample provisions for state-funded autonomous schools and broadcasting, combined with a social democratic approach to social housing, welfare benefits and an affirmative action in employment. Several events, however, contributed to relegating multiculturalism to the ‘dung-hill of history’ in the Netherlands by 2005, notably the reaction to the murders of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh (Modood 2007, p.13).

3.6grant Mi s in the cultural industries Research on migrant entrepreneurship has mainly focused its attention on the interaction between the resources mobilized by migrants and the opportunity structures which they face. The type of businesses migrants have established and the sectors they have integrated have been seen as the result of the interaction between specific assets they can draw upon and a ‘time and place’ specific set of circumstances (Waldinger, Aldrich et al. 1990; Light and Rosenstein 1995; Light 2005). Starting from a criticism of earlier frameworks (Waldinger, Aldrich et al. 1990; Kloosterman 2010), with their overemphasis on cultural causality and neglect of opportunity conditions, Kloosterman and Rath went further with the ‘mixed embeddedness’ approach. This links consumer demand to the opportunity structure in which migrants operate, so that the outcome of the interaction also includes what migrants are permitted to supply, given the institutional, social and economic context in which they operate (Kloosterman and Rath 2001; Kloosterman 2010). Since the Second World War, the market orientation and job characteristics of migrants have manifested a tendency to become concentrated at the lower end of the market, in low-value added activities, with low incomes and modest prospects for social mobility (Waldinger, Aldrich et al. 1990; Smallbone, Bertotti et al. 2005). In post- industrial urban economies, migrants from less-developed countries have generally speaking taken up lower wage and skills jobs in the manufacturing and service sector, or, when self-employed, run small shops (e.g. grocery stores) or restaurants at the lower end of the market (Jones, Barrett et al. 2000; Panayiotopoulos 2006). Changes in, on the one hand, the opportunity structure of urban economies and, on the other, in the set of resources that migrants from less-developed countries bring with them, have however contributed to a shift in local labour markets (Kloosterman 2010), resulting in adjustments to the matching between supply (of labour) and demand (from markets). Increasingly migrants, particularly second generation, are ‘breaking out’ of more traditional industrial sectors and into other occupational branches such as producer services and business to business or trade (Engelen 2001; Rušinovic 2006).

Chapter 3 Cosngr s i cultural borders Perspectives on migrant ‘cultural entrepreneurs’ We would here like to shift the attention towards the creative contribution of migrants to more culture-centred sectors of activity, where we would expect the role played by ethnic resources, taking abstraction of human capital resources, to be significant in terms of the ability to draw upon a diversity of cultural and symbolic content. In doing so, we develop here an analytical framework for analyzing the markets in which migrant cultural entrepreneurs negotiate their career paths in the cultural industries. The entrepreneur is not so much someone who introduces new ideas, but rather someone who implements new combinations of existing ideas to create innovative products and processes which go beyond satisfying demand, in a periodical cycle of ‘creative destruction’. Schumpeter characterises the entrepreneur as a “revolutionary of the economy”, an outsider to the class from which he originates and to the milieu to which he rises. As such, innovations always entail the rise of “new men” (Schumpeter 1934). As the entrepreneur strives to achieve new combinations of resources and forces within reach, we put forward a typology of ‘migrant cultural entrepreneur’: by drawing on a different cultural repertoire and offering a different perspective on cultural activities, she or he can potentially act as a key stimulus in the renewal and innovation of the local cultural economy. First, we would like to zoom into the ‘primary resource’ at hand: that is the diverse ethnic capital which a migrant might be able to draw from. It has been said that some migrant groups are more able than others to ‘activate’ their cultural repertoire, to the extent that in some cases this might even be ‘constructed’ (Portes and Sensenbrenner 1993). Here, we would like to focus our attention on the notion of ethnicity as a set of resources which convey “any and all features of the whole group” (Light 2002, p.185), insofar as its mobilisation in the context of a cultural endeavour may open up a set of opportunities and competitive advantages in business. ‘More specifically, ethnic resources are considered as being available to the members of an ethnic community who share the common origin and culture of the group and “actively participate in shared activities where common origin and culture are important ingredients” (Yoon 1991, p.318). Some observers have gone so far as to argue that ‘immigrant entrepreneurs enjoy an advantage over potential competitors outside the group’ and that ethnicity ‘can carve out economic niches that foster immigrant entrepreneurship’ (Evans 1989, p.951). As discussed above, models of migrant entrepreneurship that take into account a supply and demand side are useful in the context of this research, insofar as they attempt to explore the matching processes between type of (cultural) products and their consumers. On the supply side, ethnic goods, such as exotic goods related to the homeland, provide migrants with an opportunity to ‘convert both the contents and the symbols of ethnicity into profit-making commodities’ (Waldinger 2000, p.136). Ethnic content of products ‘can also be created in response to conditions and out of cultural materials in the host society’. There can be a creation of hybrid cultural mix, and expansion of what is ‘normative’ within the mainstream – as can be seen in music for instance, where ‘ethnic’ elements become part of the mainstream repertoire (Alba and Nee 1997, p.833), allowing migrants to break out of ethnic market niches into mainstream markets (Ram and Jones 1998). A need to break the ‘typecasting/

Capterh 3 Crossing cultural borders Inside Lampe Fall, a record shop in Paris’s Goutte d’Or neighbourhood

stereotyping’ often associated with products with (perceived) strong ethnic component often appears necessary (Smallbone, Bertotti et al. 2005). Different strategies have varying degrees of concentration, which imply a certain role for spatiality in entrepreneurial strategies. Jones et al. introduced a ‘geographical market hierarchy’ which refers to the fact that strategies should be distinguished not just by target clientele but also by whether they are targeting local markets or not (Jones, Barrett et al. 2000). In this perspective, research has also shown how many migrant businesses have been able to enhance their competitiveness by exploiting their diaspora links and extensive social networks (Menzies, Brenner et al. 2000). Migrants are, arguably, the most literal embodiment of the overarching process of globalisation, whereby a variety of links between spatially disparate places are developed and intensified (Held, McGrew et al. 1999). Globalisation ‘moves the interactionist context to a higher level, now asking about the fit between ethnic economies and a global opportunity structure with local nodes […]. Promoting the interdependence of economies, globalization increases the advantageousness of the biculturalism and bilinguism that immigrant entrepreneurs typically enjoy (Light 2005, p.661)6. As a result of globalisation, local ethnic economies are increasingly integrated into global production and distribution chains7 (Pécoud 2000; Portes, Guarnizo et al. 2002). Some have employed the term glocalisation, to refer to the complex and dynamic

Chapter 3 Cosngr s i cultural borders interrelationship between local cultural scenes and industries and the international marketplace (Shuker 1998, p.132).

Developing a framework of market dynamics Many businesses set up by migrants initially target their group members with specific “ethnic products” which typically refer to the country of origin. Not only foodstuffs, but also music and films are very much part of these “ethnic businesses”. Migrant cultural entrepreneurs may face, in principle, the choice between targeting the mainstream and targeting a much more circumscribed “ethnic” audience, pertaining to their country of origin. We argue that in the cultural industries, there are parallel value chains, separating so to speak ‘mainstream product cycles’ from ‘ethnic niche’ markets, where migrants might also be operating. The boundaries between the two value chains are not watertight as migrants may ‘break out’ of ethnic niche markets (Engelen 2001) at the reproduction and consumption stages. At the same time, ‘mainstream’ markets are shaped by influences from ethnic niche markets, and vice versa. We also see the emergence of hybridisation of cultural forms, as influences from across the world shape local cultural industry products, increasingly de-territorialising place and identity within local cultural production systems (for an insight into the world music industry, see Connell and Gibson 2003). Still, migrants seem to be faced with two different thresholds with rather diverse requirements and also with divergent trajectories in terms of audience, style, and potential success in the music business. On the one hand, they might opt for the mainstream – with its potential of large audiences - but then it might prove hard to gain access to the relevant gatekeepers and chances of crossing the commodification boundary would consequently be slim. Migrants could also, on the other hand, choose the relative safety of the “ethnic” market, with a smaller, but ‘captive’, audience and the possibility of becoming “trapped’ in an ethnic niche but with a much lower barrier of entry. We would expect therefore to find parallel production chains, with different sets of gatekeepers: the creativity, production, distribution and consumption would here occur in mostly parallel, occasionally cross-fertilising networks of actors and milieus (Brandellero 2008). We would here like to focus on the type of markets migrant cultural entrepreneurs might operate in, as entrepreneurs operating in a culturally diverse milieu and offering products with symbolic and aesthetic content. Exploring, on the one hand, the type of products offered and the targeted clientele, we hypothesise a spectrum of approaches to enterprise, ranging from a more ethnic-based to a non-ethnic based product range, highlighting different market typologies in which migrant cultural entrepreneurs might wish to operate (Engelen 2001; Rušinovic 2006). Where migrants would opt for the mobilization of their ethnic resources targeting a co-ethnic community more directly, we would see the emergence of an ethnic niche market catering for more specific tastes and needs a community might have in terms of goods and services (e.g. specific products, brands). We would argue that we are here in the presence of a form of reproduction of tastes and consumer patterns, rather than the

Capterh 3 Crossing cultural borders formulation of new aesthetics, though this might be adapted with the use of modern technologies and production systems. Maintaining an ethnic consumer base, we define the offer of non-ethnic specific products as a case of tapping into mainstream markets. These markets highlight conformity to the preferences of the public at large and indicates a shift away from a more ethnic clientele, towards the mainstream (Waldinger, Aldrich et al. 1990). Mainstream here is intended as the sum of the current common trends, which is available to the general public, ‘a prevailing current or direction of activity or influence’8. In the literature, these are often referred to as vacancy chain operations, where migrants come to occupy sectors or businesses which have been left by ‘natives’ due to market saturation or low margins – let us think about the corner shops offering a range of products and controlled by specific ethnic groups (Kloosterman forthcoming). Together, ethnic and mainstream markets are defined as homogeneous, reflecting either niche or broader, more popular tastes and preferences, while varying in their consumer bases. The third market typology is represented by the confluence of non-ethnic clientele and ethnic products, known as intermediary markets, This refers to the middleman minority theory developed by Bonacich (drawing from Weber 1927; Bonacich 1972), relating to those expert ‘alien merchants’ supported by colonial elites in the distribution of exotic products (Light 2005). This typology can be seen as an innovative strategy whereby the entrepreneur taps into new markets through a wider distribution circuit (Engelen 2001), going beyond the ethnic niche and reaching out to a wider consumer base, thus stimulating the emergence of new, ‘exotic’ tastes and consumption patterns through culturalFigure diffusion. 3.1 Typology of migrant cultural entrepreneurship

HOMOGENEOUSMARKETS ETHNIC-

ETHNIC NICHE MAINSTREAM CONSUMER SPECIFICATION CONSUMER

ETHNIC - PRODUCT SPECIFICATION - NON-ETHNIC

INTERMEDIARY HYBRID/MAINSTREAM -NON-ETHNIC

COMPOSITE MARKETS

Figure 3-1 Typology of migrant cultural entrepreneurship markets

Chapter 3 Cosngr s i cultural borders In the fourth category, the development of hybrid/mainstream markets, where ethnic groups and boundaries cease to define products and consumer base. Here innovation lies in the mixing of styles and reaching a broader, non-group specific audience. Mainstream conventions and tastes are shaped and influenced by diversity, and new styles are integrated in repertoires, while others are created as a result of cultural encounters and exchanges. This market typology is a site of innovation in the Schumpeterian sense. Both intermediary and hybrid markets reflect a conjuncture where composite markets emerge, bringing together disparate elements or merging them through aesthetic, symbolic and product innovations. We argue that, in the cultural industries, the boundaries between these four market typologies are particularly porous and that creative workers can experience dynamic trajectories crossing market ‘borders’, both on the supply and demand side. Various caveats can be mentioned here. As we have seen in our discussion of ethnicity, culture and diversity, the ethnic ‘label’ is one heavily laden with judgment, expectations and stereotypes. This typology strives to reflect ranges within a spectrum, rather than fixed market categories. In addition, the idea of a mainstream raises several additional questions: what does mainstream actually refer to nowadays? Is the mainstream not subject to constant negotiation as global influences, trends, historical and socio- economic changes add and take from its scope? As for how cultural industries ‘work’, it is in the very nature of cultural activities to draw inspiration from a variety of sources, making it extremely problematic to pinpoint any one source. In the dynamic field of cultural production and consumption, boundaries are confirmed or transcended, as a result of active production strategies, or the shifting consumer preferences and demand patterns for instance. We here refer to boundary crossing, blurring, and shifting, as identified by Alba and Nee (Alba and Nee 2003), and boundary sharpening, particularly through ethnicization (Koot and Rath 1987). Boundary crossing occurs when an individual moves from one group to another, without this phenomenon changing the boundary itself. Boundary blurring, on the other hand, reflects a change in the boundary, when the social distinction between groups becomes less clear. Boundary shifting, as the term implies, refers to a relocation of the boundary, which comes to modify the balance between insiders/outsiders (Alba and Nee 2003). Boundaries between groups can however also taper, intensifying the (perception of or actual) social distance between groups (see Koot and Rath 1987). When exploring the question of ethnic diversity in the cultural industries, our attention should thus focus on the boundary between the two ends of the spectrum presented in Figure 3.1: ethnic markets and the hybrid. We posit that rather than looking at them as ‘opposites’, in our globalised world, these two typologies are increasingly interwoven and part of each other’s realities. There is therefore not just a porous boundary, but a gradual and incremental process of osmosis: on the one hand, the mainstream increasingly comes to incorporate elements from the ethnic niche; on the other, the ethnic niche is shaped by the mainstream, particularly as traditional styles are adapted and reinvented. Research carried out on Asian designers in London for instance highlighted that women from the Asian diaspora ‘have used global commodities and consumer products to create new local interpretations of

Capterh 3 Crossing cultural borders cultural identity […] patterns [which] emerge from their sophisticated command of the symbolic and political economies in which they are located’ (Bachu 1988, p.189). The idea that an increasingly ‘composite culture’, reflects the ‘mixed, hybrid character of the ensemble of cultural practices and beliefs’ has evolved in contemporary societies (Alba and Nee 2003, p.10). Cultural production moves beyond a fragmented vision of different ethnicities and cultures, embracing the idea of cultural hybridism. As one entrepreneur put it: ‘it’s not about singular cultures, that is really what I am trying to say, because also in the past there hasn’t always been just one singular culture. I think my point is more generic, it’s about embracing multi-cultures, because England is about multi-cultures. I think that to me is very positive’ (interview no 31). Perspectives on the relationship between migrants and ‘host’ societies have moved away from the idea that social-cultural distinctiveness could hamper incorporation (Alba and Nee 2003). We posit that the formation of these market clouts and their relative standing is not simply an organic and embedded process. It is highly negotiated in the framework of mechanisms of mediation which are features of the cultural industries. Generally speaking, the diversity of cultural industry products that are available to us as consumers is subject to forces of cultural mediation. Trends and fads are wide ranging in their geographical scope: some are globalized and adopted the world through. Some are very localised, linked to local, regional traditions. Understanding these processes helps us to operationalise our framework and render it dynamic.

Mediation in the cultural industries Many creative activities are characterised by a large pool of creative hopefuls and a more or less continuous oversupply of applicants (Becker 1982; Frank and Cook 1995; Eikhof and Haunschild 2007). Consequently, only a fraction of the creative work actually gets commodified, entering the production cycle and giving rise to economic value added. Production and consumption can be thus seen as embedded spatially, historically, and socially. In this sense, consumption can be in seen as an institutional field, centred around the production of commodities for individual demand and structured around ‘interconnected economic and cultural institutions’, highlighting the strong interconnections of consumption with its social context (Zukin and Maguire 2004, p.175). The model of production on which cultural industries are based generally gives rise to an over-supply of raw material. This characteristic of cultural production requires an ‘over-supply of raw material at the outset and pinpoints a number of strategic checkpoints at which the oversupply is filtered out’ (Hirsch 1972, p.649; Brandellero and Kloosterman 2007). There is a risk involved in the volatility with which audiences/consumers use cultural commodities in order to express they are different from other people9. This results in a strong emphasis on audience maximization to minimize the risk, putting together a large ‘cultural repertoire’ (Garnham and Inglis 1990, p.161). Volatility requires an over-supply of outputs to maximise chances of success (Hirsch 1972), and as a result, an over-supply of inputs further upstream, in the creative phase. It also often results in an ‘options’ type contract, where at different stages between the original idea and its realisation, the option to pull the plug on a project remains open (Caves 2000).

Chapter 3 Cosngr s i cultural borders The producer of a cultural good is therefore faced with a merciless state of uncertainty, known as the ‘nobody knows’ property (Caves 2000). Cultural goods display the property of horizontal differentiation, whereby products are similar but not identical. This property is connected to the infinite variety property, which invokes the plethora of creative possibilities a creative worker can draw upon in his or her work. In this context of variety, making a choice between product A or B becomes complex. Information becomes a crucial element in the decision-making process, yet finding this is often delegated to intermediaries, who rank creative work according to an A list/B list (Becker 1982; Caves 2000). This vertical differentiation between products results from our comparative appreciation of them, yet our appreciation is by no means shaped in a vacuum: hence the importance of exploring how trends come about. At first glance, trends can seem unfair: the winner receives a prize, whereas the losers walk away empty-handed. The so-called Matthew effect10, initially applied to research on how recognition is given in science, has been widely studied and applied to research on mass consumption and trends (Merton 1988). Fashion and trends have been described as following a bell-shaped, Gauss-type curve, representing the strong ascent of trends reaching a peak, only to descend into oblivion straight after (Erner 2008, p.10). Trends are therefore seen as a type of behaviour adopted on a temporary basis by a significant part of a social group, the reason being that this behaviour is perceived as socially appropriate for that time and context (Sproles 1985). This process of adoption requires some form of historical continuity with previous fashions in order to receive collective acceptance, even when the fashion choices are innovative (Blumer 1969). Demand uncertainty in the cultural industries is caused by shifting consumer preferences, but also by the criteria of selection mobilised by gatekeepers. Gatekeepers can be seen as ‘surrogate consumers’ serving as fashion experts and opinion leaders for their respective fields of activity (Hirsch 1972). They come in between symbolic creators and consumers, creating points of articulation and connection between them. They are key to translating the value of new commodities to audiences, engaged as they are in regulating access and exclusion to industries involved in the production of symbolic goods and services - often through small networks of connections, shared values and common life experiences (Negus 2002, p.503-11). Gatekeepers are pivotal in maintaining the specific identity of the local production system, adopting a role of taste-makers. These individuals shape tastes and trends, ‘what sells’ and what is destined to be a flop, by power of the ‘pen’, as is the case of journalists for instance. ‘Influencers’ are generally speaking ahead of their times and through their tastes and choices influence those of the rest of the population (Patterson, Grenny et al. 2007). This involves developing ‘aesthetic principles, arguments, and judgements’ that constitute a significant part of the ‘conventions’ by means of which members of art worlds act together (Becker 1982). Artists in general find themselves seeking, or in any case, needing the approval of such institutionalised peer reviewers in order to access market openings something which is questioned in the case of artists with a subversive cult following (Currid 2007). Producers and promoters of cultural industry products play a key role within the cultural industries, transforming talent and creative ideas into commodifiable11 and

Capterh 3 Crossing cultural borders marketable goods and services. In this sense, gatekeepers do not just decide on who gets through but also on how. Creating an explicit aesthetic may precede, follow, or be simultaneous with developing the techniques, forms, and works which make up the art world’s output. The creation of aesthetic systems can be an ‘industry in its own right’ though, developed and maintained by specialised professionals such as critics (Becker 1982, p.131-2). The role of mediators is to initiate customers to their understanding and adoption of these new trends and fads. While this role was initially devolved to the press, we subsequently witness the emergence of the branchés (from the French for wired, hip), i.e. social figures who are seen as up to date with trends and what is ‘in’ and what is not (Erner 2008, p.36)12. More generally, the discussion on tastes and trends raises the question of the relationship between the individual and the collectivity. Following trends has the psychological advantage of freeing the individual from the pressures of individualism, of being a member of a group rather than an isolated being (Simmel 1988). At the same time, trends demarcate groups: they represent the unity within one group and its break with others. Tastes, as ‘social markers’, develop according to a person’s capital (the set of social or cultural resources an individual benefits from due to his belonging to a specific class) and habitus (the conscious/unconscious forms of behaviour an individual incorporates during his first socialisation experiences, within the family or at school) (Bourdieu 1979). As products in the cultural industries tend to be taste-driven and performance- driven (Currid 2007), selection focuses on the aesthetic qualities of the product. In a discussion with a world music label manager in Paris, it emerged that a journalist from the renowned Le Monde newspaper had stormed out of a concert by an African musician a couple of minutes from the start of the performance, claiming that ‘there are no drums in music from Mali’ (interview no 13). The findings of research on career paths of visual artists in the UK are also particularly telling. Many black artists found that it was difficult to get a following for their work, celebrations of diversity appeared to be more rewarded by galleries than by a critical perspective on it (Honey, Heron et al. 1997). Here it would appear that, while on the one hand the institutional framework might be supporting the progression of migrants (or more generally speaking, as in this case, cultural entrepreneurs of ethnic origin), on the other it might be steering them towards specific market niches. Given the internal and external representation of ethnicity and the relevance of group boundaries, the articulation of ethnicity in cultural production appears to necessitate a multi-layered analysis. Under which conditions is ethnicity mobilised in cultural production? Does it constitute an advantage or a drawback in providing the source of creative inspiration? To what extent is the experience of cultural products shaped by group boundaries and identifications? We now explore these questions taking insights from our fieldwork.

Chapter 3 Cosngr s i cultural borders 3.7ro Ac ss cultural borders: reflections from the fieldwork In the previous section, we presented the parameters shaping our understanding of the interaction between cultural industry production and ethnicity. Here we would like to apply these frameworks to our three research questions, in turn.

1. The extent to which ethnic diversity is activated as symbolic and aesthetic fuel to drive innovation in processes of commodification of culture. Earlier, we referred to the quest for the exotic, for distinction, as a significant causal mechanism in cultural industries production. Here we zoom into the cultural industries’ creative and production processes, and explore the conditions under which ethnicity can become the object of commodification, as a conscious/unconscious, strategic or spontaneous source of creative inspiration. An important caveat needs to specified here: our analysis does not seek to equate the ethnicity of a respondent with a specific, ‘ethnic’ quality of his or her cultural output. We here refer back to the discussion of the concept of homology presented earlier, whereby equating a culture to a people is a highly contested point. In addition, as we have seen in the market typology, the vehicle for diversity can take the form of intermediaries (or middlemen, as earlier referred to), bringing new, diverse products to a wider consumer base. We would like to take a critical perspective here: looking at ethnicity as, a more or less defining, resource migrant cultural entrepreneurs can activate (or not, as the case may be) when engaging in cultural production. The dynamics of such activation vary greatly, as we shall see from the fieldwork findings. As a result, ethnicity appears to be part of a repertoire of resources – yet often becomes a defining resource for migrant cultural entrepreneurs – be this from a subjective and/or externally perceived perspective. In other words, ethnicity, among a variety of scenarios, can come to be part of an actively pursued artistic journey, a strategic business choice or personal imperative, or, on the other hand a constraining factor in the positioning of a migrant cultural entrepreneur in relation to his or her audience. This raises a key question: to what extent can we understand the dynamics behind the interaction of ethnicity and cultural production, without understanding ‘how’ ethnicity comes to matter in cultural industries production? In order to address this, we would argue that it is necessary to make a fundamental distinction between the cultural product and its creator. While our emphasis leads us to focus on ‘cultural industry products’, the ethnic background of migrant cultural entrepreneurs can also come into play. Theoretically, a migrant cultural entrepreneur should be in a position to make a more or less conscious choice as to the mobilisation of his or her ethnic background in his or her work. What is important here is to understand the trajectories of migrant cultural entrepreneurs, or cultural entrepreneurs in general, in finding their own ‘voice’, their creative own identity, beyond the boundaries or labels defining their group or ethnic belonging.

Capterh 3 Crossing cultural borders A shop selling music from India and a variety of other products in Paris

‘My label is Afro-Bohemian and basically. I do African shapes, and our fabrics and textures and I figured well, you need to have an identity so when people see it they know it’s yours, so I came up with this sort of it helps you keep, so when you see the collection you see’ (interview no 28).

Here the links with ethnicity might be more or less implicit or explicitly explored, yet the search for one’s own creative voice can take a variety of ‘routes’, not all necessarily or systematically delving into a person’s ‘roots’. Various elements are brought into play: childhood experiences, sounds, daily environments, travels, neighbours, other people’s cultures and their values, norms, folkways. Here the link with ethnicity becomes clear: in its association with culture, descent, a people’s shared memories or language (Karner 2007), ethnicity becomes a potential source of inspiration, a ‘creative well’ (interview no 32).

‘It’s still a development’, states one fashion designer when referring to his search for his creative identity and style. Memories, images of the past combine, as creative inputs. ‘Curacao has this bridge, it’s called the Pontjesbrug, it’s a small, because you have the capital, it’s divided by a

Chapter 3 Cosngr s i cultural borders harbour, they build this bridge … so this bridge it’s dancing on the water. As a child I remember when I was walking on this bridge and the wind, and you see the skirt and everything, because it’s open sea over water. And the wind is doing everything with the hair, and you see them, and they are very nice African, because a big part is African. The movements, and my mind I think it went a lot of times as a child, the kind of view I have. … It was just those things around; I was looking outside that gave me those influences as a child and later on. But the influence if I go back in my mind, it’s more like walking on this bridge, or the trees, the grass, the waves when you go swimming. Those things are the main influence I think. And later on when I came to Europe, you see the paintings, architecture, things you have seen on paper or photo and you see them in person, later on those things influenced me I think’ (interview no 25).

‘I’m inspired by Africa being a colourful continent, and I get to draw first- hand from an imagery of growing up under the bright yellow sun, surrounded by greenery and red soil. […] I come from a I come from a Tribal Royal family that celebrated festivals with pomp and pageantry. We dress up in our customary wear (the woven cloth called the Kente) and adorned in gold jewels for official engagements and sit before a large gathering. This gave me a proud feeling about the richness of my culture and its traditional values. There is a much to draw for that’ (interview no 32).

Finding one’s creative voice and identity is also about one’s vision of the world and understanding that a subjective perspective is just one among a variety of possibilities. ‘I’ve been thinking about this over the last couple of years’ states one architect ‘finding my own voice. What I mean by that is that you realize that, I realize that the way you understand the world, you kind of try and understand it, you see it through your eyes and your version of the world that you have, you need to try things out and you need to have a kind of belief that what you are doing is worthwhile, you need to have the confidence’ (interview no 5). Finding one’s voice also entails the confidence and determination to carry it forward, defining one’s work and other people’s perspective on it. ‘It takes time to understand that we are unique. […] You have to understand better who you are’ (interview no 2). This is a challenging process: one where the different aesthetic systems can collide and clash. This can lead to confrontation, exclusion, but also synergies and artistic innovation.

‘Culture more so than colour/ethnicity can have a positive effect on creative inspiration. But drawing inspiration from external cultures can also invite exclusion or lead to a certain sense of alienation from the wider society or mainstream British fashion industry. Though the creative arts might be presumed to embrace eclecticism and fluid experimentalism,

Capterh 3 Crossing cultural borders the commercialisation of mass-market tastes often functions via the perpetuation of specific labels centred on homogenised tastes and preferences’ (interview no 18).

Laurindo, fashion designer at his studio in Amsterdam

At the same time, the cultural industry product created becomes a vehicle of expression and communication. ‘I want architecture to be a tool to discuss and express the richness of different cultures so it becomes a vehicle to, so that architecture is not just a dumb form but it has abilities to show off, to express, to enhance, to promote cultural discourses’ (interview no 31). The fluidity of expression in cultural industry products would thus provide a further communication channel for cultural encounters, exchanges and synergies. The cultural product becomes a means to express diversity and in some cases, an imperative dialogue with one’s origins.

‘I am unique and different, representing the music of my country, with special instruments. […] The rhythms are different from the West; they are very happy, dancy’ and again ‘I brought my culture to this country. I never ignore my country in my art’ (interview no 4).

Chapter 3 Cosngr s i cultural borders For others, connecting to one’s background is not an immediate, obvious choice in their work. This journey is more than a direct form of delving into one’s roots, rather it takes the form of a deeper understanding and connection. ‘For the last few years, I’ve been looking at how my background could become a source of inspiration in my work, you know, not in a pastiche kind of way […] in a kind of deep cultural and historical understanding (interview no 31).

However, what emerges clearly from the interviews is a discussion on the ‘labelling’ and stereotyping that often accompanies an ethnic minority background. As a result, ethnicity becomes a structuring force (most) migrant cultural entrepreneurs have to reckon with, insofar as it can modulate expectations by others. Here the literature is helpful in its analysis of the externally and internally perceived boundary dynamics we have explored in the previous sections. The presence of borders between aesthetic systems and tastes, along ethnicity lines, emerges. However, these lines are not just ‘inter-group’. In some cases, from ‘within a group’, relations can also be permeated with expectations and a sense of compliance to a certain style. ‘The funny thing is’ stated one fashion designer ’that when I am dealing with African people they tell me ‘Hey, isn’t your fashion a bit too European?’ […] and sometimes some Europeans say ‘Hey, this is African’. […] We have to break this down’ referring to this stereotyping (interview no 19). Hence, this acts a stark reminder about the ease of falling into the stereotype trap, where a lack of awareness and understanding of the other can lead to broad generalisations and the permanence of boundaries and distance.

‘I started a fashion trend introducing Africa to corsets. Many people (of African descent) criticised me. They said I was denying my roots, I was mistaking myself for a white person. But women loved it, they thought my clothes were beautiful. Before this, African clothes (for special occasions) were the boubou (kaftan). But I didn’t want clothes where people think ‘the weather is nice, you’re in Africa’ (interview no 21).

The internal/external perspective and anticipation related to the ethnicity of the migrant cultural entrepreneur appears sometimes to clash with his or her positioning in relation to the market typologies explored earlier. Often the link to one’s origin can be a constraining element. In our exploration, it appears that among the three cultural industry sectors selected, the relation between the migrant cultural entrepreneurs, their ethnic backgrounds and the level of embeddedness of their cultural products in the ethnic background (if any) varies greatly. For some artistes, being an ambassador of a musical culture is both an opportunity and a challenge: some refuse to adopt a ‘traditional costume’ when playing, to appear more authentic in the eyes of a Western audience (interview n° 2). For others, this is a more conscious choice, a question of identity worth fighting for.

Capterh 3 Crossing cultural borders ‘By the time my parents gave me a choice ‘cut my hair or keep the turban’, I was already playing my instrument, and I thought about it and I thought, I play an Indian instrument and it’s only going to look good, the proper look with the turban, so I decided to keep it. So no, I am not going to cut my hair, I am going to wear my turban. I don’t care how many fights I have, I am going to keep it, I am going to fight for it’ (interview no 13).

Others produce different versions of the same album, one for their country of origin, one for Western ears (see for example Youssou n’Dour). In world music, the commodification of culture is thus confronted with questions of representation of ethnicity and authenticity. Looking at what world music currently encompasses, it should be ‘inclusive’, meaning that its loose classification should allow to host under its banner the most diverse musical influences (Haynes 2004, p.371). In some cases, ‘difference is packaged as normative expression of ethnic identity (Haynes 2004 p.381). Here an ‘essentialised idea of music is tied to the expression of difference of specific ethnic groups or nations (Haynes 2005, p.372). However, there is no ‘essentialised’ identity, but rather a continuum (Connell and Gibson 2003) between authenticity and its instrumentalisation in music production (Brandellero, Calenge et al. 2008).

‘There are people who miscalculate their links to African traditions in their fashion designs. I mean, if you want to want to have some Japanese influences in your clothes, it doesn’t mean that you have to dress up as a Japanese! You should think about what an Italian (referring to the interviewer) wears and bring something new, something different to what she wears. I am not going to impose something. I am an African stylist, but it doesn’t mean that I can only do something nice by doing something original’ (here he meant original in the sense of using African influences). Yes people label me, but it’s also our (African people’s) fault. We are in Paris, we have to adapt. I don’t want to have an African label. When people come to my shop, they expect to find an African shop. But African people can also do other things!’ (interview no 21).

On the one hand, this can be based on prejudice in reason of the minority background; on the other, it can be linked to assumptions as to how migrant cultural entrepreneurs might relate to their background in their creations. ‘Sometimes I say I am Asian in a press thing, and then I think ‘Oh, that’s going to limit who takes notice of that, because unless you are doing something that is you know, using it, if it’s part of your work, whereas it’s not really part of my work, being Asian’ (interview no 20). Drawing an ‘ethnic boundary’ around the process of creativity is thus restricting and fails to pick up on a key feature of creativity itself, notably the fluctuating and boundless reach of inspiration. The present, the past, current and recalled contexts and places come to the fore.

Chapter 3 Cosngr s i cultural borders ‘The beauty of textile art from all across the globe inspires. The natural environment as a rich and varied colour palette provides immense inspiration. […] Inspiration is always all around. Channelling it often requires the same kind of soul-searching that a person lends to finding their spiritual direction! It’s quite an organic process actually!’ (interview no 18).-

‘I draw my inspiration from Paris, this is where I live. I am not in Africa. I live in a big city, this is the reality, this is where I spend my time. I travelled to China and got some inspiration there, which I integrated in my clothes (pointing to a dress on display)’ (interview no 21).

The role of the metropolis as a source of inspiration is also clearly referred to. Traditions and culture come to take place alongside one’s surroundings at the inspiration banquet (interview no 32). ‘Absolutely, yes’ states one fashion designer. ‘London is one of the biggest fashion inspiring cities in the world, we have some of the most creative designers that inspire me. We also have great dress-sense that is expressive and influential’ (interview 32). London is seen as a place where all influences are brought together and mixed (interview 28). Across the channel, there is talk of connecting to the Sadio Bee, mixing fashion traditions, at his studio signs of the times, as we have in Paris seen, an important element of the definition of aesthetic systems. ‘I look around and I adapt, I imbue myself with Paris’s air du temps, and that in itself is not self-evident’ (interview no 19). The ‘sign of our times’ becomes a representation of our metropolitan cultural crossroads, where synergies come to life and where ethnic and cultural boundaries are in constant shift.

‘The métissage (literally, miscegenation, the mixing of races – but in this context it should be meant as the mixing of African and European styles) is alive in our big cities. People come from the world over. You can witness the

Capterh 3 Crossing cultural borders mixing of elements. […] Different trends are part of the environment of big cities. Some are rather reticent. They say ‘African prints! They don’t belong to European culture!’ But in large cities, people can be more open, they live side by side with people from different cultures’ (interview no 4).

Connecting to the place of residence, to the metropolis, is not just a question of inspiration. It is also a more strategic choice in relation to one’s positioning in a context of supply and demand. Here we enter the cultural industries production chain. This is where the ‘commodification boundary’ is crossed. From a logic of artistic creativity we move to a more ‘humdrum logic’ (Caves 2000), where commercial considerations start shaping the choices and strategies of migrant cultural entrepreneurs and their positioning in relation to an audience, a market. To take but one example, Paris in many ways chrysalises all the phases of world music production, from creativity to production, from distribution to consumption. The city presents a thicknebula of world music actors, from all parts of the production chain (Brandellero and Calenge 2008). The city has become a sounding board for hybrid forms, a testing ground, given its receptive producers and audiences, as well assuming a key role as a centre of expertise, of painstaking cataloguing of the human musical heritage, supporting the preservation of traditions and their dissemination (Winders 2006). The metropolis becomes a learning ground where one’s creativity is confronted with a product’s commercial prospects in an ecosystem of commodification of culture. Diversity becomes a source of innovation for the fashion world (interview no 32). Yet it sometimes needs to be adapted to a new context, a new aesthetic system. ‘The ability to dilute certain things, to mix styles, to soften certain silhouettes. This is what Paris taught me’ (interview no 19). In the metropolis, the ‘academic distinction between heritage/tradition and urban/contemporary music is surpassed: we are witnessing a representative mosaic of living culture (Lecomte 2005). Cultural products come to be part of defining consumption patterns, shaping the relations between cultures and highlighting the evolution of local/global connections and linkages between communities of belonging and of taste.

‘Nowadays, people travel, the world is on the move, things change and I believe that tomorrow’s world will be about métissage, mixing people and the acceptance of other. I think this process occurs through material things: clothes, the way we talk, hairstyles, not forgetting our identity, where we come from’ (interview no 19).

Negotiating a position between being creative and living through one’s creativity is subject to several dynamic forces, which we explore in more detail in the next section.

Chapter 3 Cosngr s i cultural borders 2. The dynamics through which the mediation of tastes and trends within the cultural industries comes to shape the boundaries between ethnic/non-ethnic cultural products. The mainstream cultural trends borne by our metropolitan areas are apt to incorporate elements from (ethnic) niches, in a process of cultural osmosis. As we saw earlier, our market typology highlights a spectrum from ethnic niche markets to mainstream assimilation of ‘ethnic’ products. While the boundaries are porous, there is a sense of ‘breaking out’ or making a transition when accessing a wider audience. In a way, as elements of the ethnic niche are incorporated into the mainstream, they acquire a newfound legitimacy. ‘I think what is happening’ stated one interviewee ‘is the ‘Born Again Africans’, suddenly we are realising ‘you know what, I must stop this, it’s pretty cool’ so it’s catching on, but it’s almost as if it’s because the West has endorsed it now, suddenly it’s cool to wear it’ (interview no 28, fashion designer). The same respondent reflected on experiences of discrimination in the past by stating that ‘if someone is putting you down, they are wasting their time. And I can feel that being African has got me a lot more attention because I am doing stuff that is different from a lot of the other designers’ (interview no 28, fashion designer). In some cases, music that has been totally forgotten in its place of origin experiences a resurgence once it is known in Europe, with a kind of ‘boomerang effect’, as is the case for some traditional forms of music brought under the gaze of curious and knowledgeable ethnomusicologists. According to the journalist Hettie Judah, ‘the message is clear: when white people adopt Asian fashions, deck their houses out in Asian fabrics and furniture and mix samples of Asian instruments into their music, they embody mainstream fashion. When Asians make music, theatre or film, their work is classified as underground or fringe’13. This point was echoed in two Parisian interviews, when the fashion house Givenchy’s adoption of Malian textiles for a 2007 show raised great enthusiasm for African prints, while also highlighting the struggle for recognition for African designers based in Paris working with such materials. In the view of one respondent, ‘had it been an African designer, they would have shouted ‘this is too African, too ethnic’ or maybe people wouldn’t even have talked about it. But since it’s a big (fashion) house, with a lot of resources, with a big name, Givenchy […], then it was pure genius’ (interview no 19). Previously ‘niche’ products linked to ethnic communities’ production and consumption patterns become part of the mainstream, while others remain within the confines of group boundaries. Recognition from the ‘West’ acts as a sounding board for trends elsewhere and shapes practices ‘back’ in the country of origin, while others decry a form of ‘cultural-plagiarism’ (interview no 19). Ethnic influences in fashion continue to progress, particularly African fashion. ‘We’re seeing more and more of it as the seasons come by’ (interview no 32).

‘Even when we are back in Nigeria, what we sort of, you always get to see the Western clothes, the Western this, the Western that. You don’t see what we do. A couple of years ago African print came back in and it’s really in now. And it’s almost like ‘oh well, if the West thinks it’s cool then they know’ (interview no 28).

Capterh 3 Crossing cultural borders Imane Ayissi, fashion designer and writer

Often, the presence of different aesthetics, of different taste systems and ways of seeing the world can be a source of conflict and exclusion. One fashion designer experienced this first hand during his training at art school, where he felt part of the teaching was imposing a different concept of beauty upon him. ‘It’s what they want to see. What they are expecting even. And sometimes they can just (try to) move you towards that direction, towards what is beautiful […] when I was at the academy, I had a big fight with the designer teacher there because it was like, I came from Curacao and he was trying to tell me what is beautiful. […] (H)ow come you’re in this position to teach people, if you are telling me that it’s right, your eyes are telling me, there is something in your eyes, no I don’t believe that’ (interview no 25). Often the question of aesthetic judgement often startles creative agents, particularly when it reveals the subjective side of mediation: ‘Who says that this piece of geometry is better than that piece of geometry? […] Really, at the end of the day, I am the one who says mine is better, or hopefully I’ll get a friend of mine to tell everybody else that it’s better or I won’t, but that’s what it is’ (interview 5). One fashion designer stated that coming to Paris, he had to get to know the preferences and tastes of the ‘international woman’, while respecting the techniques and influences of his own country of origin and of different continents. The learning

Chapter 3 Cosngr s i cultural borders process also involved getting to know how to ‘embed’ different elements in different cultures, playing with materials, colours and accessories’ […] ‘When one moves from one country to another, fashion also changes’ (interview no 19). Applying an element of one tradition to a different culture also requires an adaptation in terms of styles and sizes. ‘I do. I’ve got my high-end and I’ve got my diffusion which I call Afromania which is African prints, but I make them fun, they are more for sort of appealing to everyone. I tried to make it young, wearable and different’ (interview no 28). Reaching a broader consumer base is not just a commercial concern, but reflects the desire to communicate to a wider audience through one’s cultural product. ‘We always aspire to continue to reach as broad an audience as possible with our work (interview no 18) says one fashion designer. Customer bases show that boundaries are very often transcended and viewing products from an ‘ethnic niche’ perspective can give a narrow view of the appeal of a product. ‘We have a large range of countries buying our collections, a mix of cultures and different origins, Spain, Japan, Senegal, Canada, Brazil, South Korea, Italy, Saudi Arabia, France, Lebanon, Taiwan, Indonesia, Egypt, Morocco, USA, Romania etc. This demonstrates the variety of cultures which identity with the same creation’ (interview no 14). And in the words of another fashion designer: ‘Funnily my clients, it’s not really Africans. It’s funny because the one African shop that I have clothes in, they don’t fly, the other shop I have my things it, they just fly out of the door. Their customers are English people, Jamaicans, Blacks, Whites, all sorts of people but so I don’t think my customers are African. Maybe it’s because African print, I didn’t even

A Maame Baryeh fashion design, photo courtesy of Jordan Matyka

Capterh 3 Crossing cultural borders like it’ (interview no 28), again highlighting the problematic nature of labels and their heavy weight of expectations.

I still enjoy cultural ties with all 3 countries of origin (Tanzania, Kenya & Ghana) and love to infuse that influence within my design, whilst also embracing a distinctly British style sensibility (interview no 18)

The struggle for migrant musicians engaging in world music production highlighted the presence of a different aesthetic ‘conflict’. Here the struggle is often one of positioning in relation to notions of “authenticity” and the idea of a pure, immutable sound lodged in a traditional musical style. The mediation of ‘authenticity’ in world music appears to be the key to market entry for migrant musicians based in Paris, imposing a spectrum of readings of ethnic resources and ethnicity, ranging from essentialised to hybrid. As a consequence, while the ethnic repertoires mobilised by migrant musicians may offer a competitive edge, it is nonetheless confronted with varied logics of music production. Here the interpretations vary: what is authentic au pays might not be deemed as such by expert ethnomusicologists in quest for pure sounds. The ability of migrants to be bearers of innovation in a musical sense appears to increase as we shift away from a more purist, traditional reading of world music. In a strict sense, migrant musicians appear to be at a disadvantage when attempting to break into a traditional music market, as creativity, production and consumption are ruled by stricter commodification standards. Here expert ethnomusicologists and public institutions act as ‘intermediaries’ in middlemen markets, offering products high in ethnic content to a widely non-ethnic audience. The geographical distance between migrant musicians and the place of origin of the ethnic repertoire they mobilise is seen here as an insurmountable issue. As a result, the traditions brought by migrants are at best ranked as second rate (Brandellero 2008). For one musician, a successful trajectory as an ‘authentic’, traditional musician while in Senegal should have provided sufficient peer recognition for starting a musical career in Paris, yet crossing borders meant that his music was seen as tarnished (interview no 3). In some cases however, community music gains an authenticity status in its own right: most notably in cases when the migrant heritage is rediscovered and drawn from by artists who are able to reach a wider audience. It is the case of the album Diwan by Rachid Taha, in which he covered a song by migrant musician Mohamed Mazouni, as well as artists who were famous in Algeria during the 50s-60s. This album was inspired by a desire to “sing the songs that influence me and pay homage to my culture” (Denselow 2006). Around the ‘aura’ of creativity we find an ecosystem of gatekeepers, shaping the trajectories of cultural entrepreneurs through their reviews, opinions, consumption patterns. ‘There’s a little bubble of people who have the power, it’s either the press or people who are known for dressing in a certain way, or film stars or celebrity endorsement is the most important thing but you can’t be seen to be wanting it because that makes you anti-fashion. It’s not fashionable to want it desperately’ (interview no 20). For others, gatekeepers represent a sort of ‘mafia’ (interview no 31), emphasising

Chapter 3 Cosngr s i cultural borders the importance of professional and social connections and the impact of being linked in or not can have on somebody’s career trajectory. This applies in all three sectors, as one architect points out ‘everybody’s got their elbows out and they all want to be in, so you know of course you get together and make sure that their friends become the editor of the architecture journal or they make sure that they are going drinking with the editor or the publisher of the architectural review’ (interview no 5).

‘I don’t like the media. For me being successful means selling clothes. I don’t need to be applauded by the media. Plus it’s hard work (to get in the press). There is a wall, them and the others. It’s a closed world’ (interview no 21).

Gatekeepers come in tiers, or so it would seem. We would argue that each market typology has its own gatekeepers, reflecting the presence of parallel value chains, from creativity to consumption. A study of world music production in Paris for instance highlighted the presence of parallel market nebula, from community-based, traditional and contemporary styles and outputs. Making it in one sphere does not appear conducive to recognition in another. On the contrary, strong aesthetic and value systems help maintain boundaries between market niches for these three types of world music. Breaking out or branching out from one niche to the other often requires adapting to a new aesthetic or linking up with a different ecosystem of producers (Brandellero, Calenge et al. 2008). It also appears to be linked to trends, so that opportunities for exposure and reaching out to a wider audience, also through communication media, fluctuate according to what is ‘in’ or ‘out’. Increasingly, social networking sites and events form the basis for exchanges and offer platforms of visibility for cultural entrepreneurs, irrespective of their background. By- passing more traditional media and gatekeeping arenas, these channels offer opportunities to make the ‘long tail’ of cultural products appear on the radar. ‘There are more avenues to take now’ states one fashion designer. ‘We are having events that are becoming more and more recognised, like runway shows celebrating designers from ethnic backgrounds, such as Catwalk the World, K2C and This Day/Arise Magazine’s newly launched catwalk event. There is a continuous growth of Blog sites and on the internet promoting African designers. We have Facebook, You Tube, Twitter and Myspace. All these are brilliant promotional sites that are helpful in getting your name out there and they are also a free tool which helps in pushing forward designers from the African continent into the mainstream arena’ (interview no 32).

‘Because the African print is in right now, now is the time to get into one of those places (mainstream magazines). Most of the mainstream magazines are very trendy so whatever is in is what they are going to put in their magazines, so if you have something, they might put it in not just because they like the shape. I do think that they are opening up a bit more but it is really once in a while you might see some flashes on African print, unless like now it’s in’ (interview no 28).

Capterh 3 Crossing cultural borders In some cases, crossing the commodification boundary entails making compromises in relation to one’s art. This is a critical juncture in which artistic and commercial priorities can collide. One musician reported having received many rejections by record labels, accompanied by pressures to change his music to adapt to more trendy styles. These rejections became a sort of blessing, allowing the artist to get more in touch with his music and find his own musical identity. ‘Because I had to go and look elsewhere (given the rejections), I am now able to make music that really represents me’ (interview no 2). In other cases, trends are embraced as a source of innovation and competitiveness. ‘My style is to follow fashion and trends, do what is in, but with an African twist, I do it my way with African prints. I mix fashion (je métisse la mode). If you want Europeans to wear the clothes, you have to mix the styles. […]Young Africans don’t want to wear African print. European clients love originality, new things and colour’ (interview no 30). Playing for a wider audience for one musician has meant making music in a different rhythm pattern. As his main concern was playing for a non-Algerian audience, his music has led him to mix styles and teach his listeners to follow the vibe of a non-Western rhythm (interview no 4). Sectorial recognition by one’s peers or critics can open many doors though, yet ‘ethnically targeted’ awards seem to raise mixed feelings, raising questions as to parallel institutional fields of production and consumption. One respondent who had received an award for best Black and Minority Ethnic fashion designer stated that there were ‘places I had tried (to access) before and they were like ‘No’ but now I got the award behind me (it has opened many doors) (interview no 28). For others though, while the recognition remains a necessity, it does not automatically result in a higher gear career-wise. One tailor reported being featured in a double spread feature on tailors ‘that’s how I started getting a following, because they included me in this double-page spread and I started getting really high-powered women coming into the studio […] and then I thought ‘Right, this is the way forward, to get the right PR’ […] so I thought I surely must get lots of breaks now I’ve got this, but it’s been a slow route since then’ (interview no 20). For migrant cultural entrepreneurs, recognition by press connected to their country of origin or ethnicity occurs more spontaneously. ‘I’ve had some press coverage in African media, but I haven’t made it into Vogue or Marie Claire yet! You need networks (of connections) to access the media world. An ad in Vogue is very expensive, maybe around 5,000 Euros. I don’t have the means for this. I have tried to approach the media with press dossiers but I never heard back from them. I cannot invest in this at the moment (i.e. chasing the media)’ (interview no 4). Recognition press or media in relation to the alleged ‘ethnic’ quality often gives way to concerns about being pigeon- holed or stereotyped. Yet, as one designer states: ‘I don’t necessarily do ethnic fashion. There are some elements in some collections. So if they want, I can do ethnic fashion, it all depends on the demand. […] But it’s really a label I fight against […] a designer is a designer. We should just let people express themselves through their work’ (interview no 19), indicating that externally placed labels are rather unhelpful and constraining part of the creative process.

Chapter 3 Cosngr s i cultural borders The Sonima record shop in the Château d’Eau neighbourhood, Paris

The ethnic background of a designer can become a lens through which his or her creativity is perceived and valued. The work of any artist often takes on the politics of that artist’s individual identity. It’s almost inevitable I think. From my experience, this labelling is particularly profound when used by the Anglo-British establishment to evaluate the artistic contributions of non-Anglo British-based creatives. I personally don’t take issue with my work being defined as ‘ethnic’ in inspiration (I myself have applied the modified term ‘ethno-couture’ to what we do […]). The only point at which the label ‘ethnic’ becomes problematic is when its use leans toward the limiting assumption that ‘ethnic’ creativity is of a narrow or somehow inferior sphere’ (interview no 18).

‘A lot of ethnic architecture tends to be very kitsch, they tend to represent what the rest of the world thinks it should be, and I think it’s much deeper than that. […] I think if you break that kind of typology of cliché and pastiche, then it’s accepted by a lot of people and it’s also understood much clearer, and you also help the culture that you are representing’ (interview no 31).

Capterh 3 Crossing cultural borders The question of labelling is unhelpful in more than one way. To an external, ill-advised observer, a migrant cultural entrepreneur might maintain strong links with his or her country of origin. Yet the relation between cultural entrepreneurs who have settled abroad and their country of origin is far from linear. For some, achieving recognition abroad is a necessity in order to gain recognition ‘back home’ (interview no 19). For others, being abroad provides an opportunity to practice an art form that would otherwise be frowned upon in the country of origin. This is the case of one artiste revealing that, because of the fact she had not followed a strict education curriculum in learning to play a traditional Japanese instrument, her talent and skills were not considered legitimate in her home country (interview no 16). The transition from cultural creativity to cultural commodification would appear to respond to a combination of dynamics and logics, subject to a fluctuating aesthetic system which accepts new elements on one part, legitimises them, or rejects them on the basis of vaguely defined concepts of authenticity or belonging. In the final part of the analysis we turn to a concluding section aimed at exploring the question of how ethnicity comes to matter in cultural-product industries.

Exploring how ethnic diversity matters in the cultural industries. The idea that the mainstream rooted in a form of ‘composite culture’, reflecting the ‘mixed, hybrid character of the ensemble of cultural practices and beliefs’ has evolved in contemporary societies (Alba and Nee 2003, p.10). Cultural production moves beyond a fragmented vision of different ethnicities and cultures, embracing the idea of cultural hybridism as that ‘it’s not about singular cultures, that is really what I am trying to say, because also in the past there hasn’t always been just one singular culture. I think my point is more generic, it’s about embracing multi-cultures, because England is about multi-cultures. I think that to me is very positive’ (interview no 31). Perspectives on the relationship between migrants and ‘host’ societies have moved away from the idea that social-cultural distinctiveness could hamper incorporation (Alba and Nee 2003). To the contrary, on the ground we find the idea that the more diverse inputs, the better, creatively speaking.

‘Fortunately, London can absorb it, I think London is big enough and powerful enough and grand enough to actually thrive off it, and actually think it’s genuinely thrives off it because the more input London gets, the more powerful it gets’ (interview no 5).

Here we explore the conditions under which ethnicity matters in cultural industries, from the perspective of the creative workers and their products, be it as an advantage or disadvantage. Migrant cultural entrepreneurs’ attitude towards the question of ethnicity is often an intricate one: generally speaking, receiving a distinction as a minority cultural entrepreneur is greeted with mixed feelings. While the recognition linked to ethnicity (i.e. Best Black British Designer; Best Asian designer) is highly

Chapter 3 Cosngr s i cultural borders valued, it is often felt as ‘competing in a different category’ from the heavyweights. The objective still remains to achieve the top recognition in the field, regardless of ethnicity (interview no 20). Gaps in equality of opportunities across gender, ethnicity and race boundaries persist and in some cases, they shape the experiences of migrants’ access to and trajectories within the cultural industries. Speaking in 2007 of his three recently commissioned projects in London, all of which with an overt British-African dimension, architect David Adjaye reflected on his position as a British-Ghanaian and the risk of being categorised and stereotyped if seen to be taking on projects linked to his African heritage. Yet he concluded ‘if I can’t do a project that does have an explicit racial agenda to it, then the whole thing is reversed – so that as a person of ‘colour’, I cannot do a project that is about ‘colour’. I can only do projects that are not about ‘colour’. And yet people of ‘non-colour’ can do projects of ‘colour’. This becomes madness! So I decided this was all ridiculous. Not only did I have to do these projects, but also they were an incredible honour’ (Rose 2007). Caution is due: often diversity is offered as an independent variable in explaining why certain things happen, but we should be careful to ensure that this is not an explanation of events post-facto. In fact, many respondents refused to consider ethnicity as an explaining variable for certain more or less successful trajectories.

Yemi Osunkoya at his studio in London

Capterh 3 Crossing cultural borders ‘That Black and White thing, it just goes over my head. I don’t see it. […] It’s like with everything, there are clothes I won’t buy and it’s not because it’s from one culture and so on, it’s just because I don’t like it. I know there are some designers who say “Oh it’s because I am Black” and in my mind it’s just ‘Oh get over it, it’s got nothing to do with that’. I always tell people, ‘if your stuff is good quality, Black, White or orange or whatever you are, it’s going to sell’. I do sometimes feel it’s an excuse but I’ve never, for me it’s never been a problem ever’ (interview no 28).

A more complex analytical layer is added by the question of race. Discrimination is often veiled, subtle, a glass ceiling which is there but cannot be seen, or sometimes betrayed by people’s attitudes. ‘Sometimes people here, they come up and they are like ‘wow’ because you are a black man, and they see the shop, the clothes. And they probably don’t expect this to be in the hands of a black man. But they don’t say it. It’s like when I go to a shop to present my collection. People have a lot of expectations’ (interview 25). Stumbling blocks persist and reappear, and particular strategies are adopted to counteract prejudice. ‘I traded under a different name […] for quite a few years, because I thought the name might be a barrier, and cause me problems’, stated one fashion designer (interview no 20). ‘I felt I had to build up a profile to get over the prejudice. I had a lot of big things happening, but then every now and then you get people ask ‘Oh, do you make Asian clothes’ or the City newspaper saying ‘Oh, we don’t do your sort of thing’. But what do you mean?’ In some cases, ‘the face value of who I am rather than the track record’ seemed to matter more in the assessment and appreciation of her work (interview no 20). This quote from an architect also highlights a response to prejudice.

‘Recently, we were shortlisted for a competition for the UK. I am very grateful, it’s for a local authority in the North of England. And I didn’t go and present the project and I asked one of my staff to go and present because the thing is that I know that to have somebody not Caucasian would go down very badly, because the panel was very conservative. And so I actually sent my staff. They know me, […] but it’s one thing knowing who the director of the office is, the other thing is to put a red flag in front of the bull, it’s not so clever’ (interview no 31).

The term ‘racism’ is often spoken. ‘Racism here really exists, but we don’t talk about it’ (interview no 19). The question seems particularly present in architecture, in which, as we have seen, significant equality gaps persist, as in gender as along minority lines. ‘It’s always jobs for the boys, the same boys. Even for a young, Caucasian woman, they also find it difficult. There is a lot of stigma associated (interview no 31). Any kind of ‘outsiders’ to this norm was not seen as usual, but while it’s still seen as a rather conservative profession, ‘post-war architecture, architecture schools, liberalisation,

Chapter 3 Cosngr s i cultural borders opened it up to a much bigger discourse, but the necessity to increase the discourse in terms of race’ (interview no 5). Yet the question of race and prejudice opens up a complex mix of reactions, mainly highlighting a desire among respondents not to define one’s trajectory on the basis of this. ‘I don’t want (prejudice) to be used as an excuse to say that’s why I didn’t get the job and that’s why I am not as famous as somebody else or whatever, because it’s just not the truth. Do you feel racism? The answer is yes, because there is mistrust for anybody who is brown, Muslim, from Pakistan (interview no 5). The only think I would say we don’t get many jobs in the UK, so the thing. I would not want to use the word race as a problem but I think because our design doesn’t suit a certain type of culture. My architecture doesn’t quite suit certain tastes and I can’t say that’s anything to do with race’ (interview no 31). Current affairs and wider geo-political issues can also come into play in influencing the positioning of migrant cultural entrepreneurs. 9/11 is mentioned as a turning point by some, suggesting issues of mistrust and fear. Talking about being a Pakistani migrant in the UK, one respondent suggested that ‘pre-9/11, the image was either you are a grocer, corner store, or whatever […] There is mistrust for anybody who is brown, Muslim, from Pakistan, there. It’s not a great combination in 2009, but on the other side I have a lot of people who think it’s absolutely fine’ (interview no 5). This is echoed by another respondent ‘After 9/11, there are many doubts about Arab people. People check you twice’ (interview no 4). Beyond prejudice and discrimination, we would here like to focus on two positive aspects which highlight how ethnic diversity matters in cultural production, notably opening a perspective the cultural bridges which migrant cultural entrepreneurs are building in our societies and on the role of the outsider as a mirror. The serendipitous or volitional character of our encounters with diversity entails a more or less conscious reflection on identity. The ability to see things differently, to bring a new view of the world and the vibrant exchanges this entails is a source of inspiration and creativity for many (interviews 10, 11, 12). Working together or alongside unleashes powerful challenges to our preconceived ideas. Outsiders, misfits – by definition do not fit in. Yet there is much more than a quest for the exotic at stake here. There is a true opportunity to reflect on oneself. Hence the image of the outsider as a mirror, as a window onto ourselves. After all, how could we be so quick in judging the other, when we would struggle to define ourselves in the first instance? Suddenly, the interfaces with people from different backgrounds and ethnicities that diversity sparks, becomes an experience of growth and understanding. ‘Having those interfaces and coming across people, being challenged by it, you know you really kind of see things in a very different way. It’s extremely enjoyable but also makes quite a challenge because you think ‘Who the hell am I?’’ (interview no 5). Openness to diversity can also be seen as an asset at a time of increasing global exchanges and connections. The diversity migrant cultural entrepreneurs bring enables places and cultural production to become part of a much wider and deeper cultural conversation with the world. On the subject of one’s work reflecting one’s culture, an architect states ‘this will be my trajectory. This will be my mission. I think it doesn’t

Capterh 3 Crossing cultural borders matter if in my life I wouldn’t get these things accepted or built. But I think if I can start the conversation, maybe the generations behind me would realize that. And I think that is what I feel what I should be doing as an educator and a practitioner’ (interview no 31). Beyond cultural essentialism, the migrant cultural entrepreneurs involved in this research act as a reminder of the need to look beyond a social constructivist perspective on ethnicity, beyond the labels and groups, but rather at the wider context, be it cultural, social or economic, in which these come to matter. As Barth pointed out, the focus of the investigation should be on the boundaries defining a group rather than its ‘ethnic content’ (Barth 1969). This acts as a reminder to the presence of cultural borders which still need to be accounted for; it also points towards the role of cultural production in expressing, reproducing, validating or dissipating these borders. Yet it still appears that at the level of cultural production and markets, certain borders persist, structured along aesthetic lines and volatile trends and commercial considerations. Beyond supply and demand considerations, cultural migrant entrepreneurs play a role as bridges between cultures, communities of belonging and taste. They bring places closer together. They bring people closer together by mixing styles and traditions. They can support a more open and tolerant environment. ‘Mixing styles, leads to openness. (If you are wearing clothes made from African prints), people will come to you and ask what it is. It’s a starting point for bringing people together. My mission is to get people to wear African prints. To put forward an African touch, my African touch!’ (interview no 4). If as some say ‘there is no fashion without culture’ (interview no 14), then cultural industries provide a channel for the expression of the diversity of cultural creative vibrancy and innovation. The transition from cultural creativity to cultural commodification would appear to respond to a combination of dynamics and logics, subject to a fluctuating aesthetic system which accepts new elements legitimises them, or rejects them on the basis of vaguely defined concepts of authenticity or belonging. In the final part of the analysis we turn to a concluding section aimed at exploring the question of how ethnicity comes to matter in cultural-product industries.

3.1eo Th r le of policy in the field of diversity in the cultural industries This research considered how ethnic diversity is experienced in cultural production: more specifically, to what extent ethnicity matters in the production and consumption of cultural industry goods. This has led to addressing questions of the representations of the world these products put forward, how these representations are shaped and by whom. The findings have highlighted the creative tensions and innovative potential that cultural migrant entrepreneurs can engender. Acting as a window on a different cultural paradigm or simply reminding us of the preconceived ideas with which we view and label the ‘other’, migrant cultural entrepreneurs are increasingly contributing to the cultural vibrancy of our cities, shaping niche and mainstream markets alike. One could argue that crossing, blurring or shifting cultural boundaries is part of the creative experience, full stop. While this is, without question, a key ingredient of creativity,

Chapter 3 Cosngr s i cultural borders our analysis has shown that ‘how’ ethnicity comes to matter becomes a significant element of understanding the relationship between creativity and its commodification for migrant cultural entrepreneurs. Diversity and innovation can be seen as mutually reinforcing: diversity can lead to innovation, while innovation is a necessary condition of diversity. We divide our conclusions and recommendations in three sections: creativity, production and mediation and consumption.

Creativity The empirical material gathered for this research is but the very tip of an iceberg of vibrant and diverse cultural industries in the three cities. Cultural industries products can be seen as vehicles of identity, value and meaning. Their cultural content brings to bear on symbolic meaning, artistic dimension and cultural values that originate from or express cultural identities. Yet looking when trying to measure the level of creative diversity, we run the risk of measuring the diversity of producers but being blind as to the actual or imagined diversity of cultural goods and vice versa. Here we enter the slippery field of defining authenticity and identity and how this translates in cultural production, and for whom. We also risk entering into the question of uniqueness versus plurality of identities and expressions, towards an essentialist view of what cultural industries products pertaining to creatives with diverse backgrounds ‘should’ be like. Recognising the legitimacy and value of the cultural métissage taking place in our large urban areas is also necessary. Yet beyond the vibrancy of hybridization, it is important to recognise that creativity should not be bound by superimposed ethnic boundaries. Music and fashion presented more visible creative diversity, unlike architecture, where for reasons explored, lower levels of diversity manifest themselves at once in the participation by minorities to the sector and in the stronger spatial embeddedness of outputs. In all three sectors a strong potential for initiating cultural conversations and exchanges was noted. This revealed the significance of role models and mentoring, opening avenues for diversity to strengthen its voice in the three sectors’ creativity arenas. This research evidenced the drive and motivation of migrant cultural entrepreneurs for whom the expression of creativity through entrepreneurship is a means to convey a positive message of openness and tolerance. In this sense, budding migrant cultural entrepreneurs need ‘cultural trailblazers’, to set an example and at the same time engage in a dialogue promoting recognition of the value of diversity.

Production and valorisation The free flow of ideas brought about by tolerant and open places, and particularly the proximity in diversity which characterises large urban areas, provides an enabling and nurturing ground for exchanges and interactions. The recognition of new forms of creativity derived from the intercultural exchanges as vibrant and dynamic forms of the intangible heritage of our cities needs to be granted. In addition, intellectual property rights should reflect the developments in cultural creativity and hybridity in a more flexible way. Recognizing the role of gatekeepers and mechanisms of mediation

Capterh 3 Crossing cultural borders in the cultural industries is essential. Exploring the notion of mediation in the cultural industries is a stark reminder of contrast between the lucky few and the plethora of hopefuls trying to get some recognition. Understanding cultural industries production involves unveiling the mechanisms through which aesthetic conventions and paradigms come into being and evolve. Attention should be paid to the commondification boundary, as a negotiated passage between creativity and the cultural industry production chain, modulated by trade- offs between cultural and economic considerations over the anticipated outcomes of a product in a market exchange environment (Brandellero and Kloosterman, 2007). Analysing this form of institutionalised filtering and recognition of creativity is crucial to grasping processes of cultural commodification and the interaction between culture and the economy therein. The question of defining diversity raises the issue of whether there can be one single appropriate policy or strategy in place to support and enable it. One approach could be to mainstream of basic values and methods in different policy areas. Reinforcing partnerships among different actors, ranging from government to civil society, non-governmental organisations and the private sector, fostering and promoting the diversity of cultural expressions and recognising the primordial role played by education, even from a very early age, in encouraging curiosity towards the other and openness, should remain high on the policy agenda.

Consumption In a Simmelian sense, the apparently inconsequential consumption patterns of denizens are in fact the expression of modern city life. Yet there appears to be a gap between the diversity of local populations and the cultural diversity on offer. Large metropolises are a breeding ground for avid cultural consumers, be they driven by curiosity, ideology or transnational links, among other things. Art is often evaluated on the basis of its ability to reach the mainstream and talk to a wider audience. Maybe we should turn the tables and pay more attention to the ability to communicate, represent and be accessible to minorities. This calls for a greater awareness of forms and practices of stereotyping, and a greater advocacy towards a mutual respect and equality with the ‘other’. This leads us to restate the fundamental need to explore further the overarching question of the commodification of culture. Many questions are raised by Jameson’s analysis of the increasing overlap between the economy and culture. As he noted, culture has become ‘profoundly economic or commodity oriented’ (Jameson 1998, p.73). This, in turn, raises questions about the value of culture, especially when it is submitted to the merciless fluctuations of tastes and trends. Yet we should be careful with applying the product life cycle to cultural products or products with a cultural value and symbolic content: we are here looking at trends which as the theory goes, would inevitably decline at the end of their life cycle (Sproles 1981). While African prints or klezmer music might be currently ‘in’, this should not avert a deeper reflection on the significance and meaning of these forms of cultural expression and more intricate realities to which they refer. While new, previously ‘ethnically circumscribed’ elements might become adopted by the mainstream, a more responsible form of

Chapter 3 Cosngr s i cultural borders cultural production and consumption is called for, whereby the traditions of the other do not simply translate into a quest for the exotic and its commercialisation. Attention should be given in order to avoid commodification resulting into the trivialisation and fetishisation of diversity. A sustainable approach to cultural expressions and practices, their renewal and regeneration, calls for the recognition and incorporation of creativity and its diversity of expressions into local, regional and national strategic plans, and for a mainstreaming of policy options relating to cultural diversity more in general.

Table 3‑4 – Dimensions of diversity in cultural industries production and consumption

ACTORS AND Identifying the gatekeepers and mediators that set trends and act as AGENCIES intermediaries within and across cultural practices Encouraging a reflexive approach, which promotes a greater (mutual) understanding of cultural practices and expressions Analysing the role of public, private and civil society institutions in shaping intercultural practices and inter-group relations Advocating and developing a series of competences and skills set to deal with the question of diversity SPACES AND Identifying, protecting and promoting spaces and places of exchange, PLACES recognising these might be actual places (temporary or permanent), institutions (e.g. markets) or virtual spaces. Recognising the transnational dimension of cultural exchanges and practices Exploring the role of the media in enabling and promoting (actual and potential) intercultural dialogue, exchange and communication PROCESSES AND Exploring the participation and consultation of groups to cultural DYNAMICS production and consumption Understanding the dynamics of supply and demand of cultural industry products and their relation to (actual or perceived) boundaries between groups and their social distance Understanding the dynamics of intercultural dialogue in relation to the cultural industries’ production and consumption processes Analysing the extent to which the adoption of diverse cultural expressions is reflected in a change in cultural practices and inter/intra- group relation Ensuring the sustainability of cultural practices, in view/light of their potential commodification Enhancing cultural diversity awareness and competence among intermediaries, by developing training and involving competent individuals with intercultural competence skills Focusing support on activities that bring different cultural values into contact and acting as catalyst for creative exchange Supporting hybrid forms of cultural expression – as an expression of the changing times rather than as a rootless form of expression INDICATORS AND Looking at production and consumption of cultural goods and services MEASUREMENTS through an intercultural lens Measuring the diversity of producers/products/consumers and exploring the dynamics of adoption of diverse cultural practices by different groups and communities Analysing trends in relation to cultural practices and their adoption Exploring public initiatives and cultural practices and their relation to diversity

Capterh 3 Crossing cultural borders The theoretical and empirical research carried out calls for a more reflexive position on the diversity question, particularly as it is becoming ever more subject to commodification dynamics, entering the realm of commerce and giving rise to economic opportunities and forms of exploitation. As we have seen, the boundaries between social groups and cultural products, with the appropriation, adoption or simple acceptance of diverse cultural expressions and practices, are shifting. Future research could benefit from a focus on the way in which diverse cultural practices and expressions are giving rise to new, hybrid and innovative cultural products and services and the dynamics through which these are shaped. In addition, there is a need to grasp the networked nature of cultural interactions in order to understand the materialisation of cultural voice, realising that in ‘such a confluence of territoriality and extra-territoriality in which cultural memories, meanings, and identities are continually renegotiated, the search for global rules to govern cultural policies has entered a new millennium featuring both state and non-state actors’ (Singh 2007, p.39). The past connection between geographical place and cultural expressions – has now become more tenuous as a result of globalisation and connection between community and identity. But globalisation can also be a force creating and proliferating identity. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for the sustainable development of present and future generations.

Chapter 3 Cosngr s i cultural borders 3.2ne An x – Topic guide Format: open questions covering the following elements:

Demographics »» Date and place of birth »» Nationality »» Ethnicity »» Arrival in the Netherlands/France/UK

Qualifications »» Formal qualifications (and education trajectory) – specifying: »» qualification obtained »» skills »» geographical location »» other info

Professional experience »» Spatial and temporal account of respondents’ trajectory highlighting specific key moments in career, including: »» Position, duration, location, skills. »» Architecture/fashion/music currently as primary occupation? »» Explore other types of activities the respondent is engaged in (and link to architecture/fashion/music)

Creating »» Sources of inspiration. »» Access to sources of inspiration. »» Relation to background: country of origin, ethnicity. »» Experience of labelling: has your work ever been defined as ethnic? If so please explain this situation and your response to it.

Client base »» Description of client base. »» Provenance of client base and geographical location. »» Does your work change according to the client base?

Relation to fashion production/industry »» Were there specific turning points in your career? »» Significant moments in progression, specific encounters »» Were these negative or positive?

Capterh 3 Crossing cultural borders »» How have you promoted your work? »» How would you say the sector’s media and press relate to and reflect diversity?

On being in Amsterdam/London/Paris »» Has being in Amsterdam/London/Paris had an influence on your career? If yes, in what way? »» What is your experience with openness to diversity in your field of activity in Amsterdam/London/Paris?

Context (economic, political, social, cultural) »» Public policies (local, regional, national) »» Political climate »» Programmes and initiatives »» How would you define the level of openness to diversity in your sector of activity? »» What do you see as opportunities for you in the future? »» What do you see as constraints for you in the future? »» Would you say this is specific to Amsterdam/London/Paris or wider? »» Any other comments?

Chapter 3 Cosngr s i cultural borders Rferencee s Adorno, T. and M. Horkheimer (2002). The Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments, trans. Edmund Jephcott, Stanford: Stanford University Press. Adorno, T. W. and J. M. Bernstein (2001). The culture industry: Selected essays on mass culture, Brunner-Routledge. Alba, R. and V. Nee (1997). “Rethinking assimilation theory for a new era of immigration.” International Migration Review 31(4): 875–92. — (2003). Remaking the American Mainstream. Assimilation and contemporary immigration. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. Amin, A. and N. Thrift (1992). “Neo-Marshallian nodes in global networks.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 16(4): 571-587. Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined Communities. Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. New York, Verso. Anthony, K. H. (2001). Designing for diversity: gender, race, and ethnicity in the architectural profession. Urbana and Chicago, University of Illinois Press. Appadurai, A. (1988). The social life of things: commodities in cultural perspective. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. — (1990). “Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy.” Theory, Culture & Society 7(2): 1-24. Bachu, P. (1988). Dangerous design: Asian women and the new landscapes of fashion. Who’s afraid of feminism? Seeing through the backlash. A. Oakley and M. J. London, Penguin. Barth, F. (1969). Ethnic groups and boundaries: The social organization of culture. London, Allen and Unwin. Barthes, R. (1990). The fashion system, University of California Press. Baumann, G. (1999). The multicultural riddle: rethinking national, ethnic, and religious identities. London, Routledge. Becker, H. S. (1982). Art Worlds. Berkeley, University of California Press. Benjamin, W. (1936). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. Bianchini, F. and M. Parkinson (1994). Cultural policy and urban regeneration: The West European experience. Manchester, Manchester University Press. Blumer, H. (1969). Social movements. Studies in social movements: a social psychological perspective. B. McLaughlin. New York, Free Press: 8-29. Bonacich, E. (1972). “A theory of middleman minorities.” American Sociological Review 37: 583-94. Bourdieu, P. (1971). “Le marché des biens symboliques.” L’Année sociologique 22: 49-126. — (1979). La distinction: critique sociale du jugement. Paris, Editions de Minuit. — (2004). Questions de sociologie. Paris, Editions de Minuit. Brandellero, A. M. C. (2008). Les immigrés transnationaux dans les industries culturelles : des vecteurs d’innovation ? Le cas des musiques du monde Paris Clusters, Milieux d’Innovation et Industries culturelles en Ile-de-France. Brandellero, A. M. C. and P. Calenge (2008). Le fonctionnement des filieres des musiques du monde: une approche par les individus. Rapport. Les Faubourgs Numériques, Paris. Brandellero, A. M. C., P. Calenge, et al. (2008). Clusters, Milieux d’Innovation et Industries culturelles en Ile-de-France. Brandellero, A. M. C. and R. C. Kloosterman (2007). “Creatieve migranten? Een conceptuele analyse van de rol van migranten in de cultural industries.” Migrantenstudies 23(2). CABE (2005). Minority ethnic representation in the built environment professions. London, Royal Holloway, University of London. Caglar, A. S. (1998). “Popular Culture, Marginality and Institutional Incorporation: German- Turkish Rap and Turkish Pop in Berlin.” Cultural Dynamics 10(3): 243. Cartner-Mortley, J. (2009). Eyes front. The Guardian. London.

Capterh 3 Crossing cultural borders Caves, R. E. (2000). Creative industries: Contracts between art and commerce. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. Collins, J., M. Morrissey, et al. (1995). Employment 1995 State of the nation: A report on people of non-English speaking background. Canberra, Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner. Connell, J. and C. Gibson (2003). Sound Tracks. Popular music, identity and place, Routledge. Currid, E. (2007). The Warhol economy: how fashion, art, and music drive New York City. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Davis, F. (1994). Fashion, culture, and identity. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. DCMS (2002). Regional cultural data framework: a user’s guide for researchers and policy makers. DCMS. London, DCMS. Denselow, R. (2006). Rachid Taha Diwan album review The Guardian. DiMaggio, P. (1977). “Market structure, the creative process, and popular culture: toward an organizational reinterpretation of mass-culture theory.” Journal of popular culture 11(2): 436-452. Dubet, F. (1989). “Trois processus migratoires.” Revue française des affaires sociales 33(3): 7–28. Eikhof, D. R. and A. Haunschild (2007). “For art’s sake! Artistic and economic logics in creative production.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 28(5): 523-538. Engelen, E. (2001). “Breaking in and breaking out : a Weberian approach to entrepreneurial opportunities.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 27(2): 203-223. Erner, G. (2008). Sociologie des tendances. Paris, Presses Universitaires de France. Evans, M. D. R. (1989). “Immigrant entrepreneurship: Effects of ethnic market size and isolated labor pool.” American Sociological Review 54(6): 950-962. Fenton, S. (1999). Ethnicity: Racism, class and culture, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. — (2003). Ethnicity. Cambridge, Polity. Fleury, L. and F. Singly (2006). “Sociologie de la culture et des pratiques culturelles.” Florida, R. (2004). The rise of the creative class, Basic Books New York. — (2005). The flight of the creative class, HarperBusiness New York. Frank, R. H. and P. J. Cook (1995). The winner-take-all society: Why the few at the top get so much more than the rest of us, Penguin Books. Garnham, N. and F. Inglis (1990). Capitalism and communication: Global culture and the economics of information. London, Sage. Gordon, M. M. (1964). Assimilation in American life: The role of race, religion, and national origins, Oxford University Press, USA. Guilbault, J. (1993). “On redefining the «Local» through world music.” World of music(Wilhelmshaven) 35(2): 33-47. — (1997). “Interpreting world music: a challenge in theory and practice.” Popular Music: 31-44. Guilbault, J., E. Benoit, et al. (1993). Zouk: world music in the West Indies, University of Chicago Press. Hall, P. (1998). Cities in Civilisation. London, Pantheon. — (2000a). “Creative cities and economic development.” Urban Studies 37(4): 639-649. Hall, S. (1996). Introduction. Questions of cultural identity. S. Hall, du Gay, P. London, Sage Publications: 115. — (1997). Representation: cultural representations and signifying practices, Sage Publications Ltd. — (2000b). Who needs identity? Identity: a reader. P. du Gay and J. Evans. London, Sage. Haynes, J. (2005). “World music and the search for difference.” Ethnicities 5(3): 365-385. Held, D., A. G. McGrew, et al. (1999). Global transformations: Politics, economics and culture. Oxford, Blackwell.

Chapter 3 Cosngr s i cultural borders Henry, N., C. McEwan, et al. (2002). “Globalization from below: Birmingham: Postcolonial Workshop of the World?” Area 34(2): 117-127. Hesmondhalgh, D. (2007). The cultural industries. London, Sage. Hirsch, P. M. (1972). “Processing fads and fashions: An organization-set analysis of cultural industry systems.” American journal of sociology 77(4): 639-659. Honey, S., P. Heron, et al. (1997). Career paths of visual artists. London, Arts Council of England. Hutchinson, J. and A. Smith (1996). Ethnicity Oxford, Oxford University Press. Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York. — (1969). The economy of cities. New York, Random House. Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism, or, the cultural logic of late capitalism, Duke University Press. — (1998). The Cultural Turn: selected writings on the Postmodern, 1983-1998. London, Verso Books. Jenkins, R. (1997). Rethinking ethnicity: Arguments and explorations. London, Sage Publications. Jones, T. P., G. Barrett, et al. (2000). Market potential as a decisive influence on the performance of ethnic minority business. Immigrant businesses: The economic, political and social environment. J. Rath. London, Macmillan. Karner, C. (2007). Ethnicity and everyday life. London, Routledge. KEA (2006). The economy of culture in Europe. Kloosterman, R. and J. Rath (2001). “Immigrant entrepreneurs in advanced economies: mixed embeddedness further explored.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 27(2): 189-201. Kloosterman, R. C. (2008). “Walls and bridges: knowledge spillover between ‘superdutch’ architectural firms.” Journal of Economic Geography 8(4): 545-563. — (2010). “Matching opportunities with resources: a framework for analysing (migrant) entrepreneurship from a mixed embeddedness perspective.” Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 22(1): 25-45. — (forthcoming). “Matching opportunities with resources: a framework for analysing (migrant) entrepreneurship from a mixed embeddedness perspective.” Entrepreneurship and Regional Development. Koot, W. and J. Rath (1987). “Ethnicity and Emancipation.” International Migration 25(4): 427-440. Landry, C. and F. Bianchini (1995). The creative city, Demos. Lash, S. and J. Urry (1994). Economies of signs and space. London, Sage. Lecomte, H. (2005). Deux ou trois choses que je sais d’elles... Musiques migrantes. L. Aubert. Geneva, infolio. Lee, J. and F. D. Bean (2004). “America’s changing color lines: Immigration, race/ethnicity, and multiracial identification.” Annual Review of Sociology 30: 221-42. Leyshon, A. (2001). “Time-space (and digital) compression: software formats, musical networks, and the reorganisation of the music industry.” Environment and Planning A 33(1): 49-78. Leyshon, A., P. Webb, et al. (2005). “On the reproduction of the musical economy after the Internet.” Media, Culture & Society 27(2): 177. Light, I. (2002). Immigrant and ethnic enterprise in North America. Entrepreneurship: critical perspectives on business and management. N. F. Krueger, Taylor & Francis. — (2005). The ethnic economy. The handbook of economic sociology. N. J. Smelser and R. Swedberg, Princeton University Press. Light, I. H. and C. N. Rosenstein (1995). Race, ethnicity, and entrepreneurship in urban America, Aldine Transaction. Markusen, A. and G. Schrock (2006). “The artistic dividend: urban artistic specialisation and economic development implications.” Urban Studies 43(10): 1661-1686.

Capterh 3 Crossing cultural borders Massey, D. B. (1994). Space, place, and gender, University of Minnesota Press. McNeill, D. (2005). “In search of the global architect: the case of Norman Foster (and Partners).” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 29(3): 501-515. Menzies, T. V., G. A. Brenner, et al. (2000). Transnational entrepreneurship and bootstrap capitalism: Social capital, networks and ethnic minority entrepreneurship. Second biennial McGill conference on international entrepreneurship: Researching new frontiers. Merton, R. K. (1988). “The Matthew effect in science, 2: cumulative advantage and symbolism of intellectual property.” ISIS 79(299): 606-623. Miège, B. (1989). The capitalization of cultural production, International General. Miles, M. (2007). Cities and cultures. London, Routledge. Modood, T. (2007). Multiculturalism: a civic idea, Polity. Molotch, H. (1996). “LA as design product: how art works in a regional economy.” The city: Los Angeles and urban theory at the end of the twentieth century: 225–275. Negus, K. (1996). “Globalization and the music of the public spheres.” Globalization, communication and transnational civil society: 179—96. — (2002). “The work of cultural intermediaries and the enduring distance between production and consumption.” Cultural Studies 16(4): 501-515. Panayiotopoulos, P. (2006). Immigrant Enterprise in Europe and the USA. London/New York, Routledge. Parekh, B. C. (2002). Rethinking multiculturalism: Cultural diversity and political theory. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. Park, R. E. (1928). “Human migration and the marginal man.” American journal of sociology(33): 881-893. Patterson, K., J. Grenny, et al. (2007). Influencer: the power to change anything. New York, McGraw-Hill. Pécoud, A. (2000). Cosmopolitanism and business: entrepreneurship and identity among German-Turks in Berlin. Oxford, University of Oxford. Transnational Communities Programme. Portes, A., L. E. Guarnizo, et al. (2002). “Transnational entrepreneurs: An alternative form of immigrant economic adaptation.” American Sociological Review: 278-298. Portes, A. and J. Sensenbrenner (1993). “Embeddedness and immigration: Notes on the social determinants of economic action.” American journal of sociology 98(6): 1320-1350. Power, D. and J. Jansson (2004). “The emergence of a post-industrial music economy? Music and ICT synergies in Stockholm, Sweden.” Geoforum 35(4): 425-439. Power, D. and T. Nielsén (2010a). Priority sector report: Creative and cultural industries. European Cluster Observatory. — (2010b). Priority Sector Report: Creative and Cultural Industries – Methodological Appendix, European Cluster Observatory. Pratt, A. C. (1997). “The cultural-industries production system: A case study of employment change in Britain, 1984-91.” Environment and Planning A 29: 1953-1974. —. (2007). “An economic geography of the cultural industries.” LSE Research online, from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/855/1/EconomicgeoTODAY.pdf. — (2008). Creative cities: the cultural industries and the creative class. LSE Research Online. London, London School of Economics. Ram, M. and T. Jones (1998). Ethnic minorities in business. Milton Keynes, Small Business Research Trust. Raymond, G. and T. Modood (2007). The construction of minority identities in France and Britain, Palgrave Macmillan. Rose, S. (2007). Architecture: one giant leap for Britain: You wait around for a building finally to reflect our multicultural society - and then three come along at once. Steve Rose meets the visionary architect David Adjaye. The Guardian. London.

Chapter 3 Cosngr s i cultural borders Rušinovic, K. (2006). Dynamic entrepreneurship: first and second-generation immigrant entrepreneurs in Dutch cities. Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press. Saxenian, A. L. (2002). “Silicon Valley’s new immigrant high-growth entrepreneurs.” Economic Development Quarterly 16(1): 20. — (2007). The new Argonauts: Regional advantage in a global economy. Cambridge, Harvard University Press. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. Scott, A. J. (1999). “The cultural economy: geography and the creative field.” Media Culture and Society 21: 807-818. — (2000). The cultural economy of cities. London, Sage. — (2004). “Cultural-products industries and urban economic development: prospects for growth and market contestation in global context.” Urban Affairs Review 39(4): 461-490. — (2008). Social Economy of the Metropolis. Cognitive-Cultural Capitalism and the Global Resurgence of Cities Oxford, Oxford University Press. Shuker, R. (1998). Key concepts in popular music. London, Routledge. Silverman, M. (1992). Deconstructing the nation: Immigration, racism and citizenship in modern France. London, Routledge. Simmel, G. (1988). La tragedie de la culture et autre essais. . Paris Rivages Poche. Singh, J. P. (2007). “Culture or Commerce? A Comparative Assessment of International Interactions and Developing Countries at UNESCO, WTO, and Beyond.” International Studies Perspectives 8(1): 36-53. Smallbone, D., M. Bertotti, et al. (2005). “Diversification in ethnic minority business.” Journal of small business and enterprise development 12(1): 41-56. Sproles, G. B. (1985). Behavioral science theories of fashion The psychology of fashion. M. R. Solomon. Lexington, MA, Lexington Books. Throsby, C. D. (2001). Economics and culture. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. UNESCO (1996). Our creative diversity. Report of the World Commission on Culture and Development. Paris, UNESCO. — (1998). World Culture Report 1998. Culture, creativity and markets. Paris. — (2001). UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. Paris, UNESCO. — (2005). Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. Paris, UNESCO. — (2006). Cultural industries. Memo Bureau of Public Information. Paris, UNESCO. — (2007). L’UNESCO et la question de la diversité culturelle 1946-2007. Bilan et stratégies. Série diversité culturelle no3. Paris. Waldinger, R. (2000). The economic theory of ethnic conflict: a critique and reformulation. Immigrant Business: The Economic, Political and Social Environment. J. Rath. Basingstoke, Macmillan. Waldinger, R. D., H. Aldrich, et al. (1990). Ethnic entrepreneurs: Immigrant business in industrial societies. Newbury Park, Sage Publications. Weber, M. (1927). “Commerce on the stock and commodity exchanges.” Theory & Society: 339-371. Williams, R. and R. Gable (1989). Resources of hope. London, Verso. Winders, J. A. (2006). “Paris Africain: rhythms of the African diaspora.” Yoon, I. J. (1991). “The changing significance of ethnic and class resources in immigrant businesses: the case of Korean immigrant businesses in Chicago.” International Migration Review: 303-332. Zukin, S. (1995). The cultures of cities. Cambridge, MA, Blackwell Publishing. Zukin, S. and J. S. Maguire (2004). “Consumers and consumption.” Annual Review of Sociology 30: 173-97.

Capterh 3 Crossing cultural borders 1 The jury members are: Professor Dragicevic Sesis, University of Arts in Belgrade; Dr Mitchell, Director of Research at CUPORE (Finnish Foundation for Cultural Policy Research); Professor Bonet, University of Barcelona; Dr Ratzenböck, Director of the Austrian centre for Cultural Documentation; Dr Quine, London City University; Professor Lagerspetz, Estonian Institute of Humanities. 2 Professions and locations are coded as follows: M = musician; A = architect; F = fashion designer; Am = Amsterdam; L = London; P = Paris. 3 Florida talks about the 3 Ts in attracting creative talent to a region: talent, technology and tolerance. 4 Taken from Kulture2Couture.com, under the ‘Aims’ section. 5 Localisation of sectors benefits from the social effect of proximity to ‘people following the same skilled trade’, when ‘the mysteries of the trade become no mysteries: but are as it were in the air’ (Marshall 1916: 271). More recently, Scott has moved towards a critical overview of the reflexive interactions between urbanization and creativity in contemporary society (Scott 2006), leading to a ‘resurgence’ of cities, which acquire a certain level of economic and political autonomy in relation to the nation-state (see Scott 2009). 6 “‘Globalization’ is on everybody’s lips; a fad word fast turning into a shibboleth, a magic incantation, a pass-key meant to unlock the gates to all present and future mysteries. For some, ‘globalization’ is what we bound to do if we wish to be happy; for others ‘globalization’ is the cause of our unhappiness. For everybody, though, ‘globalization’ is the intractable fate of the world, an irreversible process; it is also a process which affects us all in the same measure and in the same way. We are all being ‘globalized’ and being globalized means much the same to all who ‘globalized’ are” (Bauman 2002, p.1). 7 Others have shown how migrant communities have moved away from the ‘packaging’ of cultural diversity through festivals, parades and the ‘appropriation’ of urban neighbourhoods with the expansion of small and medium-sized firms and the strengthening of import-export links with their countries of origin (Henry et al., 2000). 8 Definition of mainstream, taken from the Merriam-Webster online English dictionary. 9 Difficulty in finding audiences means that the industries have tighter grip on circulation than they do on production (Hesmondhalgh 2007). 10 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. Matthew 25:29, King James Version. 11 More ‘purist’ definitions, generally attributed to Marx, define commodities as a product intended principally for exchange, and that such products emerge, by definition, in the institutional, psychological, and economic conditions of capitalism. A less purist definition sees commodities as goods intended for exchange, regardless of the form this exchange might take (see Appadurai 1988, p.6). 12 Explaining trends and fads means explaining in what way they correspond to the air du temps, spirit of the times. Building on Saussure’s work on semiology, the study of signs and symbols and their meaning, Barthes looked at the life of objects, from the perspective of what they tell us about our times (see Barthes, Les mythologies, 1957). These objects become myths, revealing the image-system of a particular time (Barthes 1990). 13 Hettie Judah, ‘British, Asian and hip’, article the Independent on Sunday, 1 March 1998, cited in Jackson 2002, p.1

Chapter 3 Cosngr s i cultural borders

4444

Pral a l el worlds? Commodifying ethnic diversity in the Paris world music scene

(Submitted for review. Co-authored by R.C. Kloosterman) Parallel worlds? 4.1trod In uction Migrants from less-developed countries may face all kinds of obstacles in trying to eke out a living in advanced urban economies. Often lacking in resources (human, financial and social capital) finding a job or setting up a business can be difficult. Many migrants, however, do possess a resource which, in principle, can be useful. Their cultural or “ethnic” capital, which can be traced back to their countries of origin, may give them a competitive edge in creating cultural products such as clothing, dance, and music. Converting their rather unique resources into sellable products, though the process of commodification, is, however, anything but straightforward. The term commodity itself is one that has left social scientists across disciplines inspired and perplexed. From its use in the field of political economy and economics, more recently the term has been instrumental in discussions on the cultural economy and the rise of cultural industries more specifically. At times in the cultural field, the term commodification has been associated with the incursion of industrial standardisation in the production of cultural goods, creating an opposition of commodification to culture, as if the former were a (threat of) degeneracy of the latter and a subsequent predestined loss of autonomy for the individual (Adorno and Bernstein 2001; Adorno and Horkheimer 2002). A review of definitions and applications of the term reveals highly subjective and often contradictory interpretations (Castree 2004), ranging from a focus on the value of objects, their alienability, and their potential to be bought and sold in exchange for money (see Jackson 1999 for a review). While from a Marxist perspective a commodity is an object intended primarily for exchange in the context of the ‘institutional, psychological and economic conditions of capitalism’, applying a definition involving the production of use-value for others reveals the presence of commodities in pre- capitalist societies, notably in the form of barter (Appadurai 1986: 86). Appadurai insightfully noted that an understanding of what commodities are can only be achieved by considering how they are in particular moments in time and space, that is as objects ‘in motion’, in a (potential or actual) state in their lives (Appadurai 1986: 16). The ‘candidacy’ of things to the commodity status should not be understood as an inevitable, temporal phase prior to commodification, but rather as a disposition in relation to the wider, contextual framework governing the exchangeability of objects (Appadurai 1986: 83). Rather than understanding commodities as a result of a specific production process, we share Appadurai’s view that ‘the flow of commodities in any given situation is a shifting compromise between socially regulated paths and competitively inspired diversions’ (1986: 85), not precluding a reversal of objects to a non-commodified state. There is not a linear, directional or purposive process of commodification, but rather a change in the nature of objects, resulting and contingent upon frameworks of value and exchange. The ‘significance that is attached to commodities differs markedly from one place to the other’ (Jackson 1999: 104). This has translated in calls to explore commodities as they move along trajectories, from production to exchange and consumption (Appadurai 1986) and more recently an agenda for the study of the

101

Pral a l el worlds? geographical life of commodities (Cook and Crang 1996; Jackson 1999; 2002; Castree 2003; Crang, Dwyer et al. 2003; Castree 2004; Jackson, Thomas et al. 2007). Our research combines these insights by offering an analysis of how commodification of a particular expression of culture, namely world music, takes place concretely. How, in other words, do sounds drawn from diverse cultures across the globe become goods of economic value in processes of production and consumption? What role do migrants play as potential vectors of this musical diversity? World music offers a highly pertinent case, given its complex geography entailing the diffusion of ‘local’ sounds to ‘global’ audiences (Guilbault 1993; Connell and Gibson 2003), via the intermediary of a limited number of production centres in Western Europe and North America (Taylor 1997). Our vantage point for this paper is the world music cluster located in Paris, and more particularly the mediation of musical diversity in multiple economic and cultural networks therein. While we will delve in more deeply into world music later, we should here raise the caveat that our research takes the mobilisation of cultural differences as inherent in world music itself. Indeed, research on commodity culture has highlighted transnational inflection of commodity stylization as a business resource, via the mobilisation of ethnic markers (Crang, Dwyer et al. 2003). In this paper, however we do not pass judgement nor seek to understand whether this mobilisation is an explicit strategy to gain access to employment for instance (for a case study on the Ecuadorian tourist industry and the negotiation of identities, see Crain 1996), although we will come back to this point in our conclusions. Following a methodological précis, we start with a brief discussion of the processes of commodification in the cultural industries and what their distinct features might be. Here, we highlight the complex ecologies of cultural production and the role of intermediaries in articulating the relationship between supply and demand (section 2). With these building blocks, we turn our attention to the formulation of a new concept, namely that of the commodification gradient, as a socially embedded negotiated passage, albeit not an irreversible one, between creativity in posse and its commodity status. We use this to explore an interactionist approach to the world music opportunity structure and the dynamics of commodification of culture therein (section 3). Our framework is subsequently applied to the study of the Paris world music cluster, highlighting how commodification occurs along parallel value chains, exemplified in the presence of three market ‘clouts’: notably community, traditional and contemporary world music markets (section 4). We conclude with some pointers on the use of the term commodification in the cultural industries, its cultural and geographical dynamics, and an agenda for further research.

Methodology This paper is based on a mix of qualitative research methods. The more substantive source of data comes from rich, non-directive interviews with key economic actors in the world music cluster in Paris (from the creative sphere, to loci of production and consumption). Following a review of Planètes Musiques (CIMT 2007), a directory of world music companies in France, respondents were selected on the basis of longevity in the industry, positions of responsibility at the head of key companies and institutions

102

Capterh 4 Parallel worlds? in the field, and individuals in representative functions within the numerous (world) music sectoral associations. Interviews were conducted in 2008, at a time of inter- cluster mobilisation in support of a bid for public funding for a world music association to ease the adoption and transition to digital media. It was, hence, a time of reflexivity and questioning about the nature and direction of the cluster. In total, we conducted 38 interviews with key intermediaries in the cluster (label managers, venue directors and programmers, promotion agencies, artist managers, sectoral and cultural associations, record shop owners, and journalists, see Annex at the end of this chapter for a full list of respondents), providing a sample representing the core areas of the production of recorded music and live performance, and knowledge thereof. In addition, in summer 2010 we sent out an online survey to 252 musicians within the world music cluster, achieving a full response rate of 6.3%1, and a further 14 incomplete questionnaires (5.5%). In order to respect the privacy of these individuals, all interviews have been coded in the text. To complement the findings, secondary sources were gathered, particularly artists’ profiles, interviews and biographies, using specialized media (Mondomix and Radio France Inter websites) and mainstream newspapers (Le Monde and Libération articles and reviews over the last ten years).

4.2 CoMMODIFICATION in the cultural industries Cultural industries are defined as activities concerned with the production and marketing of goods and services that have aesthetic or semiotic content (Bourdieu 1971; Scott 2000), serving primarily an ‘aesthetic or expressive, rather than a clearly utilitarian function’ (Hirsch 1972: 641). Cultural industries are very much part of the post-industrial urban economic profile, showing structural expansion due to high-income elasticity combined with a strong dependence on agglomeration economies and, hence, urban milieus (Power and Scott 2004; Scott 2004; 2006a). While maintaining a characteristic metropolitan linkage, also resulting from competitive pressures that encourage agglomeration of production, cultural industries are characterised by globalisation of output circulation2 (Lash and Urry 1994; Scott 2004; Lash and Lury 2007). Before approaching the specific case of world music, we identify two aspects which are relevant for our understanding of commodification in the cultural industries more generally. The first is the disarticulated yet networked nature of production in the cultural industries (Scott 2000; Grabher 2002), based on contractual and transactional relations of production (Caves 2000); and the second is the bearing of processes of intermediation, notably given the highly fluctuating demand for cultural products (Hirsch 1972).

Complex ecologies of cultural industries Explorations of the organisation of production within the cultural industries have highlighted a complex ecology, with dense networks of complementary skills and expertise. Cultural products are realized through the collaborative effort of different individuals, requiring various more or less specialized inputs and a complex division

103

Chapter 4 Pral a l el worlds? of labour (Becker 1982; Negus 1996; Scott 2000; Leyshon 2001). Creativity thus exists in an ‘art world’ a social context characterised by a web of inter-related agents (Becker 1982; Hesmondhalgh 2007). Inputs to production range from artistic or more creative to the more mundane, revealing a range of complementary skills from creative to technical, and an interdependency of art for art’s sake and profit-oriented or humdrum motivations (Becker 1982; Caves 2000). These can be combined in the creative worker or decoupled as the case may be, as in the case of the writer and the publisher, the visual artist and the art gallery. Recent work on the music economy provides a useful typology of the product cycle ecology in cultural industries. Leyshon (2001; Leyshon, Webb et al. 2005) defines four distinctive yet overlapping networks of the production process within the music industry, which roughly correspond to stages in the life of a musical product, from its conception to its access by consumers. These are defined as creativity (or original production), reproduction (or manufacturing production processes), distribution (including marketing and promotion) and consumption (from retail outlets to the consumer). These networks represent stages through which cultural material flows and becomes commodified, highlighting the varying geometry of actors, institutions and places intervening in the translation of music from creative impulse to products exchanged in markets. The collaborative nature of production of cultural production allows a potential for contestation and negotiation to transpire, as input from actors with potentially differing aims or following different conventions are brought together (Becker 1982). Rather than a linear production chain, we understand this as a incremental, value-adding process, whereby all elements are inextricably linked in a networked manner, as well as embeddedness in a wider ‘creative field’ (Scott 1999; 2006b). The shift in approach from culture as output to cultural production as a process has indeed been a critical one (Pratt 1997). This has enabled emphasis to be placed on the fact that cultural artefacts are most often generated through the interaction of multiple inputs, institutional set-ups, actors and geographies (Scott 1999; Power and Hallencreutz 2002).

U ncertainty and intermediation in the cultural industries The flexible nature of production in the cultural industries is in part related to the merciless state of uncertainty - itself the result of endemic oversupply of cultural products - which faces cultural producers, known as the ‘nobody knows’ property or the inability of said producers to predict the consumers appraisal of the quality of a product (Caves 2000). This ‘symmetrical ignorance’ is highly instrumental in definitions and allocations of rights and the spreading of risk (Caves 2000). Information becomes a crucial element in the decision-making process, and finding it is often delegated to intermediaries, who wade through the pile of aspiring candidates and rank creative work according to an A list/B list (Caves 2000). The wider field of cultural production is characterised by the struggle for recognition, as products are positioned in relation to one another, and temporally, in relation to consecrated art (Bourdieu 2000). Achieving this recognition in the cultural industries, as well as gaining status in the relative ranking in aesthetic and commercial systems of vertical differentiation by no

104

Capterh 4 Parallel worlds? means occurs in a vacuum. As products in the cultural industries tend to be taste-and performance-driven (Currid 2007), their differentiation and selection calls into question the aesthetic qualities of the product and the standards against which judgement is passed on it, part of the wider ‘regime of value’ discussed earlier (Appadurai 1986). Creating an explicit aesthetic may precede, follow, or be simultaneous with developing the techniques, forms, and works which make up the art world’s output. The creation of aesthetic systems can be an ‘industry in its own right’ though, developed and maintained by specialised professionals such as critics (Becker 1982: 131-2). Processes of intermediation intervene to provide an intelligible ordering of the wide variety of products available, creating hierarchies based on tastes and consumption practices (Bourdieu 2000). In Bourdieu’s initial definition, the intermediaries are the critics, journalists, advertisers, agents in a position to bestow symbolic capital in the form of prestige and reputation (Bourdieu 2000), however the scope of the term has been broadened in subsequent applications, to include artist and repertoire managers (Negus 2002; Hesmondhalgh 2006 for a discussion). In this broader sense, intermediaries form “skilled network[s] that pick winners” (Currid 2007: 134) and they decide on what is accepted or rejected as a cultural product (Hirsch 1972; Becker 1982; Eikhof and Haunschild 2007). While we do not attempt here to offer the ultimate intermediary typology here, suffice to say that we speak of these “certifiers”, “tastemakers” or “aestheticians” (Currid 2007: 133) we refer to those individuals or organizations who, as ‘surrogate consumers’, serve ‘as fashion experts and opinion leaders for their respective constituencies’ (Hirsch 1972: 649; Solomon 1986). Rather than forming a buffer zone between production and consumption, the intermediaries offer points of articulation and connection, modulating the relationship between the two extremes of the product cycle. Through this articulation, they regulate access and exclusion to industries involved in the production of symbolic goods and services, often through small networks of connections, shared values and common life experiences (Negus 2002). In our framework, intermediaries play a crucial role in determining the regimes of value that structure the commodification of objects in the realm of culture, and that this, in turn, plays a defining role of the status, life and trajectory of the resulting commodities. Yet it can also be linked to the wider social context in which production and consumption are situated. With respect to this, Zukin and Maguire (2004: 175) envisage an ‘institutional field’, centred around the production of commodities for individual demand and structured around ‘interconnected economic and cultural institutions’, highlighting the reciprocity of consumption with its social context. Consumers participate in a particular cultural field through a process “habituation”: they acquire the attitudes, views, practices, dress codes and vocabulary that enable them to share conventions and function properly (Bourdieu 1979; Eikhof and Haunschild 2007). Dismissing a conception of intermediaries which would reduce consumers to mere ‘dupes’ of ‘commercial blandishments’ (Jackson 2002: 5), we recognise their agency. Consumers participating in transnational social space, with their knowledge and expertise, also play a part in processes of commodifying difference (Jackson, Thomas

105

Chapter 4 Pral a l el worlds? et al. 2007). Arguably, this can be disputed by advancing the ‘long tail’ argument (Anderson 2008), whereby markets are increasingly carved up into smaller niche markets, reflecting the diversification of consumers’ tastes and preferences and a streamlining and decentralising of distribution and access to cultural products. Along these lines, a broader conception of intermediaries is useful to portray a less deterministic, more contextual and dynamic process. Intermediaries, with their position in social networks, their selection criteria, their views on consumer markets together make up the “filtering device”. These filtering devices are anything but uniform, but they are connected specifically to the fields of cultural production. In a Bourdieuian sense, production is structured in large-scale and restricted fields (Bourdieu 1992; Hesmondhalgh 2006), though a more nuanced approach highlighting the relevance of sub-fields and the boundary-crossing production is particularly helpful for our analysis (Hesmondhalgh 1996). Commodification thus differs between sectors, between places, and within one sector in a particular city between submarkets or niches. Intermediaries within one local field can be few or numerous, dispersed or concentrated, open to innovation or conservative, influential or not, accessible or distant. Such differences should be at the heart of any research on exploring diversity in cultural industries. We therefore posit that various actors and institutions (artists, producers, gatekeepers, consumers, loci of production and consumption) interact to produce a complex but also dynamic multi-dimensional and multi-inhabited space (Jackson, Thomas et al. 2007) or ecological system (Becker 1982) within which the commodification of world music and the economic incorporation of world musicians may occur. The potential for commodification is therefore highly context-dependent, and activated or de- activated, as the case may be, in a highly dense and interactive set of relationships and economic, social and cultural conditions. Following the lives of objects as they become commodities thus entails an understanding of the variegated dynamics which affect this process. We offer a conceptual framework of analysis in the following section.

S caling the commodification gradient in the cultural industries Commodification in the cultural industries reflects the transition of cultural creativity from its in posse nature to its commodity status. We further define Appadurai’s (1988) conceptualisation of the candidacy of things to commodification as a ‘commodification gradient’, which expresses the increase or decrease of the commodity dimension of objects. We borrow the definition of gradient from physics, meaning by it the observation in time or space of a graded increase or decrease in the magnitude of a property (in physics, the term is applied to temperature, pressure or concentration). For our purposes, the gradient expresses a change in magnitude of the commodity property as observed in passing from one point to another. The gradient can also describe the pace of this change, hence it can be applied to express the variety of speed of commodification within different cultural industry sectors (e.g. we would observe a faster pace in high street fashion than in the publishing of novels). Introducing the notion of gradient allows us to understand better the commodification of objects in motion, exploring how certain objects follow certain

106

Capterh 4 Parallel worlds? trajectories and the extent to which certain objects become commodified in certain situations and not others. The application of this notion to the cultural industries allows us to see commodification as a negotiated passage, albeit not an irreversible one, between creativity and the cultural industry production chain, modulated by trade- offs between cultural and economic considerations over the anticipated outcomes of a product in a market exchange environment. Rather than simply considering the potential for commodification, the gradient allows us to look at the value adding processes which enhance or reduce the prospects of commodification of a certain object, and placing this in a cultural industry production and consumption perspective. In generic terms, we argue that objects in the cultural industries seem to be faced with different sets of opportunity structures, entailing diverse requirements and also with divergent trajectories in terms of production cycles and consumer base scope. As a result, the gradient does not simply define the positioning of the threshold between commodity and non-commodity status, but also reflects a wider process of (expected and actual) insertion of creative inputs in posse, the access to and mobilisation of resources supporting this insertion, and the positioning of objects in markets. We argue here that the mobilisation of a different cultural repertoire calls for an understanding of commodification as a gradient, whereby different products are matched with a different set of opportunities at particular points in time and space, thus increasing or decreasing their commodification potential as it were. Moreover, the idea of a gradient allows us to reflect not just upon the potential for commodification, but also upon its magnitude. The commodification gradient does not only determine access to and progression of a production cycle, but also the wider trajectories or ‘lives’ of commodities in the cultural industries. These trajectories are spatial as well as temporal and can also be defined by the extent of markets in which products circulate. We argue that in the cultural industries, the boundaries between these market typologies are particularly porous and that creative workers can experience dynamic trajectories crossing boundaries. Hence the candidacy of products to commodification should be understood as highly embedded in creative fields that are highly contextualised.

4.3mmodif Co ying world music in Paris: the commodification gradient at work World music appears to align itself with a key logic of cultural industry production: that of a quest for constant product innovation in order to respond to the changing tastes of consumers. It has been defined as being transnational (entailing a border- crossing) and translational (requiring a translation to access it, a mediation) (Guilbault 1993)3. The role of mediators in world music has been that of taking consumers across the boundaries of their personal tastes (Haynes 2005: 368). These mediators display expertise either as ethnomusicologists or through connections to ethnic or national groups, practices (Frith 2000). Foreign products, appealing to a sense for the exotic, acquire a strong symbolic dimension, for their faculty to respond to the demand ‘distinguishing’ products (Kassabian 2004; Haynes 2005). This quest follows a

107

Chapter 4 Pral a l el worlds? logic of consumer taste development, vying for ever more unique and distinguishing experiences, as an expression of status and habitus (Bourdieu 1979). From a normative perspective, world music should be ‘inclusive’, meaning that its loose classification should allow the most diverse musical influences to be hosted under its banner (Haynes 2005: 371). Exploring the world music titles available through digital distributors or record shops is a varying degree of authenticity and hybridity, ranging from a collection of ‘Music from the Old Jewish World’ to Putumayo’s ‘Latin Lounge’ offering. Yet the focus on the origins and content of the music diverts the attention to the way it is produced and consumed (Connell and Gibson 2004), as well as the related processes of production and reproduction of aesthetic categories which word music draws upon. Critically, world music became known as such when Western musicians began forays into exotic sounds, as in the case of Paul Simon’s Graceland (Connell and Gibson 2004: 347). Moreover, while place has been central to the marketing of world music, its reification has become more problematic as complex relations between local sounds, global production, distribution and marketing channels come to coexist. The fetishisation of a locality ‘disguises the globally dispersed forces that actually drive the production process’ (Appadurai 1990: 16). Here an ‘essentialised idea of music’ is tied to the expression of difference of specific ethnic groups or nations (Haynes 2005: 372). The result is a situation in which the success of non-Western musicians in the world music genre has been reliant upon a form of ‘strategic inauthenticity’, whereby performers are required to reproduce a ‘pre-modern’ aesthetic, in order to fulfil the expectations and demands for authenticity (Taylor 1997: 126). The paradox that emerges is that Third World performers can effectively gain better access to audiences in the West when they conform to Euro-American based intonation and rhythms (Guilbault 1993; Guilbault, Benoit et al. 1993; Connell and Gibson 2003: 155).

4.4fining De opportunities for commodification On the basis of these considerations, we explore the commodification of world music from the perspective of the Parisian cluster. Paris, alongside London and New York, is the main centre of production, marketing and distribution of world music globally, with a particular specialisation in music from the African continent. The cluster combines a dense web of actors, working in more or less formalised relationships. Our interest is in how world music, which in principle could originate from anywhere in the world (Connell and Gibson 2003; 2004), comes to be commodified and in what way. We start by defining an opportunity structure, by sketching a market typology which identifies at the two ends of the spectrum, composite markets characterised by hybrid products, and homogeneous markets characterised by little or no diversity. We argue that the commodification of world music and its structuring of production and consumption in markets will be governed by the mobilisation of ‘ethnic capital’, corresponding to the actual or discursive ‘essentialised idea of music’ referred to earlier (Haynes 2005). As a result, we can see the delineation of three distinct, yet porous and cross-fertilising, market typologies of world music production in Paris.

108

Capterh 4 Parallel worlds? Figure 4.1 exemplifies such a typology, on the basis of the interaction between the products offered and their consumer base, as well as exploring the type of markets this interplay generates. We do not suggest that these market categories are not suggested as fixed, immutable, rather we suggest a porous distinction, which would indicate Figure an4.1 encounterMarket spheres of products in the productionand consumers and consumptionin ‘market clouts’, of world with music a wide in spectrum of Paris definitions.

HOMOGENEOUS ETHNIC- OTMOAY WORLDMUSIC CONTEMPORARY

COMMUNITY-

BASED CONSUMER

ETHNIC - PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONSPECIFICATION - NON-ETHNIC

TRADITIONAL MUSIC NON-ETHNIC -

Figure 4-1: Market spheres in the production and consumption of world music in Paris (Adapted from C O M P O S I T E Brandellero 2010)

The loose categorizations emerging may cover a scope of music production from community based (i.e. linked to the ethnic communities based in Paris), to traditional music (reflecting production of a more ethno-musicological nature) and to world music (more contemporary, hybrid sounds, occasionally borne out of cross-fertilisation of musical traditions occurring in large metropolitan areas). These three ‘spheres’ are reflected in distinct subdivisions of production and consumption in the world music cluster. The commodification gradient differs depending on the type of symbolic and aesthetic content mobilised and the circumstances and context of the mobilisation. While theoretically all forms of world music can become commodified through the Paris cluster, they will face different opportunity structures, leading to a variety of commodification trajectories. To further contextualise these markets in the world music cluster, we posit that these three markets have distinct production dynamics and chains: creativity, production, distribution and consumption occur in mostly parallel, occasionally cross-fertilising networks of actors and milieus (see Table 4.1).

109

Chapter 4 Pral a l el worlds? Table 4.1: Phases and processes of commodification of world music in Paris

CREATIVITY PRODUCTION DISTRIBUTION CONSUMPTION TRADITIONAL MUSIC TRADITIONAL Origin: Global origin Actors: Strong Actors: Paris- Venues: Via of musical masters public sector based networks, public institutions Content: Authenticity institutional presence connected globally (museums, cultural and purity (labels, editors, to institutions in the institutions, of traditions. venues, festivals, same field theatres…) and Connected to associations) Process: Centralised publicly sponsored spiritual, ceremonial Process: Field distribution. Limited festivals or vernacular recordings or digital exposure. Intended audience: traditions. Paris-based studio Specialised media. Audience of Process: productions, connoisseurs. Ethnomusicologist particularly during research and performances. discovery for the Performances in key preservation of venues. cultural heritage. CONTEMOIRARY WORLD MUSIC WORLD CONTEMOIRARY Origin: Artists based Actors: Private Actors: Private-sector Venues: Wide array in Paris or globally labels (majors and entrepreneurs. of (specialised) Content: Traditional independent), Process: Increasingly venues in Paris, to hybrid sounds, recording studios, centralised from experimental quest for the editors, venues and distribution. to mainstream. exotic. ‘Strategic festivals based in Promotion and Increasing corporate inauthenticity’ Paris. marketing via presence in the Process: Recordings printed and digital live venue scene. Process: ‘Discovery’ Shrinking presence of musicians, often and performances in media, and profile of Paris. Production of key individuals (e.g. of venues of physical already established support distribution. in their countries events worldwide. Music critics). of origin by Paris- Intended audience: based actors. Paris Global audiences. as a turning point in careers. COMMUNITY-BASED MUSIC COMMUNITY-BASED Origin: Artists of Actors: Paris or Actors: Private-sector Venues: Private migrant background country of origin- entrepreneurs. parties and public based in Paris or based private Process: Community events in local musicians from companies and (record) shops/ authority venues, countries with strong venues, often owned occasional access to bars and restaurants. migrant communities by co-nationals of mainstream venues Occasional access to in Paris. the musicians and – but generally large larger venues in the Content: Inspiration connected to the venues an issue world music sphere. from the country of production and/ Intended audience: origin (le pays), often or sale of other Locally based mixing local popular products from the communities/ music with Western same country of transnational pop. origin. diasporas/country of Process: From Process: Recordings origin. amateur to and performances in professional Paris and country of musicians with origin. migrant background.

110

Capterh 4 Parallel worlds? As we shall see in the next section, the opportunity structures vary widely, shaped by different logics of production, distribution and consumption, and ranging in their relation to economic and cultural motivations. We now turn our attention to the three market typologies, sketching this interplay and exploring the spatial implications of each pattern of musical commodification.

Traditional music We identify the presence of an intermediary market in Paris, based on the production and circulation of traditional music. Here, the direct link between the ethnic capital and music is fundamental: as we will see, this is where the symbolic capital of the product in a Bourdieuian sense lies. These intermediaries, these expert ethnomusicologists, appropriate products with a strong ethnic component and transfer/translate them to a wider audience, outside the community originally connected to these sounds. The target audience then responds to the logic of the ‘quest of exoticism’ mentioned earlier: there is even talk of making music primarily for a ‘white’ audience (interview n°17). Traditional music is considered here as resting in an ethnomusicologist tradition, where musical expressions are considered as emerging from unique social landscapes rather than from the interaction with external flows. It is focused on the traditional as

Théâtre de la Ville, Paris

111

Chapter 4 Pral a l el worlds? opposed to the modern, the contemporary, in a binary opposition. Ethnomusicologists opened up an avenue between ‘indigenous production and distant consumption’, emphasizing a sense of ‘endogeny’ of music from tradition (Connell and Gibson 2003: 20). As a result, in the ears of some critical listeners, “music does not travel well… The further away from its place of origin, the less value it has” (interview n°7, 17, 32). Here we find ‘an underlying process of fetishisation whereby cultures that are perceived as untouched by commodification are sought out and brought to the fore – where eulogies are commonplace’ (Connell and Gibson 2003: 157). Migrant music is in this context often deemed as ‘second rate’ traditional music (Aubert 2005: 12). The networks of creativity for traditional music are therefore generally speaking to be found in the imaginary of an ‘exotic elsewhere’. The moment of ‘discovery of creativity’ in commodification of traditional music passes through a network of expert ethnomusicologists. A record label director stated that ‘in the early years, I developed a network of friends more knowledgeable than myself on this or that culture, they alerted me to certain things’ (interview n° 17). In the same vein, the Théâtre de la Ville employs a series of expert consultants who scour the world in search of ‘new traditions’ to populate the venues prestigious world music weekly programme. In an interview with Quai Branly’s music programming advisor Alain Weber, the role of ethnomusicologists and of the voyage as a musical discovery was also highlighted:

Cherif Khaznadar, former director of the Maison des Cultures du Monde

112

Capterh 4 Parallel worlds? traditional music is and should remain connected to its original social function and reality, while any adaptation or transition to ‘art for arts sake’ is considered a form of denaturation (Minimum 2006). The networks of production of traditional music rest generally speaking within the public sphere. Here a series of key actors have played a crucial role in preserving and cataloguing the world’s traditional musical heritage: this is the case of the Musée de l’Homme (Winders 2006), La Maison des Cultures du Monde, with its labels Inédit and Collections Terrains/Fieldwork, Radio France and its Ocora label, by way of an example. Private label engaged in the production of traditional music are rare. Here the separation between culture and the economy appears to reach a peak: “We don’t work in show business […] we don’t make money with cultural heritage […] culture is not a commercial product’ (author interview nº 7). While we find in Paris a cluster of public institutions devoted to traditional music, the networks of distribution and consumption vary considerably in their geographies. The nature itself of traditional music makes it ‘pre-globalised’, likely that is to raise an interest anywhere, the basis being a customer base interested in exploring other cultures (interview n°17). Traditional music is seen as offering a window on a culture, on a people, and its target audience as being interested not just in the sound, but also the pedagogic experience proposed.

Contemporary world music We note the presence of a third market sphere, that of contemporary world music, answering to the logics of a more dominant market. Here, we fall into a different register: that of more mainstream music and audiences. Music production here does not answer the tastes of a specific community, be it based on ethnicity and/or expert listeners. This sphere includes ethnic and non-ethnic elements. There is talk here of ‘recuperating’ community music (interview n°28), transforming it to match the tastes of a wider audience; of adapting traditional sounds to more modern tunes; of assimilating sounds from elsewhere; of hybrid music, musical mixes… Here the boundaries between de facto or taste-based communities become negligible. Paris has emerged in recent years as one of the main centres of contemporary world music production. Here a plethora of actors, from the creativity to the production and consumption networks, populate the capital. For many musicians, Paris is a necessary starting point and/or stepping point in their careers. Mory Kanté from Guinea arrived in Paris in 1984, the first true griot to become a genuine superstar in Paris, with his hit single Yéké Yéké, a mix of traditional kora, a West African harp-lute, and amplified accompaniment (Winders 2006). Creativity in contemporary world music sparks from various sources: musicians from across the world have had their fortunes shaped in Paris. Journalists pointed to the fact that many of the musicians that rose to prominence in the 1980s were in a way having their ‘second career’ in Paris, having already established themselves in their countries of origin (Winders 2006: 72). Here, academic distinction between heritage/tradition and urban/contemporary music is surpassed: we are witnessing a

113

Chapter 4 Pral a l el worlds? representative mosaic of living culture (Lecomte 2005). Contemporary world music can therefore be defined as a spectrum of sounds, from modern adaptations of traditional pieces to hybrid forms combining diverse musical traditions. Here “there is no boundary between more popular and more cultured things, especially since there is a real artistic process, a search, with strong human encounters between high level musicians, more traditional musicians, and others who come from the streets but who work hard and all” (interview nº13). Here the opinions vary as to where the authenticity boundary lies. ‘Hybridity is not a fashion trend. It’s at the heart of past and present musical evolutions. It is a constituent of tradition. It is even its most loyal associate, because without it, tradition would disappear, it would become sterile and withdrawn into itself’ (Thiebergien 2005: 181). On the artists’ side, there are calls for integrity in hybridity… ‘We are not fake mixes. Being from one tradition does not preclude encountering other traditions’ (author interview n°23). For some artists being an ambassador of a musical culture is both an opportunity and a challenge: some refuse to adopt a ‘traditional costume’ when playing to appear more authentic in the eyes of a Western audience (interview n°23). Others produce different versions of the same album, one for their country of origin, one for Western ears (see for example Youssou n’Dour). For some musicians, being in Paris opens up unthinkable opportunities to play with some of the biggest names in the

Gilles Fruchaux, Director of the record label Buda Musique

114

Capterh 4 Parallel worlds? business. Diego Pelaez, a musician from Venezuela who settled in Paris in the 1980s, recalls : “it was the beginning of the 80s, the big names in Latin music were arriving here […] there was a core of good musicians based in Paris and the stars were coming from the States or Latin America. They knew that there were Paris-based teams and that they didn’t need to come with a full orchestra. This gave me the opportunity to work with stars such as Patato Valdez, Chocolate Armenteros, Tata Guines, people who meant a lot to me in my youth and all of a sudden, I had the opportunity of working with them” (interview no 15). The networks of distribution and consumption are essentially Parisian. Artists have to go via Paris in their careers. (interview n°20). On the audience side, some talk about a ‘yuppie directed exotica’ (Goodwin and Gore 1990: 62; cited in Connell and Gibson 2004: 352). Generally the audience is seen as being white middle class in search of cosmopolitan flavour (Haynes 2005). A well-respected world music critic stated that: “We are asked to look out for more mainstream things and not to fall into ethnomusicology. We have to talk about things that are more accessible, not too specialised, nor too technical” (interview n°5). As one of the main stars of world music production in Paris, Manu Dibango, a famous Cameroonian saxophonist and vibraphone player, stated, the city is seen as “becoming mixed-race […]. The vibraphone goes to school with the balafon and

Inside the Cabaret Sauvage, with director Méziane Azaïche

115

Chapter 4 Pral a l el worlds? enriches it. The tam-tam reinforces the drum-kit’ (quoted in Bohlman 2002: 139). As such, it becomes a place of discovery, not just for audiences but for artists themselves, who bathe in the physical proximity with other cultures and influences, playing a key role “of intermingling, getting musicians, artists, out and making them nourish themselves with the influences of their neighbours” (interview nº5).

Community production ‘There are many things happening at the level of (ethnic) communities in Paris’ proclaimed one record label director ‘which do not appear on the radar of the average Parisian’ (interview n° 17). The community niche offers a spectrum of products, more or less anchored in the ethnic repertoire of the specific community in question. Here we find a range from contemporary music inspired by Western rhythms, to more tradition-inspired sounds, thus placing the niche in between ethnic and non-ethnic products. The ethnic component becomes of secondary importance here: what matters are the tastes and preferences of the Paris-based community and the country of origin, stimulating creativity. The customer base is strongly linked to their own community and its cultural capital, although the geographical scale shows wider networks of connection across the transnational diaspora. A stroll around one of Paris’s most diverse neighbourhoods, the Goutte d’Or, reveals a vibrant world of community-based music production, rarely featured in the world music reviews of mainstream newspapers and magazines. The first community music shops began to appear in Paris in the mid-1970s (Winders 2006). Their emergence can be seen as connected to the importance of music in the experience of migrants in Paris: as a sacred ritual, leisure, entertainment element of their everyday life. The choice of neighbourhood is far from accidental: « The decision to locate here was taken because we had a diaspora market, with easy access to our customers. They come; they discover things, Château-Rouge, the market, the community» (interview n°10). Some observers note that in the early days of the world music cluster in Paris, most productions were indeed community based, often with varying degrees of professionalisation, quality of sound, image and presentation, bordering on the ‘DIY’ (interview n°5). The musical creativity on which community productions rest comes in fact from ‘le pays’, the place of origin. This reflects a loose geography in more than one way: the country of origin is at once the source from which to draw inspiration and a reference point when thinking about potential consumers. From the viewpoint of creativity, the sounds created by early generations of migrant musicians were innovative, insofar as they merged traditional performances with advanced studio technology. However, in most cases, the resulting musical styles had been emerging in the country of origin for many years (see Winders 2006 for a recount of the early phases of Western and Central African music in Paris). In some cases, music that has been totally forgotten locally in its place of origin, experiences a resurgence once it is known in Europe (interview n°5). Often there is felt to be a separation between countries’ musical traditions or sounds: « if you go to the community record shops in the neighbourhood, there is one specialising in zouk, the other in mbalax… it is very compartmentalized, there is one for Zaire, the other for Arab music…» (interview n.13; see also Winders 2006).

116

Capterh 4 Parallel worlds? The struggle for musicians engaging in this form of music production is often one of positioning in relation to notions of “authenticity” and the idea of a pure, immutable sound lodged in a traditional musical style. In some cases however, community music gains an authenticity status in its own right: most notably in cases where the migrant heritage is rediscovered and drawn from by artists who are able to reach a wider audience. It is the case of the album Diwan by Rachid Taha, in which he covered a song from migrant musician Mohamed Mazouni, as well as artists who were famous in Algeria during the 50s-60s. This album was inspired by a desire to “sing the songs that influence me and pay homage to my culture.” (Denselow 2006). At the level of production, Paris came to occupy a central position in African music production in particular, as good production centres have only recently started to emerge (Winders 2006). This position however has somewhat waned in recent years, as a result of rising production costs in the capital combined with an improvement in the technological capacity of cities in the South. In addition, the increasing accessibility of home sound recording and editing systems in the South has made it easier for Paris- based producers to record albums locally, with no requirement for artists to go to France (interview nº10). Distribution and consumption appear to occur in compartmentalised markets. In some cases, musicians are able to ‘break out’ of community markets. ‘Some artists

Mr Kébé, record producer, inside his Lampe Fall Record shop in La Goutte d’Or, Paris.

117

Chapter 4 Pral a l el worlds? are able to make the transition to mainstream and reach a wider audience […] there are some bridges. Small concert venues play a big role in this’ (interview nº5). One community record shop-owner suggested that a musician had more chances of achieving this by presenting a stereotypical image of his/her country (author interview). In another case, a Cap-Verde music producer and record store owner based in Paris proudly stated that there were no Cesaria Evora albums in his record store, since he strove to promote the ‘other music’ from Cap Verde (interview nº33). The promotion of music also highlights the separation of community networks from mainstream: when asked which media are used to promote music, mainstream Paris-based press and radio are either not cited or deemed inaccessible. In distribution, the existence of parallel networks was cited ‘meaning that there are artists who fail to sell a single album in the official networks, but then fill the Zénith once a year’ (interview nº1). At the level of audiences, a separation is also perceived: interestingly, when non-white audiences attend community performances for instance they are perceived as ‘following their own music’ (Haynes 2005). The struggle of community producers and record shop owners to survive was only too apparent in the interviews. During one interview with an Algerian music producer, a delivery of suitcases arrived. ‘If music was profitable, we would not have to sell suitcases’ (interview nº 11). Far from the mainstream distribution channels and hardly hit by music digitalization, it is becoming increasingly harder for community producers to sustain their activities and contribute to the discovery of new artists and their growth (interviews nº 10, 11, 19).

4.5p Im liCATIONs for research of the commodification gradient Cultural industries, at first glance, seem to offer ample opportunities for cultural boundary crossing and the commodification of diverse cultural expressions, as they thrive on constant aesthetic innovation. The more or less continuous oversupply of inputs (and outputs) relative to market size in the cultural industries however creates a selection problem. As products in the cultural industries tend to be taste-driven and performance-driven (Currid 2007), selection has to focus on the aesthetic qualities of the product. Migrants can indeed tap into their more unique cultural or “ethnic” resources to come up with products, in our case (world) music, which can appeal to a broader audience and allow them to carve out a living in the country of settlement. Getting their creations commodified and actually sold is, however, anything but a straightforward process. A complex field of tastemakers negotiate between supply and demand and determine to a large extent if and when a creation is transformed into an actual product. Such a field of networks of (nascent) artists, tastemakers, and consumers is anything but footloose. Instead, it is anchored in concrete places as the field of world music production in Paris has shown. Paris functions as a place where Appadurai’s different regimes of value evaluation come together. There, objects can come to meet the commodity requirements as they move to a new context (Appadurai 1986: 86).

118

Capterh 4 Parallel worlds? Looking at the life of commodities and what and why certain things become commodities thus highlights complex moral geographies of use (Jackson 1999). We refer here not to whether objects become commodified at all, but whether they have access to different value chains and the effect of weighing of ‘contrasting evaluations of commodities by different constituencies that are proximate to them’ (Castree 2004, p.30). The degree of value coherence against which commodities are set may differ in situations and contexts, meaning that the same framework will not apply to all transactions, but rather that we have ‘regimes of value’ (Appadurai 1986: 83). Intermediaries, certifiers or aestheticians play a key role in deciding whose products get through and become commodified. They, in other words, regulate the commodification gradient. Exploiting the opportunities in the cultural industries is, accordingly, dependent on, first, access to these intermediaries and, secondly, on the capacity to be able to come up with aesthetic products that can appeal to niche or mainstream markets. The intermediaries, themselves part of the wider field of the cultural industry, constitute the centre of the matching process and they have to be studied accordingly if one wants to investigate the potential of cultural industries for migrants. Given the potential importance of cultural industries for local (urban) economies, the local configuration of gatekeepers should be at the heart of the research. The analysis of their networks, institutional embeddedness, and mental make-up (in particular their views on consumer markets and their own internal motivation) should shed light on who gets commodified in the mainstream, who in “ethnic” niche markets, and who stays out altogether. Doing this will make the commodification gradient more concrete and tangible. Clearly the question of captive markets is not exclusive to the cultural industries, but in these sectors the crucial resource in the cultural product may be the ethnic identity itself. Hence, understanding the dynamics of commodification of difference requires the unpacking of the dialectical relationship between ethnic identity and ethnic social and cultural capital on the one hand, and socio-economic insertion on the other. Further research on the relationship between the opportunities arising in the cultural industries and migrants from less-developed countries should, then, depart from the pivotal role played by gatekeepers in controlling the commodification gradient. More in particular, further research should focus on the extent to which the filtering devices are related to place or how local the commodification gradient actually is. This is particular relevant when exploring the locational decisions of start-ups in the cultural industries sector. We would expect these decisions to be based on an evaluation of the critical mass of consumption among other considerations. Here also we might see the emergence of niche markets predominantly in places where there is a pre-existing ‘captive audience’, a settled community for instance. In zooming out, further research could explore the role of collective actors, both public and private, in shaping the commodification gradient. How do formal and informal ‘regimes of value’ impact on this filtering device? Finally, thinking about the geographical nature of world music, how should we evaluate the dissonant effects of its commodification on the place of origin and the place of exploitation of intellectual property rights (see Power and Hallencreutz 2002)?

119

Chapter 4 Pral a l el worlds? 4.6ne An x: List of interviewees

Name Position Abaji Musician Anemiche Morhand Director of Creativ Productions (Kabyle music) Assadi Saïd Director of record label Accords Croisés Azaïche Méziane Director of the venue Cabaret Sauvage Azoulay Eliane World music reviewer for magazine Télérama Benaïche Marc Director of Mondomix Bizot Laurent Director of the record label No Format Bordier Hervé Coordinator of the Fête de la Musique in Paris Breuil Hervé Manager of the Olympic Café and Lavoir Moderne Parisien Conrath Philippe Director of the record label Cobalt/Accent aigu and festival Africolor de Jesus Charlotte Former programmer at Olympic Café Dehmous Morhand Former music producer, Kabyle music Dessantos Emile Record shop owner and producer at Glenn Music (Congolese music) Dhelin Maïté Tour agent and director of LMC Production (touring agency) Essindi François Musician Fruchaux Gilles Director of record label Buda Musique Guénebaut Sophie Director of the association Zone Franche Gueugnon Philippe Programmer at the venue Satellit Café Guilchier Mône Artistic advisor at ARIAM France Harbonnier Clélia Promotion at Frochot Music James Benoît Curator music collection, Musée du Quai Branly Kajler Olivier DJ at Radio Fréquence Paris Plurielle Kébé M. Record shop owner and music producer at Lampe Fall (Senegalese music) Khaznadar Cherif Director, Maison des Cultures du Monde and Festival de l’Imaginaire Kolpa Kopoul Rémy DJ at Radio Nova Laot Hubert Programmer at the Musée Guimet’s Auditorium Laulanne Pierre-Olivier Director of the FAMDT federation Matsumiya Nobuko Musician with the Ensemble Sakura Merlin Blaise Festival director, Jardins et Musique Minimum Benjamin Chief editor, Mondomix magazine and website Msaidie Chébli Artistic director at Cantos Publishing; musician Pelaez Diego Musician

120

Capterh 4 Parallel worlds? Sanchez Réné Record shop owner and music producer at Tropica Music (Cap Verdian music) Seck Nago Musicologist and journalist, editor of the website Afrisson, on African and Indian Ocean music Soufflet Sylvain Director of the Association Loin des Machines Veyssière Simon Press agent at Accent Violette Gérard Director of the Théâtre de la Ville Zhoulekha Mme Record shop owner and producer

Rferencee s Adorno, T. and M. Horkheimer (2002). The Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments, trans. Edmund Jephcott, Stanford: Stanford University Press. Adorno, T. W. and J. M. Bernstein (2001). The culture industry: Selected essays on mass culture, Brunner-Routledge. Anderson, C. (2008). The long tail: Why the future of business is selling less of more, Hyperion. Appadurai, A. (1986). The social life of things: commodities in cultural perspective. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. — (1988). The social life of things: commodities in cultural perspective. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. — (1990). “Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy.” Theory, Culture & Society 7(2): 1-24. Aubert, L., Ed. (2005). Musiques Migrantes. Geneva, infolio. Becker, H. S. (1982). Art Worlds. Berkeley, University of California Press. Bohlman, P. V. (2002). World music. A very short introduction. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1971). “Le marché des biens symboliques.” L’Année sociologique 22: 49-126. — (1979). La distinction: critique sociale du jugement. Paris, Editions de Minuit. — (1992). Les règles de l’art, genèse et structure du champ littéraire Paris, Editions du Seuil. — (2000). Esquisse d’une théorie de la pratique. Paris, Seuil. Brandellero, A. M. C. (2010). Diversity in the cultural industries: a migrant cultural entrepreneur perspective. Cultural Policy and Management Yearbook 2010. Amsterdam/ Istanbul, Boekmanstudies. Castree, N. (2003). “Commodifying what nature?” Progress in Human Geography 27(3): 273-292. — (2004). “The geographical lives of commodities: problems of analysis and critique.” Social & Cultural Geography 5(1): 21-35. Caves, R. E. (2000). Creative industries: Contracts between art and commerce. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. CIMT (2007). Planetes Musiques. Paris, IRMA. Connell, J. and C. Gibson (2003). Sound Tracks. Popular music, identity and place, Routledge. — (2004). “World music: deterritorializing place and identity.” Progress in Human Geography 28(3): 342-361. Cook, I. and P. Crang (1996). “The world on a plate: culinary culture, displacement and geographical knowledges.” Journal of Material Culture 1(2): 131-153. Crain, M. (1996). Negotiating identities in Quito’s cultural borderlands. Cross-cultural consumption. D. Howes. London, Routledge: 125-137.

121

Chapter 4 Pral a l el worlds? Crang, P., C. Dwyer, et al. (2003). “Transnationalism and the spaces of commodity culture.” Progress in Human Geography 27(4): 438. Currid, E. (2007). The Warhol economy: how fashion, art, and music drive New York City. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Denselow, R. (2006). Rachid Taha Diwan album review The Guardian. Eikhof, D. R. and A. Haunschild (2007). “For art’s sake! Artistic and economic logics in creative production.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 28(5): 523-538. Frith, S. (2000). “The discourse of world music.” Western Music and its Others: 305–22. Grabher, G. (2002). “The project ecology of advertising: tasks, talents and teams.” Regional Studies 36(3): 245-262. Guilbault, J. (1993). “On redefining the «Local» through world music.” World of music(Wilhelmshaven) 35(2): 33-47. Guilbault, J., E. Benoit, et al. (1993). Zouk: world music in the West Indies, University of Chicago Press. Haynes, J. (2005). “World music and the search for difference.” Ethnicities 5(3): 365-385. Hesmondhalgh, D. (1996). “Flexibility, post-Fordism and the music industries.” Media, Culture & Society 18(3): 469-488. — (2006). “Bourdieu, the media and cultural production.” Media, Culture & Society 28(2): 211-231. — (2007). The cultural industries. London, Sage. Hirsch, P. M. (1972). “Processing fads and fashions: An organization-set analysis of cultural industry systems.” American journal of sociology 77(4): 639-659. Jackson, P. (1999). “Commodity cultures: the traffic in things.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 24(1): 95-108. — (2002). “Commercial cultures: transcending the cultural and the economic.” Progress in Human Geography 26(1): 3-18. Jackson, P., N. Thomas, et al. (2007). “Consuming transnational fashion in London and Mumbai.” Geoforum 38: 908-924. Kassabian, A. (2004). “Would you like some world music with your latte?” Twentieth-century music 2(1): 209-223. Lash, S. and C. Lury (2007). Global culture industry: The mediation of things. Cambridge, Polity Press. Lash, S. and J. Urry (1994). Economies of signs and space. London, Sage. Lecomte, H. (2005). Deux ou trois choses que je sais d’elles... Musiques migrantes. L. Aubert. Geneva, infolio. Leyshon, A. (2001). “Time-space (and digital) compression: software formats, musical networks, and the reorganisation of the music industry.” Environment and Planning A 33(1): 49-78. Leyshon, A., P. Webb, et al. (2005). “On the reproduction of the musical economy after the Internet.” Media, Culture & Society 27(2): 177. Lomax, A. (1956). “Folk song style: Notes on a systematic approach to the study of folk song.” Journal of the International Folk Music Council 8(VIII): 48-50. Massoni, A. (2006). Les musiques de Corse - chants, instruments et danses. Ajaccio, A. Piazzola. Minimum, B. (2006). Interview avec Alain Weber. Mondomix. Paris, Mondomix. Negus, K. (1996). “Globalization and the music of the public spheres.” Globalization, communication and transnational civil society: 179—96. — (2002). “The work of cultural intermediaries and the enduring distance between production and consumption.” Cultural Studies 16(4): 501-515. Power, D. and D. Hallencreutz (2002). “Profiting from creativity? The music industry in Stockholm, Sweden and Kingston, Jamaica.” Environment and Planning A 34(10): 1833- 1854.

122

Capterh 4 Parallel worlds? Power, D. and A. J. Scott (2004). A prelude to cultural industries and the production of culture. Cultural industries and the production of culture. D. Power and A. J. Scott. London, Routledge. Pratt, A. C. (1997). “The cultural-industries production system: A case study of employment change in Britain, 1984-91.” Environment and Planning A 29: 1953-1974. Scott, A. J. (1999). “The cultural economy: geography and the creative field.” Media Culture and Society 21: 807-818. — (2000). The cultural economy of cities. London, Sage. — (2004). “Cultural-products industries and urban economic development: prospects for growth and market contestation in global context.” Urban Affairs Review 39(4): 461-490. — (2006a). “Creative cities: conceptual issues and policy questions.” Journal of Urban Affairs 28(1): 1-17. — (2006b). “Entrepreneurship, innovation and industrial development: geography and the creative field revisited.” Small Business Economics 26(1): 1-24. Solomon, M. R. (1986). “The missing link: surrogate consumers in the marketing chain.” Journal of Marketing 50(4): 208-218. Taylor, D. (1997). Global pop. World music, world markets. London, Routledge. Thiebergien, B. (2005). Ou est le monde? Musiques migrantes. L. Aubert. Geneve, Collection Tabou. Throsby, C. D. (2001). Economics and culture. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Winders, J. A. (2006). “Paris Africain: rhythms of the African diaspora.” Zukin, S. and J. S. Maguire (2004). “Consumers and consumption.” Annual Review of Sociology 30: 173-97.

1 The low response rate can be explained by the fact that for the majority of the musicians, personal emails were not available; hence contact was made via the general contact emails of their agents, managers or promotion companies, mostly to no avail. 2 This has often been linked to discussions about the threat of cultural homogenisation or even ‘imperialism, as the circulation of cultural products and symbols mainly originating from the West is perceived to lead to a levelling of cultural consumption across the globe (Throsby 2001). We would argue that we are witnessing parallel processes of homogenisation and differentiation, as global and local forces interact. 3 It should be noted that world music can also originate in an intra-national context, as in the case of regional musical traditions such as the Corsican polyphonic choral tradition (Massoni 2006) or the Southern Italian traditions studied by Lomax (1956).

123

Chapter 4 Pral a l el worlds?

55555

Pri a s, cAPITAl of world music? Exploring the trans-local dynamics of music production

(Submitted for review. Co-authored by Ludovic Halbert1) PARIS, CAPITAL OF WORLD MUSIC? 5.1trod In uction In recent decades, a growing focus of the (urban) geographies of music production and consumption has highlighted the interaction between music production and place (Cohen 1991; Straw 1991; Hesmondhalgh 1996; Negus 1997; Scott 1999; Power and Hallencreutz 2002). Social processes are seen as having a significant influence on how music is produced, distributed and consumed: cultural, historical, geographical and political factors come into play in the mediation of music (Negus 1997, p.65). More generally, the music industry is often connected to local creative milieus and displays a tendency towards clustering in urban areas (Hesmondhalgh 1996; Scott 1999). From a more cultural perspective, the symbolic value of place in the making of a cultural product may reinforce the spatial clustering of cultural industries. It is argued for example that there is a specifically territorial value of a place which imbues the product with a particular form of authenticity (Scott 2004). In this sense, the concentration of cultural activities in cities with a reputation and a symbolic value would contribute to the success of locally made cultural products (Molotch 2002). As a result, the emergence of local ‘music scenes’ cannot be attributed only to serendipity, but rather can be seen as resulting from actively created and maintained coalitions and alliances between agents (Straw 1991). However, the key role attributed here to urban networks should not lead to a conceptualization of music production as a bounded and inward-looking process restricted to city-regional level (Watson 2007). On the contrary, music production is increasingly be understood in the framework of wider processes of cultural globalization (Crane 1994), drawing upon multiple spatial dynamics of production and scales of cultural valorization. Following a relational economy perspective (Bathelt and Glückler 2003; Boggs and Rantisi 2003), we view the commodification of creativity into cultural products as a contested yet self-reinforcing and reproducing process in which (contextually and historically) situated networks of agents are predominant. On a geographical level, this results in a dynamic trans-local socio-spatial system of production and consumption, simultaneously mobilizing multiple scales (Grabher 2002a; Wolfe and Gertler 2004; Wolfe 2009), connected via global knowledge pipelines (Bathelt, Malmberg et al. 2004b). The competitiveness of a cluster and the success of its outputs is also connected to the ability to draw upon globally dispersed markets, calling for an analysis which combines the unpacking of local production and wider access to buyers’ dynamics (Power and Hallencreutz 2007). This approach invites us to explore both the trans-local interdependencies and the local specificities of cultural production, or in a more general perspective, the multifarious and interrelated scales and linkages of cultural production and consumption networks. In other words, the concentration of cultural industries in large city-regions does not merely result from positive externalities beneficially impacting production activities (as in the traditional cluster approach) but also reflects city- regional networks’ ability to draw upon and combine the multiple scales and territories of cultural production (Crevoisier and Jeannerat 2009). Be it in the very content of

127

PARI S, CAPITAL OF WORLD MUSIC? cultural products (their symbolic value), in their clustered but nonetheless networked modes of production (between local and distant clusters), in the geography of cultural consumption that is spread between numerous and often fragmented markets, or even in the collective actions undertaken locally, large city-regions appear to have the unique ability to pull together geographically differentiated resources into a cultural product. The resulting hypothesis is that some city-regions develop a competitive advantage over other locations not only because they host heterogeneous resources (Jacobs 1969) that may be combined fortuitously (see the notion of serendipity Hall 1998, page 21), but also because they concentrate the trans-local networks that have developed the ability to match these heterogeneous resources to anticipate or meet market expectations (Halbert 2010). The case of world music provides an illuminating example of how geographical scales and distanced places are intrinsically combined in ‘intermediary arrangements’ that constitute the networked nature of (urban) cultural production (Latour 1993:122). The genre is generally characterized by a multiple deterritorialisation of musical outputs: firstly, the transmission and consumption of ‘local’ music occurs far beyond the local, regional and national boundaries (Connell and Gibson 2003). The spatial distance between the loci of creativity and its consumption is a crucial component of the aura of authenticity often created around the marketing of world music products, and allows mostly post-colonial urban societies to experiment the illusion of a still preserved otherness (Connell and Gibson 2003), Secondly, the actual production and distribution of world music is highly centralized and structured around cities in Europe and the USA (Taylor 1997; Brandellero and Pfeffer Submitted). The co-location of actors specialized in researching, reviewing, producing and staging world music in the city creates a trans-local nexus of valorization, mediation and distribution of related musical output. Additionally, large urban areas become the stages where, through the vehicle of migration and more spontaneous (artistic) encounters, the boundaries between rural and urban, national and transnational, vernacular and religious music traditions become blurred and hybrid styles surface (Hall 1998). As a result of this fragmented geography, world music provides a case in point in analyzing the extent to which, in an era of increased (economic) globalization, cities are involved in a ‘continuum of relations in networks of varying length’ (Halbert and Rutherford 2010), calling for an analysis of local and trans-local dynamics of creativity, production and consumption. The aim of this paper is to analyze how these relations and dynamics occur in practice, by exploring the evolution of the cluster and the complex ecosystem of production, valorization and consumption of world music in the Paris city-region. We first contextualize our paper by positioning it among recent work on geography and music. We then provide an overview of our fieldwork and data collection, highlighting the role of Paris as a pioneering city in the consumption and production of world music. Subsequently, we present unique empirical material on the geography of the world music industry in the Paris region and details the contours of the cluster. On this basis, the paper then sets out to deepen our understanding of the trans-local dimension of the world music industry and how it impacts the functioning of the cluster. Finally,

128

Capterh 5 PARIS, CAPITAL OF WORLD MUSIC? we analyze the critical juncture at which the cluster finds itself, against the backdrop of the wider music industry crisis, and the collective response by actors directly and indirectly related to the sector. While the cluster’s historical competitiveness may be tied to its ability to draw upon fresh talent, expert knowledge and a dense critical infrastructure of producers, venues and media, the future pivots around building upon established reputations and marketing the music more effectively.

5.2 c Musi clusters and the city The concentration of cultural activities in large city-regions is widely established in the recent literature (Zukin 1995; Hall 1998; Scott 2000a; Florida 2002; Lloyd 2004; Scott 2004). Major city-regions such as New York, Los Angeles, London, Berlin or Paris constitute both a site of cultural production and of consumption, where some districts are emblematic, thriving on social agglomeration and proximity (see Hall 1998; Lloyd 2006; Currid 2007a). Various forms of proximity (Rallet and Torre 1998; spatial but also organisational, institutional, cognitive, etc. Boschma 2005) account for the resilience and dominance of several city-regions as global cultural production sites in the world (Scott 2005; Currid 2006), as the density of cultural producers multiplies possibilities for career advancement and positive spillovers of agglomeration (Currid and Connolly 2008). The work of individuals and organizations is incorporated in a series of professional and social networks that coordinate an economy defined as ecologies of projects (Grabher 2002b), which, as a result, constitutes a highly vertically disintegrated but functionally integrated system of production (Piore and Sabel 1986; Caves 2000; Scott 2000a), combined with a highly networked ‘art world’ (Becker 1982; Leyshon 2001). In a more recent reading of the multi-layered forces shaping the symbolic and actual development of cultural products, Scott (2006) suggests an understanding of the city as a creative field. In this analysis the interconnections between social relationships shaping human ingenuity and inventiveness, the entrepreneurial and technological forms that ensue, and the related economic activities and institutional forms are mutually driven and reinforced (Scott 2006). Within the cultural industries, the relation between music and place, particularly cities, has attracted considerable attention from a variety of disciplines (Watson, Hoyler et al. 2009). Some research has recognized the relation between music, place and identity (Stokes 1994; Bennett 2000; Hudson 2006). Numerous studies have looked at the association of specific types of music with particular places, exploring local music scenes and sounds (Cohen 1991; Kloosterman 2005) and the social coalescence around musical styles (Straw 1991). More recently, greater attention has been placed on loci of musical creativity and production (Scott 1999; Power and Hallencreutz 2002; Gibson 2005; Watson 2007; Florida and Jackson 2009), with recording studios embodying the musical reputation of specific places, as key sites of technological innovation and relational forms of creativity (Gibson 2005, p.194). By providing access to other artists and audiences, and to a lesser extent to urban cultural diversity, cities provide actual spaces of ‘fixity’ for networks of creativity and

129

Chapter 5 PARI S, CAPITAL OF WORLD MUSIC? production (Connell and Gibson 2003; Gibson 2005). Moreover, they provide access to a critical infrastructure of individuals, who are connected with cultural production and influence trends and public taste (Zukin 1991). At an aggregated level, these multiple networks constitute a loose ecosystem of production, valorization and consumption that eventually manages to link cultural production to wider markets. Creativity is selected and transformed in a city-regional ecosystem through complementary but contested networks that ensure knowledge circulation (Bathelt, Malmberg et al. 2004a). As suggested by Bathelt et al. (2004b), we acknowledge the limitations of the notion of clusters reduced as a spatially dense ecosystem of highly networked individuals, collaborating, in our case, in carving a niche for world music and competing in the production and valorization of outputs, while simultaneously constituting a pool of alert and knowledgeable consumers. We posit that the Paris cluster brings together local and trans-local knowledge networks, not simply in the form of the concentration of production and consumption activities, but also through the flow of information, the constant, renewed stream of foreign artists, and the (formalized or informal) connections with experts and organizations, providing invaluable creative inputs and outlets. Place thus becomes a prism through which to look at relations among actors rather than an object of analysis separate from the economic and the social (Bathelt and Gluckler 2003). While the cluster is dependent upon the ability to draw on these multiple scales, it also seeks to secure its position as a key node of codification and value added, as exemplified in a nascent Local Production System centred around the genre, which intends to position Paris at the head of a global hierarchy as the ‘capital of world music’.

5.3 DaTA and methodology Our research proceeded with a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. First, we developed our own database of over 700 Paris region-based organizations involved in world music in 2009 (firms, venues, festivals and associations). The addresses of all organizations were geocoded and the data were analysed using Geographical Information Systems. Moreover, where information was available, we recorded the organizations’ dates of establishment. This enables us to draw the first detailed map of the music industry cluster in the city-region and highlight the specific (and highly) selective locations of these organizations. Second, using general and specialized business directories (CIMT 2007 and the IRMA (Information and Resources for contemporary music) online database)2, as well as online data and complementary data collection by phone and via the internet, we collected information on the number of employees and revenues for over 50% of the dataset. This allows us to size up the industry in terms of economic weight in the Paris region. The quantitative data were complemented in two ways. First, we analysed a corpus of primary and secondary sources and online documentation provided by the various organizations and institutions under study. This permits us to draw the major lines of the history and contemporary evolution of the world music cluster. Second, we conducted 38

130

Capterh 5 PARIS, CAPITAL OF WORLD MUSIC? in-depth interviews with key actors in the world music cluster (label managers, venue directors and programmers, promotion agencies, artist managers, sectoral and cultural associations, and journalists), providing a sample representing the core areas of the production of recorded music and live performance, and knowledge thereof (the full list of respondents can be found in the Annex). The interview material constitutes an important element as it represents a unique vantage point from which to look at knowledge circulation on different scales and the mediation processes at work in the production and consumption of world music, as seen in the Paris city-region.

5.4 r A wo ld of music in Paris: French colonies and migration flows For over a century now, ceaseless rejuvenation processes of adaptation, renewal and transformation (Menzel and Fornahl 2007), related to both colonial and postcolonial dynamics, have contributed to the (historical) embeddedness and resilience of the Parisian world music cluster. Once a capital of an empire that spread over five continents, colonial linkages and subsequent waves of migration have animated the nightlife and cultural scene of Paris for centuries, becoming an important centre of world music discovery and consumption and an imperative stop for musicians from across the globe. Throughout the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth century, as the French Nation-State aimed to assert its power by demonstrating the extent and wealth of its empire on the domestic and international arenas, asymmetric (i.e. predatory) cultural relations between the metropolis and its colonies played out in favour of the diffusion of what would later be coined world music (see the Universal Exhibitions of 18893 and 1937 or the Colonial Exhibition of 1931). The year 1937 marked the opening of a significant cultural institution in the field, the Musée de l’Homme4, descendent of the Musée d’Ethnographie, which played an influential role in fostering and promoting a strong ethnographic tradition. Thanks to the study of (elusive) ‘primitive’ societies and the collection of extensive recorded sonic material in situ, the museum made ‘exotic’ sounds available to a Parisian audience and provided a significant repository of knowledge for local ethnomusicologists. The public sector impetus for the discovery and preservation of cultural diversity was reinforced further by the arrival of a large share of the migrants that were settling in the metropolis, among whom numerous artists were to be found. During the mid-1920s, Paris was enchanted by Josephine Baker’s songs and dance, by Stellio’s biguine5, first discovered at thePorte Dorée Colonial Exhibition in 1931, and by Creole rhythms, gypsy music, as well as tango and rumba tunes. During the inter-war period, the neighbourhoods of Montparnasse and Pigalle acquired a distinctive reputation with their dancehalls and cabarets beating to the pulse of Parisian nights (la Jungle, la Boule Blanche, le Jockey, le Tagada, le Mirage, la Savane, la Coupole, etc.). In the first half of the 20th century, Paris was also the burgeoning scene of many ‘Arab cafés’, where migrant-workers-cum-amateur-musicians, particularly from Algeria, would

131

Chapter 5 PARI S, CAPITAL OF WORLD MUSIC? give evening performances for their local communities (Daoudi and Miliani 2002). During the 1950s, music became an important medium of political expression for migrants from the Maghreb calling for national independence from France (Daoudi and Miliani 2002). This thriving scene of musical consumption outlived the decline of the colonial empire and gradually became more institutionally structured. Two elements contributed to giving a fresh impetus to world music consumption and, even more so, to recording and production in Paris. On the one hand, from the 1970s, the demographic profile of the migrant population in France diversified, through family reunifications. Between 1982 and 1999, Paris’s migrant flows underwent a rapid increase, rising by 20.6 % (+ 275,000), thus at a higher rate in comparison to the overall regional population (+ 8.7 %) and France more generally (+ 6.7 %) (INSEE 2005). Moreover, in the latter part of the 20th century, the number of migrants from Sub-Saharan Africa increased (INSEE 2005). Supported by pioneering journalists and producers, artists such as Pierre Akendengué and Francis Bebey reached an audience constituted of both migrants and French nationals. In the 1980s and 1990s, the North African raï music developed thanks to Paris-based recording studios and producers and met its early public among second and third generation migrants, before gaining an international recognition with Sting and Cheb Mami’s duo. The 1989 procession in occasion of the bicentenary anniversary of the French Revolution also aimed to highlight the universality of the ‘French spirit’, by bringing together artists from Senegal, France, Guinea and Benin among others. On the other hand, inspired by the ideals of openness and tolerance of 1968, a generation of militant-type producers and journalists (such as Philippe Conrath, Martin Messonnier, Philippe Constantin, Rémy Kolpa Kopoul) actively engaged with and promoted world musicians, by showcasing their work in festivals, newspaper articles, albums (Brandellero and Calenge 2008; Halbert and Marelle 2008). The members of this ‘conspiracy of cool’ made a career in the sector and are highly esteemed repositories of knowledge and central contributors to the vitality of the cluster. They also contributed early on to launch the international careers of artists like Salif Keita, Mory Kanté and Youssou n’Dour. It was also in 1968 that the Theatre de la Ville launched its “affordable” and multidisciplinary programme, in which world music featured prominently. On the political level, a favourable institutional context helped to provide a nurturing and (often financially) supportive environment, particularly during the years of the Mitterrand presidency (1981-1995), when a fresh impetus was given to the promotion of francophone culture across the world. This presidency was also marked by an increase in cultural spending, notably under the ministerial guidance of Jacques Lang, who was also responsible for giving amateur music a significant stage with the yearly Fête de la Musique (Brandellero and Calenge 2008). The institutionalization of world music is reflected in the data related to the date of establishment of organizations within this genre’s cluster in Paris and its wider metropolitan region. The availability of information for 300 organizations in our dataset shows a boom in the creation of organizations (including venues, labels, sectoral associations), starting from the late 1970s, with peaks in the 1990s and early 2000s. The growing attention for world music over the last century has resulted in the development of an industry cluster,

132

Capterh 5 PARIS, CAPITAL OF WORLD MUSIC? structured around numerous interdependent and competitive activities, in the public and private sector. The cluster is nourished by the presence of multiple niche audiences (migrant communities, informed amateurs, ethnomusicologists) and of a welcoming mass market, as well as the constantly renewed pool of musicians who have managed to work their ways through the numerous legal, social, economic and cultural boundaries (Brandellero 2008; Halbert and Marelle 2008). We now turn to an analysis of the cluster and its spatial anchoring in the Paris city-region.

5.5 UNPACking the Paris world music cluster The production, valorization and consumption of world music in Paris are structured around several spheres of activities. Our data offer an overview into 712 contacts in the cluster, covering the majority of businesses and individuals actively engaged in the sector. A first circle of activity revolves around support for artists and musicians’ and includes a variety of occupations (agents, managers, tour agents, promoters). The production sphere (including labels and editors, recording and mixing studios, producers) is facing severe difficulties in relation to the digital revolution and diffusion of peer-to-peer technologies whereas live performances (producers, venues and festivals) benefit from the ongoing revival of the live scene. We also distinguish technical auxiliary services (provision of musical instruments), and knowledge and B2B services covering the media industry and research. Finally, education and training, offers an insight into the opportunities for world music instruction. Numerous not-for- profit organizations are also important in the daily workings of an economy in which, additionally, the informal sector is far from being negligible. In addition to private organizations, the Paris cluster counts on a number of sectoral organizations dedicated (partially or entirely) to world music. While most of the organizations are privately- owned, there are several public or third sector bodies actively engaged in promoting or showcasing world music, be it as a primary or secondary activity. Table 5-1 below provides a breakdown of organizations by sphere of activity. The lines between these spheres are blurred, due to the frequent collaborations of actors in different professions and the presence of a significant number of organizations with multiple vocations, combining information and training or tour support with venue and festival programming, for instance. Moreover, our interview material points towards a high level of flexibility, with individuals taking up multiple roles across spheres of activity (for instance, a label manager-cum-agent-cum-legal advisor-cum- tour promoter). In addition, the narration of our respondents’ biographies highlights the significance of serendipitous encounters and ad hoc opportunities in starting collaborative ventures and business relations. Our estimate is that jobs directly and officially related to the world music sector amount to at least 3,000 in the Paris region, with yearly revenues between 100 to 200 millions Euros6, and around 160 venues and 50 festivals programming world music. In 2007, there were reportedly 478 musicians connected to the Paris world music cluster, either through contracts with local labels, teaching institutes, agents

133

Chapter 5 PARI S, CAPITAL OF WORLD MUSIC? and venues (CIMT 2007). Far from being a Table 5‑1 - Breakdown of cluster unitary system of production, the world music by sphere of activity cluster displays signs of fragmentation along Sphere of activity Total the genre’s sub-categories (e.g. fado, reggae). Artist support 64 Although there are cross-cutting recording studios, venues and distributors, we also see a Distribution and retail 21 high degree of specialization among managers, Education and training 39 labels and producers by country of origin of Information 57 artists or style (i.e. reggae, raï, Caribbean, etc.). Media 28 Our cartographic analysis is thus based on the Multiple use 228 firms and organizations that directly contribute Performance 163 to the production, edition and distribution of world music in the Paris region, unveiling a Production 91 distinct and multi-layered geography (see figure Sectoral associations 18 5.1 below). We now turn to a more detailed Technical support 3 geographical analysis of the Parisian world music cluster.

5.6 ran A t s-local world music cluster In terms of live performance, the geography is relatively concentrated. 40% of the venues are located within the Paris municipality limits. The success of other more peripheral locations, especially in the inner suburbs of the Paris region, results from the incapacity of Parisian theatres to accommodate the needs of world music artists. Discussions with industry professionals acknowledge the key role of the Parisian scene at both ends of the market. First, it is the place where more junior artists can create some buzz around their acts, in small theatres and cafés, and possibly reach the attention of producers and independent labels. Second, the city offers larger venues for more established artists of international acclaim (nine out of 10 theatres with over 1,200 seats in the Paris region are located within the Paris municipality). The lack of large venues catering for lesser known artists was noted in the interviews as another contributing factor for this shift to the outer municipalities, particularly for the purpose of hosting events attracting wide migrant audiences. The geography of the 50 festivals programming world music in the Paris region is fast-changing and more than half of them take place outside the Paris municipality, particularly in the inner suburbs locations. Longitudinal data show a burgeoning of festivals in the region between 1989 and 2004. The genre has benefited from local authority initiatives to strengthen social cohesion by programming cultural events reflecting the city’s diversity. The city-region comes to play a role in the acculturation of music: it plays a role in celebrating diversity, in forming ‘complex affiliations that cut across socioeconomic, religious and ethnic boundaries’ (Bohlman 2002, p.136). A degree of ambivalence towards this was reflected by some interviewees, who saw this as an instrumentalisation of world music for political purposes. Cultural policies

134

Capterh 5 PARIS, CAPITAL OF WORLD MUSIC? aiming to showcase diversity are also seen to be at odds with the French republican model of citizenship. Being in Paris or performing there gives status to an artist’s CV, opening up opportunities to launch an international career and gain further exposure (Brandellero 2008). Paris is seen as holding a privileged position, a springboard supporting the progression of musicians’ projects. Some venues are highly influential in establishing the reputations of artists worldwide: a performance at the Satellit Café, the Quay Branly or the Théâtre de la Ville or the Africolor festival can constitute a career turning point. However, the festival organizers and venue programmers pointed towards the increasing difficulties they face in attracting audiences to events. The genre suffers from staunch competition, in a city where a multitude of musical scenes are nurtured. In parallel, the traditional media and communication channels have re-centred in recent years on the more commercially viable artists, resulting in numerous world music columns and programmes being axed. As new means of communication are explored, there is an on-going ‘communication battle’ to ensure the visibility of events and woo spectators. While the performative side of world music is relatively spread across the metropolis, the location of firms directly involved in theproduction, edition and distribution of world music shows, on the contrary, a high level of clustering within the Paris municipality (60% of the dataset) and in a very limited number of neighbouring municipalities. The geography of production is thus more selective than that of consumption (in the form of live performance here). Major record companies follow the more general geography of both business services and headquarters of global companies in the Paris city-region (Halbert 2004). As in many other sectors, the western business district of the metropolis (IInd, VIIIth, IXth, XVIth, XVIIth arrondissements as well as the inner suburbs’ municipalities of Clichy, Levallois-Perret and Issy-les-Moulineaux) host most of the command and control functions of the music industry, including world music. A second spatial tendency relates to the geography of creative industries and artists, displaying a high degree of clustering in the north-eastern gentrifying districts and their adjacent municipalities (Xth, XIth, XVIIIth, XIXth, and XXth arrondissements of Paris, the municipalities of Montreuil, Les Lilas, Saint-Maur, Ivry-sur-Seine, etc.). It is in these districts that new waves of immigration have also contributed to the emergence of specialized neighbourhoods and numerous ethnic businesses. In addition to Pigalle and Montmartre, the northern part of the Paris municipality has seen in recent years the emergence of Château Rouge and la Goutte d’Or as key nodes of West African, Caribbean and North African music respectively. The first community music shops began to appear in Paris in the mid-1970s (Winders 2006). Their emergence can be seen as connected to the importance of music in the experience of migrants in Paris: as a sacred ritual, leisure, entertainment element of their everyday life. The choice of neighbourhood is far from accidental: in the words of a local record shop owner “the decision to locate here was taken because we had a diaspora market, with easy access to our customers. They come; they discover things, Château-Rouge, the market, the community” (interview n. 19, record shop owner and music producer, 23 November 2007). These networks highlight the role of spatialized connections which pivot around the Paris region as a place of encounters and inspiration. This vibrant

135

Chapter 5 PARI S, CAPITAL OF WORLD MUSIC? Figure 5‑1: World music cluster in Paris and the Ile-de-France Region

136

Capterh 5 PARIS, CAPITAL OF WORLD MUSIC? world of music production is however rarely featured in sectoral newspapers and magazines, and instead relies on community-based and country-of-origin media, as well as transnational diasporic links with music producers around the world. Diasporic networks connect metropolitan communities across continents and trace cultural flow to and from the homeland (Connell and Gibson 2003, p.144). Furthermore, Paris counts upon the presence of a significant number of researchers, cultural and information centres, as well as journalists and DJs specializing in world music and playing an instrumental role in its valorization. These actors play a key mediating role, taking consumers across boundaries of taste they may have (Haynes 2005, p.368) and developing new trends and tastes (Currid 2007b). In addition to these locally- based experts, our interviews with label managers, venue programmers and the media pointed towards a number of individuals and organizations furnishing their contacts in the cluster with fresh musical knowledge and access to artists both locally and trans- locally. These mediators display expertise either as ethnomusicologists or through connections to ethnic or national groups and practices (Frith 2000). The Theatre de la Ville and long-standing label Buda Musique count on a number of experts, referred to as ‘friends more erudite than me’ (interview n. 17, label manager, 12 September 2007), either based at or travelling frequently to selected geographical destinations, scouting for hitherto unfamiliar sounds. They are pivotal in maintaining the specific identity of the local production system through trans-local circuits, and in shaping opportunities and constraints for aspiring musicians. Within the more traditional strand of world music, a significant role is played by public sector organizations, like the Maison des Cultures du Monde, established in 1981 and pioneering ‘ethnoscenology’, a branch of anthropology specializing in live performances. The Auditorium of the Musée Guimet and Quay Branly also play a significant role in presenting a year-round programme of performances and concerts. Quite paradoxically, while supporting the transnational circulation of artists, these venues may remain relatively inaccessible to locally-based world musicians, as their migrant status leads to a questioning of their legitimacy as purveyors of ‘authentic’, traditional music (Brandellero 2008). All in all, the added value of co-location in Paris lies in the multifarious trans-local mediation networks that support (and are reinforced at the same time by) the virtue of status and ‘being there’. This is not only a question of being close to the site of production and consumption, but also a question of being part of a specific creative milieu, either by voluntary or serendipitous encounters (Currid 2007a; supported by own interview material). In recent years, however, the pivotal role of the world music recording industry in Paris has suffered from technological shifts and lower production costs in the artists’ countries of origin. A key figure in the festival and production milieu claimed that in a sense ‘Paris doesn’t exist anymore’ (interview n. 12, festival and label manager, 11 October 2007), referring to the increasing questioning of its status as a galvanic recording centre.

137

Chapter 5 PARI S, CAPITAL OF WORLD MUSIC? 5.7ne Re wing the cluster: a (trans-local) strategy for the capital of world music? Maintaining the competitiveness of the industry has resulted in a series of collective actions over recent decades. Indeed, the world music sector reflects the more general trend in the Paris cultural economy, in terms of the multitude of structures of formalized collective order and civil associations (Scott 2000b; Halbert Submitted). Table 5.2 below gives an overview of the principal sectoral organizations in the (world) music industry, including representative organizations and royalty collection agencies. A number of organizations have regional branches or contact people throughout the country, actively promoting the preservation and visibility of France’s regional musical traditions. The timing of establishment of the world music-related organizations followed the phase of flourishing of the cluster discussed earlier. This could be explained by a growing reflexivity in the cluster and an internal recognition of its significance, culturally and economically. As early as 1990, professionals from France (and now around 21 countries in all continents) joined forces in an association called Zone Franche, the first world music network. Its mission is to bring together festivals, theatres, labels, editors, artistic managers, media, cultural associations and distribution networks for an open dialogue on the needs of various professions in the sector and the pursuit of related lobbying activities and joint initiatives. In recent years, the association has lobbied fervently on the question of artist mobility and visas, which our interviews confirmed as being one of the main concerns for music programmers and producers in the world music field. The Information Centre on Traditional and World Music (CIMT), constitutes a central node in the sharing of information and resources on world music in France. The co- location of these organizations7 in the Ile de France region (Paris city-region) and the numerous information sessions and workshops ensures the frequency of contacts and closeness of relations among actors in different organizations and professions, encapsulating soft institutionalism and social capital (Amin and Thrift 1994). However, a key innovation in the collective effort to meet sectoral needs has appeared more recently, in response to the repercussions of the wider music industry crisis. Our interviews pointed to shrinking retail presence of world music, with the closure of specialized shops and minimal exposure in mainstream and non-specialized retail. Estimates are that half of the world music industry’s revenues have been lost in the last 6 years in France. This has been combined with a slow transition to digital of many long-standing world music labels, the online purchasing seen by some label managers as damaging the integrity of albums as cultural goods and sources of knowledge on other cultures. This context contributed to the development of several collective actions between industry members and local and regional authorities (including the Paris municipality, the Ile-de-France Region), culminating in the launch of Paris Mix in 2008. This association has the stated mission of bringing together the Paris-based world music cluster, and aims to position Paris at the top of a hitherto unsubstantiated global hierarchy. The initiative emanated from several individuals, under the leadership of a French world music media company specialized (Mondomix). Building on a report

138

Capterh 5 PARIS, CAPITAL OF WORLD MUSIC? Table 5‑2: Main (world) music industry organizations in France

Target Name of organization (date of establishment) Nat. Reg Musicians National Federation of Traditional Music and Dance Associations √ and (FAMDT, 1999)* composers Centre for Traditional Music and Dance in Ile de France √ (CMDT-IDF)8 Regional Association for Information and Musical Activities √ (ARIAM) Centre for Traditional Music Ile-de-France (CMT-IDF, 1991)* √ Society for the Collection and Distribution of Performing Artists √ (SPEDIDAM, 1959) Music creation fund (FCM, 1998) √ Society for the Management of the Rights of Performing Artists and √ Musicians (ADAMI, around 1960) Society for Authors, Composers and Editors of Music (SACEM, 1850) √ Record Musical Edition Syndicate (CSDM) √ companies, editing and Music Managers’ Forum France (MMFF, 1999) √ production French Union for Phonographic Edition (SNEP, 1992) √ Society of Phonographic Producers (SCPP, 1996) √ Society for French Phonogram Producers and Society of Independent √ Phonographic Producers (SPPF, 1996/UPFI, 1993) Distribution Francophonie Diffusion (1993) √ Sector-wide Zone Franche (1990)* √ Bureauexport (1993) √ Paris Mix (2008)* √ Centre for Popular Music, Chanson and Jazz (CNV, 1986) Information Music Observatory (Observatoire de la Musique, 2001) √ Information and Resource Centre for Contemporary Music √ (IRMA, 1986) International Research Centre on Ethnomusicology in France √ (CIRIEF, 2007)* Information Centre on Traditional and World Music (CIMT, 1992)* √

written by academic experts8, the original public and private organizations have rallied the support of around 50 firms and associations, in addition to the City of Paris and the Ile-de-France Region, to develop collaborative and collective actions so as to imagine a future beyond the current crisis. Moreover, successful artists Rachid Taha and Khaled are the faces of the project’s promotional campaign. Paris Mix has the financial support of the city of Paris’s departments for economic affairs and for social cohesion, and constitutes the first Local Production System centred on the music industry in France. The project has recently received further recognition and financial support by the

139

Chapter 5 PARI S, CAPITAL OF WORLD MUSIC? French Ministry for Rural Development and Spatial Planning Ministry (DATAR) for its innovative approach to entrepreneurship. Paris Mix is based on a three-pronged strategy that aims to associate the trans- local mediations on which the cluster relies with more locally-based initiatives. Firstly, it advocates stronger ties between local production and wider markets, by offering greater visibility for locally produced world music catalogues and a digital distribution and sale of content via an online platform. Parallel to a web-based approach, a pilot project involved the setting up of five ‘musical totems’ in public spaces around the city, allowing people to access content. Secondly, it offers workshops and training to foster the adaptation of local businesses to digital technologies. Finally, it anchors its activities firmly in place, through a positive discrimination recruitment strategy targeting young professionals from economically deprived suburbs. Its location at the heart of the XVIIIth arrondissement, a traditional migrant destination during the XXth century, symbolizes the desire to connect to the city’s history of diversity and strengthen the sense of a shared social context within the cluster9. Paris Mix’s tag line ‘Paris Capital of World Music’ denotes an ambition to position the cluster not just locally, but globally, at the head of the hierarchy of world music producing centres. Moreover, a proposal is under discussion to accompany locally-produced albums with a ‘world music made in Paris’ symbolic denomination of Protected Geographical Status. This constitutes a clear illustration of the ongoing attempt to make use of the local dimension of the Paris world music production system by its own promoters. While it is early days to assess the effectiveness of the Local Production System, Paris Mix reflects a spatially embedded and socially networked response, but which nonetheless mobilizes actors at various levels of the Parisian social sphere of world music production. The initiative denotes the signs of the reflexive disposition of “local” actors that recognize a critical juncture creating opportunities for the regeneration of the cluster in a new competitive format (for other case studies respectively on the New York garment industry and on the Paris Region Image Producing Industries see Rantisi 2002; Halbert Submitted).

5.8nc Co lusions This paper has uncovered the dynamics of world music production, valorization and consumption within the Parisian world music cluster, and highlighted the spatially multi-scalar and historically, socially and economically-embedded dimensions of the creative field. The cluster has evolved from an ad hoc display of the music of the world, alimented by the passage of musicians and the cultural scene connected to migrant communities, to a formalized and reflexive cluster, projecting itself through a local scene of networked actors, the symbolic anchoring to place and its self-positioning at the top of a global hierarchy and world music value chain. The cluster’s competitiveness is tied to trans-local trajectories of knowledge diffusion, its transmission and mediation through individual and collective actions, and the mobilization of public and private actors towards a unitary response to the critical music industry conjuncture.

140

Capterh 5 PARIS, CAPITAL OF WORLD MUSIC? Taking a long-term and multi-level perspective, our study reveals that the world music scene in Paris cannot simply be explained by the dense network of producers. The scene’s historical roots and the role of key actors, combining entrepreneurship with an understanding of the societal significance of world music in a diversifying society, are evident, creating a strong shared social context. The role of specific change agents (Rantisi 2004), represented by individuals and organizations embedded in a particular contingency, is clearly recognized. The 1960s marked a turning point for the previously rather informal Paris music scene, with growing recognition of the variety of music from the world by institutions like the Théâtre de la Ville and the newspaper Libération under the impetus of passionate individuals. A fresh impulse was given recently by the public-private venture Paris Mix, combining a valorization of cultural diversity with an ambitious commercial strategy, firmly anchoring the cluster in place while propelling it globally with a rebranding effort. This attempt runs two major risks. One is to fail to reach a proper equilibrium in mobilizing the different local and trans-local scales. By focusing too narrowly on the Paris cluster itself, Paris Mix may miss out on the artistic and economic evolutions happening elsewhere. On the other hand, by actively opening up to other networks supporting world music production, this may reduce its visibility as a distinctive site of production and thus reduce the appeal of its unique location. The second risk is that it also raises the intricate issue of wealth appropriation in a global production/ consumption creative chain. How will the (dwindling) benefits created by the trans- local networks be shared between, for example, musicians from rural Africa, a local club in Chateau-Rouge, and a major record company? Our study has also called into question the role of the state in shaping, directly and indirectly, the fortunes of the cluster. Paris’s function as a turntable for world sounds is clearly influenced by the country’s migration and urban policies, as indicated by collective actions in support of artists’ mobility and less restrictive visa rules. Cultural policy has not only contributed to the development of a locally-based critical infrastructure, but also to the encouragement of audience participation, though a strong focus on the francophone world remains. The study provides a further contribution to research on clustering and knowledge networks and further points to the need for a trans-local perspective on cultural industry ecologies. Moreover, it calls for further analysis in the (formal and informal) collective actions within cultural industry clusters, beyond the temporary project- based pooling of resources.

5.9o Ackn wledgments The research has received financial support from the Urban Development Construction and Architecture Plan of the French Ministry of Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development and Sea (M07.03 14/06/2007 / 0002662), from the French Ministry of Culture and Communication (3980/60653) and from the association Les Faubourgs Numériques. Previous versions of the paper were presented to public authorities on

141

Chapter 5 PARI S, CAPITAL OF WORLD MUSIC? 19th December 2007, to industry professionals on 30th April 2008 at the Lavoir Moderne Parisien, to the academic community on 12th May 2009. We would like to thank the participants at these events for their interest and stimulating questions. We would also like to thank Pierric Calenge, Ulrike Waellisch, Michael Storper and Robert Kloosterman for their comments.

Rferencee s Amin, A. and N. Thrift (1994). Living in the global. Globalisation, institutions and regional development in Europe. A. Amin and N. Thrift. Oxford, Oxford University Press: 1-22. Azoulay, E. (1997). Musiques du monde. Paris, Bayard. Bathelt, H. and J. Gluckler (2003). “Toward a relational economic geography.” Journal of Economic Geography 3(2): 117-144. Bathelt, H. and J. Glückler (2003). “Towards a relational economic geography.” Journal of Economic Geography 3(2): 117-144. Bathelt, H., A. Malmberg, et al. (2004a). “Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation.” Progress in Human Geography 28(1): 31. — (2004b). “Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation “ Progress in Human Geography 28: 31-56. Becker, H. S. (1982). Art Worlds. Berkeley, University of California Press. Bennett, A. (2000). Popular music and youth culture: music, identity and place. New York, St Martins Press. Boggs, J. S. and N. M. Rantisi (2003). “The ’relational turn’ in economic geography.” Journal of Economic Geography 3(2): 109-116. Bohlman, P. V. (2002). World music. A very short introduction. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Boschma, R. (2005). “Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment.” Regional Studies 39(1): 61 - 74. Brandellero, A. M. C. (2008). Les immigrés transnationaux dans les industries culturelles : des vecteurs d’innovation ? Le cas des musiques du monde Paris Clusters, Milieux d’Innovation et Industries culturelles en Ile-de-France. Brandellero, A. M. C. and P. Calenge (2008). Le fonctionnement des filieres des musiques du monde: une approche par les individus. Rapport. Les Faubourgs Numériques, Paris. Brandellero, A. M. C. and K. Pfeffer (Submitted). “Multiple and shifting geographies of world music production.” Caves, R. E. (2000). Creative industries: Contracts between art and commerce. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. CIMT (2007). Planetes Musiques. Paris, IRMA. Cohen, S. (1991). Rock culture in Liverpool, Clarendon Press. Connell, J. and C. Gibson (2003). Sound Tracks. Popular music, identity and place, Routledge. Crane, D. (1994). The sociology of culture. Oxford, Blackwell. Crevoisier, O. and H. Jeannerat (2009). “Territorial knowledge dynamics: from the proximity paradigm to multi-location milieus.” European Planning Studies 17(8): 1223-1241. Currid, E. (2006). “New York as a global creative hub: A competitive analysis of four theories on world cities.” Economic Development Quarterly 20(4): 330. — (2007a). “How art and culture happen in New York.” Journal of the American Planning Association 73(4): 454-467. — (2007b). The Warhol economy: how fashion, art, and music drive New York City. Princeton, Princeton University Press.

142

Capterh 5 PARIS, CAPITAL OF WORLD MUSIC? Currid, E. and J. Connolly (2008). “Patterns of knowledge: The geography of advanced services and the case of art and culture.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 98(2): 414-434. Daoudi, B. and H. Miliani (2002). Beurs’ mélodies. Paris, Séguier. Florida, R. (2002). The Rise of the Creative Class. New York, Basic Books. Florida, R. and S. Jackson (2009). “Sonic city: the evolving economic geography of the music industry.” Journal of Planning Education and Research XX(X): 1-12. Frith, S. (2000). “The discourse of world music.” Western Music and its Others: 305–22. Gibson, C. (2005). “Recording studios: relational spaces of creativity in the city.” Built Environment 31(3): 192-207. Grabher, G. (2002a). “The project ecology of advertising: tasks, talents and teams.” Regional Studies 36(3): 245-262. — (2002b). “The Project Ecology of Advertising: Tasks, Talents and Teams.” Regional Studies 36(3): 245–262. Halbert, L. (2004). “The intrametroplitain decentralization of Business Services in the Paris Region: Patterns, Interpretation, Consequences.” Economic Geography 80(4): 381-405. — (2010). L’avantage métropolitain. Paris, Presses Universitaires de France. — (Submitted). “Collective and Collaborative. Reflexive coordination and the dynamics of open innovation in clusters.” Urban Studies. Halbert, L. and L. Marelle (2008). Les musiques du monde dans la métropole parisienne : poids, fonctionnement et enjeux. Rapport. Paris, Les Faubourgs Numériques: 58. Halbert, L. and J. Rutherford (2010). “Flow-places: Reflections on Cities, Communication and Urban Production Processes “ GAWC Research Bulletin 352. Hall, P. (1998). Cities in Civilisation. London, Pantheon. Haynes, J. (2005). “World music and the search for difference.” Ethnicities 5(3): 365-385. Hesmondhalgh, D. (1996). “Flexibility, post-Fordism and the music industries.” Media, Culture & Society 18(3): 469. Hudson, R. (2006). “Regions and place: music, identity and place.” Progress in Human Geography 30(5): 626-634. INSEE (2005). Atlas des populations immigrees en Ile-de-France. Paris. Jacobs, J. (1969). The economy of cities. New York, Random House. Kloosterman, R. C. (2005). “Come together: an introduction to music and the city.” Built Environment 31(3): 181-191. Latour, B. (1993). We Have Never Been Modern. London, Harvester Wheatsheaf. Leyshon, A. (2001). “Time-space (and Digital) compression: Software formats, musical network and the reorganisation of the music industry.” Environment and Planning A 32: 49-77. Lloyd, R. (2004). “The neighborhood in cultural production: material and symbolic resources in the New Bohemia.” City & Community 3: 343-372. Lloyd, R. D. (2006). Neo-bohemia: art and commerce in the postindustrial city, Routledge. Menzel, M.-P. and D. Fornahl (2007). Cluster Life Cycles - Dimensions and Rationales of Cluster Development, Max Planck Institute of Economics Friedrich-Schiller-University. Molotch, H. (2002). “Place in product.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 26(4): 665-688. Negus, K. (1997). Popular music in theory: An introduction, Wesleyan University Press. Piore, M. J. and C. F. Sabel (1986). The second industrial divide: possibilities for prosperity, Basic Books. Power, D. and D. Hallencreutz (2002). “Profiting from creativity? The music industry in Stockholm, Sweden and Kingston, Jamaica.” Environment and Planning A 34(10): 1833- 1854.

143

Chapter 5 PARI S, CAPITAL OF WORLD MUSIC? — (2007). “Competitiveness, local production systems and global commodity chains in the music industry: entering the US market.” Regional Studies 41(3): 377-389. Rallet, A. and A. Torre (1998). On Geography and Technology: Proximity Relations in Localised Innovation Networks’. Clusters and Regional Specialisation. On Geography and Technology Networks. M. Steiner. London, Pion Limited: 429-446. Rantisi, N. M. (2002). “The Competitive Foundations of Localized Learning and Innovation: The Case of Women’s Garment Production in New York City.” Economic Geography 78(4): 441-462 — (2004). “The ascendance of New York fashion.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 28(1): 86-106. Scott, A. J. (1999). “The US recorded music industry: on the relations between organization, location, and creativity in the cultural economy.” Environment and Planning A 31: 1965- 1984. — (2000a). The Cultural Economy of Cities: Essay on the Geography of Image-Producing Industries. London, Thousand Oaks. — (2000b). “The cultural economy of Paris.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 24(3): 567-582. — (2004). “Cultural-products industries and urban economic development: prospects for growth and market contestation in global context.” Urban Affairs Review 39(4): 461-490. — (2005). On Hollywood: the place, the industry, Princeton Univ Pr. — (2006). “Creative cities: conceptual issues and policy questions.” Journal of Urban Affairs 28(1): 1-17. Stokes, M. (1994). Introduction. Ethnicity, identity: the musical construction of place. Oxford, Berg. Straw, W. (1991). “Systems of articulation, logics of change: communities and scenes in popular music.” Cultural Studies 5(3): 368-388. Taylor, T. D. (1997). Global Pop. World Music, world markets. New York, London, Routledge. Watson, A. (2007). Global music city: knowledge and geographical proximity in London’s recording music industry, GaWC Research Bulletin, 222. Watson, A., M. Hoyler, et al. (2009). “Spaces and Networks of Musical Creativity in the City.” Geography Compass 3(2): 856-878. Winders, J. A. (2006). “Paris Africain: rhythms of the African diaspora.” Wolfe, D. (2009). “Introduction: Embedded Clusters in the Global Economy.” European Planning Studies 17(2): 179-187. Wolfe, D. A. and M. S. Gertler (2004). “Clusters from the inside and out: local dynamics and global linkages.” Urban Studies 41(5-6): 1071-1093. Zukin, S. (1991). Landscapes of power: from Detroit to Disney World. Berkeley, University of California Press. — (1995). The cultures of cities. Cambridge, MA, Blackwell Publishing.

144

Capterh 5 PARIS, CAPITAL OF WORLD MUSIC?

1 at LATTS (Laboratoire Techniques, Territoires et Sociétés), Université Paris-Est, 6-8 Av. Blaise Pascal, Cité Descartes, 77455 Marne la Vallée Cedex 2, France. 2 Additional sources include Observatoire de la Musique, Export Bureau for French music, National Centre of Songs, Popular Music and Jazz (CNV), the Zone Franche association, the Syndicat National des Editeurs Phonographiques (the inter-professional organization for the French recorded music industry) and the Statistics Department of the Ministry of Culture. 3 where Debussy is said to have first heard the gamelans from Bali and Java that will later influence his work (Azoulay 1997). 4 Formally known as the Musée ethnographique du Trocadéro, founded in 1978 from the pooling together of various ethnographic material collected since the sixteenth century. 5 Music originating from Martinique. 6 Due to the limitations of data collection mentioned earlier, these figures should be taken with extreme care. 7 with the exception of the FAMDT. 8 The present authors were part of the research team which delivered the report. 9 Other initiatives which have based themselves in this municipality since 2007 include the MILA, affordable workspace and cultural centre for independent music labels and start-ups, and the Centre Barbara Fleury Goutte d’Or, offering rehearsal rooms and a venue for amateur and budding musicians.

145

Chapter 5 PARI S, CAPITAL OF WORLD MUSIC?

6666

Mulip t le and shifting geographies of world music production

(Submitted for review. Co-authored by Karin Pfeffer1) Geographies of world music production 6.1trod In uction This paper is concerned with mapping the transnational flows and spatial concentration in world music production, offering an insight into processes of cultural globalisation and their relation to place. The increasing circulation and diffusion of cultural goods and symbols is seen as an expression of the globalization of culture (Crane et al., 2002). However, while cultural content may transcend fixity, cultural production in general tends to combine a global circulation of outputs with the spatial concentration of creative and productive activities, (Scott, 2000, Hall, 1998). The study of music production has a propensity to explore links between place and sounds and the exploration of music ‘scenes’ (Connell and Gibson, 2003, Kloosterman, 2005, Cohen, 1991). In the more specific case of world music, a separation in time and space between the origination of music and its loci of consumption is noted (Feld, 1994). However, to understand world music simply in a dichotomous way is reductive: a more helpful approach is to understand ‘its place within the complex and constantly changing dynamics of a world which is historically, socially and spatially interconnected’ (Guilbault, 2001). Our paper departs from this point and takes world music as a case in point of the trans-local dynamics of cultural production and valorisation, interrogating the genre’s special relation to place. Utilising European world music charts since 1991 as a surrogate measure of the salience of global economic and geographical linkages in world music production, we offer an in-depth analysis into the clustered and transnational dimensions of world music production. Our research substantiates the claim that the valorisation of commodified musical content has traditionally been removed from its place of origin and centred on metropolitan areas in Western Europe and the USA, and goes beyond that to reveal the clustered nature of world music production. However, the paper suggests a growing diversification in the geography of production, with the emergence of secondary centres with an international and national orientation. This invites us to explore both the global interdependencies and the local specificities of cultural production, and in a more general perspective, the multifarious and interrelated scales cultural creativity and production networks. We first turn our attention to world music as a unique case in the study of the relation between music and place. Next, we present our data, methodology and mapping. Adopting the perspective of the European world music charts, our analysis subsequently offers insights into and visual representations of the degree, direction and diversity of world music production over the last two decades. Finally, our study concludes with a discussion of the relation between music and place against the backdrop of globalisation and intimates directions for further research.

6.2or (W ld) music and place Studies on the (urban) geographies of music production and consumption have focused increasingly on the relation between music and place (Straw, 1991, Watson, 2008, Kloosterman, 2005, Florida and Jackson, 2009, Watson et al., 2009, Cohen, 1991,

149

Gographiee s of world music production Hesmondhalgh, 1996, Negus, 1997, Scott, 1999, Power and Hallencreutz, 2002). This is associated to the more general tendency of cultural industries to concentrate spatially (Scott, 2000, Currid, 2007b, Markusen, 2004), but also to the connection of music to ‘scenes’ (Cohen, 1991, Kloosterman, 2005). While such clustering reflects the more general idiosyncrasy of a networked production system in the creative industries (Caves, 2000), it also results in a global system of critical nodes and sounding boards, articulating the reproduction of musical creativity beyond the boundary of the cluster itself. Major city-regions such as New York, Los Angeles, London, Berlin and Paris constitute sites of both cultural production and consumption, thriving on social agglomeration, proximity and density of social networks (Hall, 1998, Florida, 2002, Scott, 2000, Zukin, 1995, Lloyd, 2006, Currid, 2007b, Currid and Williams, 2010) and a critical infrastructure of actors shaping cultural production and consumption (Zukin, 1991). Besides being the loci of creativity, scenes are also the conflation of taste and genre makers and communities sharing particular musical preferences (Currid, 2007a, Florida and Jackson, 2009). World music poses interesting questions about the relation between place and music. Within this genre, ‘local’ music is being transmitted and received far beyond the local, regional and national boundaries (Connell and Gibson, 2003), earning the genre the equivalence to ‘sonic tourism’ (Taylor, 1997). World music is by nature ‘transnational’ and ‘translational’ (Guilbault, 1993), implying a sense of border and physical distance, as well as a form of decodification and symbolic diversity. The spatial distance between the loci of creativity and its consumption is a crucial component of the vision of ‘authenticity’ of the world music product, and part of its added value, allowing for the illusion of a still preserved otherness (Connell and Gibson, 2004, Connell and Gibson, 2003). Yet this authenticity generally hides processes of intermediation and commodification in the ‘West’, converting distant sounds into a familiar and intelligible, consumable item for a wider consumption (Taylor, 1997, p.31) and taking consumers across any boundaries of taste they may have (Haynes, 2005). However, the translation of music has been associated with its transmutation of music to suit wider, ‘Western’, audiences. The paradox that emerges is that Third World performers could effectively gain better access to audiences in the West when they conform to Euro-American based intonation and rhythms (Guilbault, 1993, Connell and Gibson, 2003). This genre thus provides an illuminating example of how geographical scales and distanced actors are intrinsically combined in networks of cultural production, valorisation and consumption. The mediated nature of the genre is evident in a brief overview of the evolution of the term world music itself. World music broadcaster and magazine editor Ian Anderson gives an account of the ‘fateful meeting’ in June 1987 when several label managers, journalists and festival promoters got together with the aim of broadening the appeal of their repertoire and adopting ‘world music’ as a ‘campaign/media title’ (Anderson, 2000). This helped create a consumer base for world music which extended beyond the (ethno)musicology experts, while also reconfiguring the way music was recorded, curated and promoted (Feld, 1994).

150

Capterh 6 Geographies of world music production The displacement of processes of cultural valorisation of world music away from the place of origin of music reveals a complex spatial boundedness of world music. On the one hand, it reflects growing processes of cultural globalisation, with the circulation of cultural goods outside their national boundaries. On the other hand, the co-location of actors specialized in researching, reviewing, producing, staging and consuming world music creates trans-local nexuses of mediation and diffusion, as explored in the study of the Paris world music cluster (Brandellero and Halbert, Under review). The interaction of the two defines a ‘cultural world system’ (de Swaan, 1995 cited in, Janssen et al., 2008 p.720), whereby certain places become central in setting standards for and granting recognition to cultural products.

6.3thodo Me logy and mapping To understand better the relational nature and geography of world music production, our paper uses a surrogate measure of the economic linkages in the realization of musical outputs within this genre2, notably the World Music Charts Europe (hereafter WMCE). The WMCE have been coordinated by the European Broadcasting Union since 1991, and are based on monthly nominations by a panel of world music DJs from across Europe. The monthly nominations are collated and a yearly chart is produced, ranking entries according to the number and relative positioning of nominations throughout the twelve months. The nominating panel is constituted by DJs working for a specialized world music programme or radio, and its membership currently stands at 45, having started with 11. The monthly top five is also presented on the WOMEX website, an indication of its recognition by the world music industry itself. The WMCE charts offer a large longitudinal dataset (N=13,970), which contains information on ranking, album title, author, country of origin and label on which the album was released. We checked all entries for accuracy, filling any informational gaps, and we enhanced the dataset by adding the location of the label (city and country) and removed entries for which the label and/or label location were untraceable. Label locations that fell either within the outer ring of the larger cities such as Paris, London, Johannesburg, Los Angeles and New York, or that were considerably close to the centre (less than 10 km) of smaller or medium-sized cities were considered part of the same urban area. Santa Monica and Hermosa Beach were assigned to LA since these locations are enclosed by LA metro region. All nominations were geo-coded by country of origin of the artists and the location of the label associated to the albums, and the data was analysed using Geographical Information Systems (GIS). The information on the country of origin of each album author was analysed further to distinguish three categories: individual artists with a single country of origin; individual artists with multiple countries of origin (coded as ‘hybrid’); and multiple artists with multiple countries of origin (coded as either ‘hybrid’ or ‘various’ respectively, depending on whether the album was the outcome of a collaborative effort, or simply a collection of independent works). The location of artists belonging

151

Chapter 6 Gographiee s of world music production to the first category was geo-coded at the centre of the stated country of origin. Entries pertaining to the ‘hybrid’ and ‘various’ categories were geo-coded to fictitious locations ‘H’ and ‘V’ respectively, to allow for visualisation of all observations using the ESRI world map. The data on the country of origin of the artists allowed us to specify the direction of international orientation in world music, by considering the representation of specific countries in the charts. Moreover, it enabled us to explore the most frequent links between a country of origin and the label location. For this paper, we zoomed into the three sample years: 19923, 2000 and 2009, giving us a total of N=2114. We explored the data from four perspectives, using insights from an in-depth study of the Paris world music cluster (see Brandellero and Halbert, under review) to comment further on our findings. Firstly, we examined the extent to which production of world music highlights global flows of music and a concentration of valorisation in larger metropolitan areas in Europe and North America. Secondly, we interrogated the data on the geographical focus of the top world music label locations emerging from the charts, exploring the extent to which we can see the centrality of certain places in the production of world music. Thirdly, we explored the degree of geographical orientation by label location, unpacking the national and international profile of emerging label locations. Finally, we investigated the centrality of sounds originating from specific countries within the world music genre and explored variations in time.

6.4ographie Ge s of world music Our analysis suggests a changing geography of world music production over the years. The ratio of nominations to number of labels per year displays a 22% increase in the number of labels in 2009 compared to 1992 (eight percent in 2000). The number of countries where labels are based shows a 10% decline in relative terms in 2000, but a 24% rise in 2009 compared to 1992. We also note a decentralisation of label locations, with an increasing number of places appearing in the charts (a 41% increase in label locations in 2009 compared to 1992, 17% in 2000). Further qualitative and longitudinal analysis across all years since 1991 could establish whether we are observing the emergence of new labels in new locations. We now turn our attention to four further key findings emerging from the data, visually supported by six maps presented in the Annex. Figures 1-3 show the global flows of world music by country of origin of musicians and the spatial concentration of label locations in 1992, 2000 and 2009. Figures 4-6 illustrate the dominant linkages between the countries of origin of artists and label location, additionally displaying the volume of nominations per musicians’ nationality.

Global flows of music to label locations inW estern Europe and the USA The mapping of world music flows (see Figures 1-3), tracing a link from the country of origin of an artist to his or her album’s label location, highlights a distinct movement of music from countries of origin of musicians in the Southern hemisphere to urban

152

Capterh 6 Geographies of world music production locations in the Northern. While this is by no means a surprising finding (see Taylor 1997), the extent to which music travels outside the country of origin of musicians can now be measured to allow for comparison. While we understand that artists may be influenced by music from a variety of countries, our review of the charts suggests the equivalence between main musical influence and country of origin (unless otherwise coded, e.g. hybrid). Delving deeper into the analysis, the most obvious feature is the dominance of a top tier of world music producing countries, if we take the number of nominations by label location as a surrogate measure. While 58 countries received nominations in the charts in 2009, compared to 36 in 1992, the profile of countries contributing the most to the production of world music has remained relatively stable. The UK, USA, Germany and France top the charts in all three years. Looking at the geographical spread of label locations, we note a flourishing of places of production across Europe in 2009, reflecting a higher number of nominations associated to labels based in Eastern and Northern Europe. In the USA, we observe a concentration of nominations connected to labels along the East and West coast, but a relative paucity in the rest of the country. Further analysis is needed to establish whether the changes in technology over the last decades are providing the basis for a shift to new places of production, as anticipated by Leyshon (2001), who analysed the impact of digitalisation on the music industry. Generally speaking however, the entrepreneurs of world music remain located in Europe and North America, with South America, Africa and Asia remaining primarily exporters of musical creativity.

Centrality of places In general, the labels are located in larger metropolitan areas (see Figures 1-3). Their prominence in the production of world music has been explained through their connection to diasporic networks and migratory flows (Connell and Gibson, 2003), but also their function as places of musical acculturation and the development of affiliations across socioeconomic, religious and ethnic boundaries (Bohlman, 2002). More generally, the finding confirms metropolitan areas in their role of ‘nodes of location-specific interactions and emergent effects in which the stimulus to cultural experimentation and renewal tends to be high’ (Scott, 2000, p.4). Four metropolitan areas, London, Paris, New York and Munich, are the most frequent label locations in 1992 and 2000, with Berlin taking up Munich’s position in 2009. Over the three years, we note a drop in the number of nominations from the top cities, with the exception of 2000. This translates in the cities’ labels’ aggregate contribution of nominations per year going from 45% in 1992 to 35% in 2009, while reaching 49% in 2000. These metropolitan areas however clearly continue to dominate the nominations and have a higher degree of connectivity to countries of origin of artists. For example, Paris’s budding local economic development project centred around world music is revealing in this sense: the initiative has its roots in the city’s century-long positioning as coveted performance platform for touring and migrant

153

Chapter 6 Gographiee s of world music production musicians, combined on the one hand with dedicated institutions active in preserving and showcasing disparate musical traditions and on the other with a wider, highly networked, economic infrastructure of record labels, promoters, media, venues (Brandellero and Halbert, Under review). A ‘second tier’ of locations increases over time, including new cities with an international orientation. Here again, we are looking at locations within Europe and North America. In 2009, we see for instance a higher number of cities with ten or more nominations (16 cities), compared to ten cities in 1992 and 2000. All these cities are situated in either Europe or the USA, with the exception of Tokyo, which is only included in this category in the first two years observed. Brussels and Amsterdam consolidate their position, more than tripling their count of nominations between 2000 and 2009. Three of the top world music producing cities in our analysis are also the locations of the highest concentration of labels. London has the highest number of labels in all three years (44, 49 and 46), followed by Paris (37, 35, 44) and New York (22, 32 and 37). Comparing all locations over the three years, we see that the trend is towards an increase in the number of labels per location. The increase is double or more in Amsterdam, Barcelona, Brussels and Istanbul, but not as steep for German cities overall, with the exception of Berlin. The hierarchy of production in world music echoes Sturgeon’s work in identifying hierarchies of clusters within specific industrial sectors (Sturgeon, 2003), with a few centres of world music production playing a key standard-setting activity in production and consumption. The role of gateway of certain places reflects not just a position of prominence in the production of world music via the strong presence of record labels, but also corresponds to local nodes of appreciation and consumption, as the case of Paris illustrates (Brandellero and Calenge, 2008, Brandellero and Halbert, Under review). Here, the evolution of a world music cluster currently counting over 700 organizations benefited at different historical moments from the impetus of a variety of actors, some promoting the diversity of the world’s music from the perspective of cultural heritage preservation, to a more recent instrumentalisation of world music to contribute to wider social inclusion goals (Brandellero and Halbert, Under review).

Degree of orientation by label location Figure 7 below shows a breakdown of nominations associated to the top cities by country of origin of the artists, using a cut-off point of fewer than five nominations per year as a criterion for inclusion in the ‘other’ category, to improve visibility. Interestingly, the data shows the relatively similar international orientation of the top nominations per city, while differences emerge in the degree of orientation towards particular countries. Moreover, for all cities, the highest level of nominations originates from national music. Berlin and Munich are characterised by a relatively high degree of fragmentation, with higher focus on the hybrid and various category compared to outputs from specific countries, and the prominence of the ‘other’ category in almost all years. London shows strong ties with Brazil, Mali and Senegal in 1992, Cuba in 2000 and Mali once again in

154

Capterh 6 Geographies of world music production 2009, with significant nominations originating from the USA in all three years. Paris displays strong links with DR Congo and Cameroon in 1992, and stronger musical links to Algeria than any other city in all three years. At a first glance, there are fewer exclusive ties (i.e. 100% of albums from one country of origin linked to a single label location) in 2009 compared to 1992.

Figure 7

The diversity of music produced in the top label locations partly reflects the diversity of musical influences and artists present in these cities. The analysis of the place of residence of 434 musicians connected to the Paris world music cluster, either through a record label or agent contract4, shows that just under half are based in Paris. Interviews with musicians, label and venue managers pointed towards the central role of being present and connected to the city in enhancing the visibility and promotion of artists’ careers. Moreover, the analysis of the combination of countries of origin for the nominations categorised as hybrid shows that in the majority of cases the label’s country location features alongside one or more other country of origin. Moreover, the hybrid category is to a large extent produced in the largest cities. This would appear to point towards the flourishing of collaborations in highly diverse urban environments. Notwithstanding the kaleidoscope of musical traditions and influences found in large metropolitan areas, parallel production chains, with their own economic infrastructure and venues, continue to reflect a separation respectively between traditional “authentic” sounds, more contemporary world rhythms, and musical expressions springing from

155

Chapter 6 Gographiee s of world music production local migrant communities bearing strong ties with music scenes in the country of origin (Brandellero and Kloosterman, Under review). Further analysis of all years could further unpack the roots of musical linkages and influences in colonial histories, contemporary migration flows and diaspora ties. The strongest links between countries of origin of musicians and label locations can be seen in Figures 4-6 below. Our data shows that in 1992 all the strongest connections (above four nominations per year) were between music originating in Africa and South America and labels located in London, Paris and New York. There are two exceptions: Cuban music had strongest links with labels in Havana, and music originating from Western and Northern Europe and North America had connections within their respective (sub)continents. The picture stays mainly unchanged in 2000, with Havana disappearing as a strong link and Sao Paulo displaying a relatively strong link to national music. In 2009, we note the appearance of strong links between national music and labels located in Budapest, Istanbul, Sao Paulo and Warsaw, while music from Africa and South America continues to display outwardly ties to labels in Europe and the USA. Taking the degree of international orientation as a criterion, we differentiate here two additional categories of cities: second tier cities with a mixed national and international orientation, and cities with an exclusively national orientation (Istanbul, Sao Paulo, Johannesburg, and Luanda by way of example). The latter locations are generally found outside Western Europe and North America. The new label locations are generally situated within countries from which a high number of world musicians originate. While our data does not enable us to explain this, we posit that this is connected to a strengthening of the local production capacity, improved technology, and relatively cheaper costs of production5.

Degree of orientation by year analysed Interestingly, while the term was initially employed to denote a binary relation between the ‘West’ and the ‘rest’, our results show that over time, the USA and the UK have consistently topped the WMCE charts by number of nominations. This had been previously noted by Taylor (Taylor, 1997) in his analysis of the Billboard charts for the early 1990s, where the author suggested music sales generally reflecting ‘fairly unchallenging music’ (Taylor, 1997, p.9). It also shows the prominence of styles such as Celtic and Country and Western music, as a staple part of the world music genre. The geographical variation in world music output reflected by the charts suggests that the content of the category varies greatly over time, subject to changing trends and tastes (see Figures 4-6). We note a decline in the diversity of countries of origin of artists featuring in the charts (10% relative decline in 2000 and 2009 compared to 1992). In the early 90s, musicians coming from D.R. Congo (formerly Zaire, until 1997) featured prominently in the charts. Promoted mainly by Paris-based labels, the number of albums produced by artists from this country sharply decreases over time, which can probably be explained by the conflict and political instability in the country. Significantly, the ‘Hybrid’ category has a significant presence in the three years studied, particularly among the top 40 entries, possibly an indication of a shift towards a more

156

Capterh 6 Geographies of world music production dynamic understanding and appreciation of world music. Some countries appear to be more prone to spurring collaborations (UK, USA and France for instance). This might partly be due to the presence of migrant musicians and minority musicians. Further analysis of the hybrid category can help shed light on inter-cultural collaborations as a facet of cultural globalisation.

6.5nc Co lusions Our study articulates an aggregate picture of world music production and shifting trends over the last two decades. We have discovered important transnational dynamics in world music production, and significant temporal shifts in loci of production and in the genre’s musical content. The use of music charts also allowed us to map shifts in the geographical origin of world music, observing changes in tastes and trends and the rise and decrease of popularity of music from different countries. The analysis of our data suggests that music entering the European world music charts is mainly produced by labels located in Western Europe and the USA, while nominations attached to labels located in South America, Africa and Asia remain sparse. Within these continents, the prominence of key cities is apparent. While this does not imply a paucity of musical production in these continents, it would suggest the continuing relevance of processes of cultural valorisation centred on mediators in the West. The prominence of key production centres combines highly specialised and dense economic infrastructure of actors, attracting renewed flows of hopeful and established artists from diverse backgrounds, as the case of Paris shows. Over the three years studied, we see a diversification of centres of production, with an increase in label locations in Europe and North America. The concentration of cultural industries in large city-regions like London, Paris, New York, Berlin and Munich does not merely result from positive externalities beneficially impacting production activities (as in the cluster approach) but it would appear to reflect the metropolitan areas’ ability to draw upon and combine the multiple scales and networks of cultural production. Within the centres of production, we distinguished between locations with a high degree of international orientation and locations receiving nominations exclusively for national music. The centrality of certain cities in the production of world music originating across the world has been highlighted, pointing towards their continuing relevance in the cultural world system as sites of mediation and cultural valorisation for both national and international cultural content. More qualitative and longitudinal research into the chronology of labels could help establish whether we are indeed witnessing the emergence of new labels in new locations, or whether the output of existing labels is getting increasing recognition in the cultural world system. The fluctuation in tastes and trends suggests a challenge for highly specialised centres of production, in terms of their adaptation capacity to changing consumption patterns. While this paper provides only an initial analysis of our data, it offers promising research avenues, particularly in relation to the label-level response to shifting trends and the greater voice of hybrid musical forms and inter-cultural collaborations.

157

Chapter 6 Gographiee s of world music production Rferencee s Anderson, I. (2000). “World music history.” fRoots 201. Bohlman, P. V. (2002). World music. A very short introduction. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1971). “Le marché des biens symboliques.” L’Année sociologique 22: 49-126. — (1992). Les règles de l’art, genèse et structure du champ littéraire Paris, Editions du Seuil. Brandellero, A. M. C. and P. Calenge (2008). Le fonctionnement des filieres des musiques du monde: une approche par les individus. Rapport. Les Faubourgs Numériques, Paris. Brandellero, A. M. C. and L. Halbert (forthcoming). “World music in Paris.” Caves, R. E. (2000). Creative industries: Contracts between art and commerce. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. Cohen, S. (1991). Rock culture in Liverpool, Clarendon Press. Connell, J. and C. Gibson (2003). Sound Tracks. Popular music, identity and place, Routledge. — (2004). “World music: deterritorializing place and identity.” Progress in Human Geography 28(3): 342-362. Crane, D., N. Kawahima, et al. (2002). Global culture: media, arts, policy and globalisation. New York, Routledge. Currid, E. (2007a). “How art and culture happen in New York.” Journal of the American Planning Association 73(4): 454-467. — (2007b). The Warhol economy: how fashion, art, and music drive New York City. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Currid, E. and S. Williams (2010). “The geography of buzz: art, culture and the social milieu in Los Angeles and New York.” Journal of Economic Geography 10: 423-451. de Swaan, A. (1995). The sociological study of the transnational society. Amsterdam School for Social Science Research, Papers in Progress No.46. Feld, S. (1994). From schizophrenia to schismogenesis: notes on the discourses of world music and world beat. Music grooves: essays and dialogues. C. Keil and S. Feld. Chicago and London, University of Chicago Press: 257-289. Florida, R. (2002). “The economic geography of talent.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 92(4): 743-755. Florida, R. and S. Jackson (2009). “Sonic city: the evolving economic geography of the music industry.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 29(3): 310-321. Florida, R. and J. Scott (2009). “Sonic city: the evolving economic geography of the music industry.” Journal of Planning Education and Research XX(X): 1-12. Guilbault, J. (1993). “On redefining the «Local» through world music.” World of music(Wilhelmshaven) 35(2): 33-47. — (1997). “Interpreting world music: a challenge in theory and practice.” Popular Music: 31-44. — (2001). World music. The Cambridge companion to pop and rock. S. Frith, W. Straw and J. Street. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 176-192. Hall, P. (1998). Cities in Civilisation. London, Pantheon. Haynes, J. (2005). “World music and the search for difference.” Ethnicities 5(3): 365-385. Hesmondhalgh, D. (1996). “Flexibility, post-Fordism and the music industries.” Media, Culture & Society 18(3): 469. Janssen, S., G. Kuipers, et al. (2008). “Cultural globalization and arts journalism: the international orientation of arts and culture coverage in Dutch, French, German and U.S. newspapers, 1955 to 2005.” American Sociological Review 73: 719-740. Kassabian, A. (2004). “Would you like some world music with your latte?” Twentieth-century music 2(1): 209-223. Kloosterman, R. C. (2005). “Come together: an introduction to music and the city.” Built Environment 31(3): 181-191.

158

Capterh 6 Geographies of world music production Leyshon, A. (2001). “Time-space (and digital) compression: software formats, musical networks, and the reorganisation of the music industry.” Environment and Planning A 33(1): 49-78. Lloyd, R. D. (2006). Neo-bohemia: art and commerce in the postindustrial city, Routledge. Markusen, A. (2004). The distinctive city: Evidence from artists and occupational profiles. Minneapolis, MN, Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota. Negus, K. (1997). Popular music in theory: An introduction, Wesleyan University Press. Power, D. and D. Hallencreutz (2002). “Profiting from creativity? The music industry in Stockholm, Sweden and Kingston, Jamaica.” Environment and Planning A 34(10): 1833- 1854. Scott, A. J. (1999). “The cultural economy: geography and the creative field.” Media Culture and Society 21: 807-818. — (2000). The cultural economy of cities. London, Sage. Straw, W. (1991). “Systems of articulation, logics of change: communities and scenes in popular music.” Cultural Studies 5(3): 368-388. Sturgeon, T. J. (2003). “What really goes on in Silicon Valley? Spatial clustering and dispersal in modular production networks.” Journal of Economic Geography 3(2): 199. Taylor, T. D. (1997). Global Pop. World Music, world markets. New York, London, Routledge. Watson, A. (2007). Global music city: knowledge and geographical proximity in London’s recording music industry, GaWC Research Bulletin, 222. Watson, A., M. Hoyler, et al. (2009). “Spaces and Networks of Musical Creativity in the City.” Geography Compass 3(2): 856-878. Zukin, S. (1991). Landscapes of power: from Detroit to Disney World. Berkeley, University of California Press. — (1995). The cultures of cities. Cambridge, MA, Blackwell Publishing.

1 Assistant Professor, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research 2 This approach echoes the content analysis of business news put forward by the GAWC group, insofar as it uses a subjective measure (editorial choice) to measure relative business salience. 3 We opted to analyse 1992 as our starting year due to the significantly lower number of nominations in 1991 (100 compared to 632, 665 and 817 for 1992, 2000 and 2009 respectively). This allowed us to maximize the number of observations at the beginning of the WMCE’s history. 4 Research was carried out in 2010, based on a database of world musicians connected to the Paris world music cluster, assembled by the Institute for Contemporary Music (IRMA) in Paris. 5 This is also confirmed by interviews with label managers in Paris (Brandellero 2008).

159

Chapter 6 Gographiee s of world music production Anen x

Figure 1

160

Capterh 6 Geographies of world music production Figure 2

161

Chapter 6 Gographiee s of world music production Figure 3

162

Capterh 6 Geographies of world music production Figure 4

163

Chapter 6 Gographiee s of world music production Figure 5

164

Capterh 6 Geographies of world music production Figure 6

165

Chapter 6 Gographiee s of world music production

77777

Keeping the market at bay: exploring the loci of innovation in the cultural industries

(Article published in Creative Industries Journal, 2010, Vol.3:1-2, p.61-77. Co-authored by R.C. Kloosterman) Keeping the market at bay 7.1trod In uction Innovation and creativity are not the prerogative of high-tech firms, but are also very much part of high-concept activities as producer services, consumer services, and, of course, cultural industries. In this paper, we frame the governance of creativity and innovation in said industries, by exploring their embeddedness in specific spatial and institutional configurations. Cultural industries reflect a nexus where individual or collective creativity is channelled towards the production and marketing of products whose subjective and experience value is generally speaking deemed higher than their purely functional one (Throsby 2001). The identifier ‘cultural’ is subject to challenge, particularly since the rise of the more popular ‘creative industries’ terminology, which provides a more encompassing definition based on the notion of the key input of creativity. Our preference, however, is for the term cultural industries, which allows us to take a more product and process-oriented approach (Pratt 2007). Cultural industries are concerned with the production and marketing of goods and services that have an aesthetic or semiotic content (Scott 2000), reflecting an economic and cultural conjuncture where commodity production has become tied in with artistic experimentation, and vice versa. Culture, on the one hand, has become an important source of economic growth and job creation, particularly within advanced urban economies (Pratt, 1997; Scott, 2004; Kloosterman, 2004; Currid, 2007). This has raised questions as to the instrumentalisation of culture for economic purposes, particularly as the policy discourse around cultural industries has shifted from a cultural to an innovational perspective (Garnham 2005). On the other hand, the production of culture has changed, transforming the context and conditions in which artists work and the social relations between symbol creators and the wider society (Williams 1981). Moreover, the growing aesthetisation of the economy (Lash and Urry 1994) means that artistic skills and talents are increasingly applied to improving the form and quality of non-artistic products (see for instance industrial design). Yet the ‘economisation of creative and artistic processes’ and the ways in which it affects intrinsic motivation of creative work still remains largely a black box (see Eikhof and Haunschild 2007, p.524). The dynamics of creativity and innovation within the cultural industries are highly elusive, both up and downstream in the value chain. Creativity is seen here as the process by which symbolic and aesthetic changes, new and/or disruptive ideas evolve. Innovation is considered as the implementation of ideas (which may not be creative), and channelling towards users. In this sense, what is important in creativity is not simply the generation of new ideas, but rather the value produced by the idea (Burt 2004). We argue that this value becomes apparent in the ideas’ implementation, through innovation. This assumption is related to the ‘nobody knows’ quality attached to the market performance of cultural industry products (Caves 2000), which makes outcomes difficult to predict due to fluctuating consumer demands and tastes2. The quality of cultural industry products is difficult to define: rather than a case of asymmetrical distribution of information over products among producers and consumers, we are in the situation where judgement over a product’s qualities is both subjective and volatile.

169

Keeping the market at bay In the arts, the range that is produced is seen as resulting from the interaction between the reward structure to which artists respond and the organisational systems which select and transmit artistic work (Becker 1982; Peterson 1976). This points towards the need to explore the organisational determinants of production, in addition to the wider networked ‘world’ in which art is produced, socially constructed and controlled, rather than solely focusing on the individual creator or genius (Becker 1982; see also Csikszentmihalyi 1990 for a ‘systems’ theory of creativity based on intersecting and interacting relationships). Moreover, our ability to understand competently art is connected to the cultural resources and opportunities available to us, making us proficient in ‘interpretative schemes’ and making aesthetics a historically specific rather than specific to the object of art itself (Bourdieu 1993), hence the need to understand products in a (temporal, spatial, sectoral) system of meaning and understanding. In our paper, we ask whether creativity and innovation in cultural industries are fostered by keeping commercial considerations at bay, making room for l’art-pour-l’art motivations along the value chain. We hypothesise that there is no one-size-fits-all solution, but instead that different institutional configurations may shield off creative workers from commercial considerations. In analysing these different institutional configurations, we bring together several strands of thinking, from cultural economics, business studies, sociology of culture and the arts, and economic geography. While this paper remains theoretical in its ambition, we use insights from the Dutch case and interview material in the fields of classical music to illustrate our framework. We start our investigation by looking at the dynamics of creativity (section 2) and innovation (section 3) in the cultural industries. We then move on to describe the conditions of innovation and we present the elements of our framework of analysis (section 4). This framework will then be illustrated by applying it to the case of classical music in the Netherlands (section 5). We will conclude by assessing the implications for further research (section 6).

7.2e On a sthetic value creation and innovation in the cultural industries To grasp processes of innovation in cultural industries, we first have to identify the distinguishing characteristics of products in cultural industries. Our understanding of cultural industries is based on taking culture as ‘the signifying system through which necessarily (though among other means) a social order is communicated, reproduced, experienced and explored’ (Williams 1981, p.13). The goods and services deriving from these industries have an aesthetic or semiotic content (Scott 2000). They have ‘an influence on our understanding of the world’, ‘drawing on and helping to constitute our inner, private lives and our public selves’ (Hesmondhalgh 2007, p.3). Matching the highly subjective nature of the creation of aesthetic and semiotic content on the one hand, to its equally subjective appreciation by an audience or consumer on the other, cultural industry products are part of a wider system of aesthetic judgment and social significance, constantly fine-tuned to the air du temps, past

170

Capterh 7 Keeping the market at bay references and existing genres and labels. Satisfying the expectation of newness of ‘end users’ also means that cultural industry products generally have built-in obsolescence (Negus and Pickering 2004, p.11). Moreover, cultural industry products present the feature of imperfect substitution, whereby lesser talent is seen as a poor substitute for greater talent (Rosen 1981). Creating an explicit aesthetic may precede, follow, or be simultaneous with developing the techniques, forms, and works which make up the art world’s output’. The creation of aesthetic systems can be an ‘industry in its own right’ though, developed and maintained by specialised professionals such as critics (Becker 1982, p.131-2). The role of mediators is to initiate customers to their understanding and adoption of these new trends and fads. Zukin and Maguire (2004, p.175) develop a framework for exploring consumption as an institutional field, centred around the production of commodities for individual demand and structured around ‘interconnected economic and cultural institutions’, highlighting the strong interconnections of consumption with its social context. Critics, intermediaries and so-called taste makers (Currid 2007b) take part in this process, as they become a ‘medium for research and development’ (Cameron 1995, p.324) front-end research in the design industry – helping to inform innovation in design through a better knowledge of market evolution and consumer preferences among others (Miles and Green 2008). Through co-optation (Hirsch 1972), mediators responsible for marketing and publicizing products become co-producers of meaning and interpretation. The question of the referent in judging novelty and innovation emerges: who evaluates the newness of a product? In the arts, three types of referent can be identified: a cosmopolitan referent (all other organisations in the field across the world); a local referent (locally); and the self-referent (based on the organisation’s own past) (Castañer and Campos 2002). We believe this distinction to be useful for the cultural industries as well, given the global circulation of products and the mutual impact of global-local trends and tastes across time. Moreover, artistic reputation is faced by the test of time, with once similarly valued artists facing diverging paths to oblivion or continued universal renown (Lang and Lang 1988). Establishing the value of a work of art entails ‘incessant, innumerable struggles’, not only in the competition between agents, are linked to different interests in the same field, but also between agents in different positions in the production of products as, for instance, reviewers, publishers, dealers etc. (Bourdieu 1980). Aesthetic production within the cultural industries reveals a latent tension between artistic/l’art pour l’art (implying a concept of art as a greater good) and commercial considerations (Caves 2000; Cowen and Tabarrok 2000). This is linked to the way structuring and organisation of production within the cultural industries has evolved, requiring a combination of creative/artistic and managerial/“humdrum” skills and motivations (Caves 2000; Kloosterman 2010a). Within the emerging ´project teams’ (Ryan 1992), we can identify a variety of functions, ranging from artistic to technical, from high to low skilled (Hesmondhalgh 2007), pointing to the ‘irreducibility of the work of cultural production to the artist’s own labour’ (Bourdieu 1980, p.291-2). Castañer and Campos (2002) argue that the dominant coalition within an organisation

171

Chapter 7 Keeping the market at bay plays a crucial role in the relation between economic and artistic aspirations of the organisation itself. Nonetheless, while it would be tempting to identify individuals or activities along the value chain as pertaining to one of the two functions or logics, this analytical trick is far from caveat-free. Creative individuals might internalise, willingly or unconsciously, the criteria of symbolic and aesthetic judgement of the wider field of mediation (Csikszentmihalyi 1990). Commercial motivations might be more easily defined (in terms of efficiency goals, sales figures and profit for instance), l’art pour l’art maintains an aura of mystique and romanticism (Hesmondhalgh 2007; Negus and Pickering 2004), and while most artists would deny an interest in material gain, such a stance is analytically untenable when faced with the reality of making a living from one’s art. Moreover, cultural production is often characterised by the ‘negation’ of or disinterestedness in economic value, as a strategic choice of accumulation of aesthetic capital, credibility and authority in the field (Bourdieu 1980), making it complex to disentangle economic and artistic logics. Elsewhere, we argue that commodification in the cultural industries reflects the transition of creativity from its in posse nature to its commodity status (Brandellero and Kloosterman). Given the candidacy of things to commodification (Appadurai 1988), and the volatility we have described within the cultural industries production system, we refer to this transition as the commodification gradient (Brandellero and Kloosterman). This can be seen as a negotiated passage, albeit not an irreversible one, between creativity and the cultural industry production chain, modulated by trade- offs between cultural and economic considerations over the anticipated outcomes of a product in a market exchange environment. Since ‘original and distinctive symbolic creativity is at a premium’, actors in the cultural industries suffer from an effort to control and channel it productively (Hesmondhalgh 2007, p.6). This scarcity results in a greater autonomy in the creative moments of the production of culture, as opposed to the stages of reproduction and circulation. This particular characteristic has resulted in an increasing weight of “research and development” in the cultural industries and a greater role for marketing in the initial phases of symbolic creation (Hesmondhalgh 2007). A crucial element in the balance between management and artistic logics appears to be the control and use of ‘slack resources’. Slack resources, defined as the ‘pool of resources in an organization that is in excess of the minimum necessary to produce a given level of organizational output’, are found to have a U-shaped effect on innovation, where too little slack discourages experimentation whose success is uncertain, while too much slack breeds complacency and the take-up of ‘bad’ projects (Castañer and Campos 2002; Nohria and Gulati 1996, p.1246), as is mostly the case in the cultural industries.

7.3om Fr creativity to innovation To date, very few studies deal with innovation in the cultural industries (Miles and Green 2008). Research on innovation in the arts has however flourished. Starting from

172

Capterh 7 Keeping the market at bay the mid-1990s, we find several studies exploring the origin of ‘artistic innovation’ in arts organisations (Castañer and Campos 2002; Frey 1999; Heilbrun and Gray 2001), generally speaking associated with the programming of contemporary works (Heilbrun and Gray 2001). However, as Castañer and Campos (2002) rightly note, the diversity of programming might not necessarily be related to the degree of innovativeness of an organisation. We also should qualify innovation by its endogeneity or exogeneity to the firm itself, even though the uptake of either might involve high levels of risk and uncertainty in relation to audience response and outcomes (Castañer and Campos 2002). We should here note the complexity of defining innovation from an aesthetic perspective, given that innovations might be trivial rather than significant and may reflect a case of ‘aesthetic exhaustion’, linked to the short fad cycles and derivative nature of products, rather than actual innovation (Peterson 1994). Innovation in the arts has been measured in terms of levels of nonconformity, i.e. the divergence of programming of an art institution from others in the field (DiMaggio and Stenberg 1985). Here the explaining variables used to define nonconformity relate to audience composition (with the general assumption that larger populations with higher levels of cultural capital will demand higher levels of innovation); levels of autonomy from the market (linked to the assumption that higher levels of public funding allow for greater scope for innovation and risk taking behaviour)3; levels of institutionalisation (related to the organisational practices); organisational climate and manager preferences (DiMaggio and Stenberg 1985). Changes in the environment and structures of organisations were deemed relevant to explaining temporal shifts in artistic innovation patterns (DiMaggio and Stenberg 1985). Large metropolitan areas show higher levels of innovation in the arts (and in other fields as well) compared to the rest of the country, as observed by higher levels of experimentation in theatres in New York compared to the rest of the United States (DiMaggio and Stenberg 1985). Arguably more than other sectors of economic activity, cultural industries illustrate the strong interconnectedness of place, and particularly the metropolis, and culture: local activities become imbued with the social and cultural character of the surrounding urban area, while urban areas themselves appear to offer congenial conditions for creativity and cultural development (see Hall 1998 for a seminal historical perspective on the synergies between culture and cities). Making abstraction for now of global markets, moreover, we can assume that organisations which are located in large metropolitan areas will be faced with competition within and across the field, given the assumption that there will be a multiplicity of suppliers (DiMaggio and Stenberg 1985), combined with a high level of substitutability among the wider supply of art forms (Throsby 1994). Generally speaking, competition makes for innovation, where ‘there is continual quest for product innovation and the single mass market tends to break up into a number of segments each representing a slightly different taste’(Peterson and Berger 1975). More recently, research has pointed towards the need to explore innovation in the creative industries in relation to the idiosyncrasies of the sector (see Handke 2008), such as the presence of ‘soft innovations’, linked to changes of an aesthetic nature (as opposed to more widely used definitions of innovation which refer to changes in the

173

Chapter 7 Keeping the market at bay functionality of products and processes) (Stoneman 2009). Such a form of innovation is crucial to the cultural industries, where competitiveness is linked to new products and aesthetic changes to existing products that enhance horizontal differentiation (Caves, 2000). These aesthetic changes can also apply to non-aesthetic products, (such as cars and lamps), where the functional nature of the output is enhanced by aesthetic product differentiation (see Stoneman 2009). In Table 7.1 we identify the various dimensions of innovation along the cultural industries value chain, while also noting the endogenous factors impacting upon innovation and the wider configurations of production and experimentation (see Miles and Green 2008; Stoneman 2009). We identify three types of innovation, notably product innovation, process innovation and experience innovation. The result then is a heuristic framework which can be used to compare the institutional conditions of innovation in cultural industries across sectors, countries and through time. We will explore the elements represented here in the following section.

Table 7.1: Innovation along the cultural industries’ value chain

Macro-institutional (regulations, policy environment, markets)  Original production Production Distribution Consumption Symbolic value- Organisational Distribution processes End-user experience creative process arrangements (retail and display) (internal/external) Product concept and format, Communication media symbolic content and marketing Management structure Interaction with end-user and personnel profile Technological change Concept and product Experience and user- Means and process innovation innovation interface innovation (process) (input) (output)  Macro-contextual (Size of population, levels of education, numbers of firms in the field, labour market size)

The creative industries more generally are also associated with various forms of ‘hidden innovation’, that is innovation that fails to be picked up by traditional measurements and indicators (Miles and Green 2008). These innovations include R&D of new prototypes and products, changes to business models and organisational set-ups, the original combination of technologies for new purposes, and on-the-job innovation, with a recognition of lower levels of innovation in the distributive phases of production (Miles and Green 2008). Given the global vocation of (most) cultural industries, we see this innovation as radically departing from existing symbolic and

174

Capterh 7 Keeping the market at bay aesthetic conventions, whether locally or globally (along these lines, see Castañer and Campos 2002 on artistic innovation), as the symbolic elements, rules and procedures which constitute the domain of creativity are extended (Csikszentmihalyi 1990). We should note that this could also mean the bringing back of an ‘old’ convention fallen into disuse, adapted or adjusted to contemporary forms and technological and support advancements. Innovation in cultural industries although hard to measure or quantify, then, is evidently an intrinsic and important feature. Given the networked ecology of actors involved at all stages of the cultural industries value chain, innovation has a serendipitous character, shaped and co-produced through the interaction or reciprocal influence of project teams, communities of practice and consumer base, and set against specific time and place factors. The fortuitousness of such innovation makes it difficult to conceive a level of formalisation of innovation itself. Furthermore, the transience of trends and aesthetic systems makes it complex to evaluate the impact of aesthetic innovations as they appear on the market. The innovations typically emerge in social milieus, art worlds or complex fields which comprise not just the creative workers, but also taste makers and connectors who are able to assess the new product and, moreover, to link up with the wider world of consumption. As some of these innovations reach a wider audience, they can lose their ‘aura’ of uniqueness and a need for new products arises as some people seek distinction through consumption patterns. We seek to look at innovation in terms of its embeddedness in highly networked, dense and (locally and globally) embedded art worlds, defined by individual working practices, co-produced aesthetic systems, and multi-scalar commercial dynamics. Too much commercial pressure, however, may alienate creative workers to come up with these innovations. In the next section, we will explore how they may be shielded off from these humdrum considerations.

7.4ndition Co s of innovation The increasing commodification of culture and the culturalisation of all kinds of products have turned cultural industries into important contributors to jobs and wealth creation. Commodification, however, only goes so far as workers in cultural industries tend to be predominantly driven by artistic considerations. How, then, is this tension solved? What kind of institutional set-ups enable creative workers to come up with innovations in an atmosphere that allows for these artistic motivations, while responding to market considerations?

Contingency upon national institutional frameworks Innovation is contingent upon national institutional frameworks, sectoral characteristics, and on local contexts. Innovation in each sector is associated with a concrete configuration encompassing the national, regional and local institutional framework, the characteristics of markets for final products (scope and size), the role of intermediaries (media, taste makers and shapers, creating aesthetic systems against

175

Chapter 7 Keeping the market at bay which cultural industry products are measured), educational institutions (formal and informal), the role of the private sector (for instance in the form of patronage or sponsorship by a firm), initiatives by semi-public institutions (such as lotteries or foundations), and the role of individual artists (both amateurs and professionals). Research has shown that different types of state provide different forms of support to the arts (Frey 1999), with variations by political outlook (Castañer and Campos 2002). Moreover, the ‘conditions within which creativity occurs, and the ability to be recognised as an author and originator, cannot be considered separately from the legal circumstances through which they have been institutionalised’, as for instance is the case with copyright rules (Negus and Pickering 2004).

Embeddedness in loci of creativity and experimentation Cultural industry products are embedded in loci of creativity and experimentation, constituted by non-sector-specific (formal or informal) artistic experimentation and practices in immaterial or physical spaces. Here we point to the osmosis between creative processes and wider innovative milieus and art worlds (Currid 2007a). We expect these loci of experimentation to take the form of socio-spatial configurations, embedded in institutional arrangements, physical spaces and social networks, similar to creative milieus. Understanding creative processes also requires an understanding of their boundedness to existing conventions (Negus and Pickering 2004). Alongside the complex inter-relations of locationally convergent networks of production, there are global networks of transactions (Amin and Thrift 1992), with intermediaries channelling information and outputs from producers to consumers and vice versa. This decoupling of knowledge and design-intensive inputs has led to a decentralization of the production stages, leading in turn to a concentration of the more ‘cultural’ and ‘artistic’ stages in metropolitan areas and a delocalization of the manufacturing elements of production. Moreover, “the growth of cultural consumption (of art, food, fashion, music, tourism) and the industries that cater to it fuels the city’s symbolic economy, its visible ability to produce both symbols and space” (Zukin 1995, p.2). Creative milieus are characterized by information flows among people, and the knowledge derived from this information; competence in a particular activity; and finally the synergic creation of something new out of the combination of all these elements (Törnqvist 1983). Yet effective channelling of creative experimentation into innovation is uncertain since, as discussed earlier, such places are edgy, chaotic and structurally unstable - uncomfortable places where artistic, intellectual and social turbulence is not just tolerated but actively sought. With loci of innovation, the analysis broadens its scope, to take into account the multidisciplinary spill-over innovation processes, as demonstrated by the cross-fertilisation among cultural industry sectors (Currid 2007a; see research on the music industry and fashion, e.g. Suzanne on Marseille).

176

Capterh 7 Keeping the market at bay Configurating innovation We put forward a matrix with each quadrant representing a different dimension along which the configurations of innovation in the cultural industries may vary. The elements presented below constitute a compendium of the significant dimensions influencing such variations, based on our literature review and own analysis. Five dimensions in particular emerge, relating to input, process, output, markets and macro conditions. The first dimension is on the supply side and concerns the barriers of entry in terms of capital requirements to the creative phase of the commodity chain of a cultural industry. If these barriers are low, as for instance in the case of popular music, one would expect innovation to take place relative easily and artistic drives can be prominent. Slack resources, then, can be located in the pool of (would-be) artists themselves. If these barriers are high, by contrast, one would expect the creative phase has to be embedded in such a way that funding for innovation from either public or private sources is necessary. The amount of slack resources needed for innovation typically exceed the capacity of individuals and specific organisational set-ups are needed to allow for innovation. The second dimension deals with the actual process of production and value adding to the products. The third dimension relates to the characteristics of the outputs, with varying degrees of aesthetic and functional value and the relation to existing aesthetic conventions in the field, which might provide a level playing field for creativity and its successful application in innovative outputs. We would expect a higher degree of functionality of outputs and conventionalisation of aesthetic values to set more constraints on innovation. Moreover, we would expect the level of replicability and mobility of outputs to present diverse innovation patterns. The fourth important dimension that we will take into consideration is located on the demand side and deals with the nature of the markets. We distinguish between niche and mainstream markets and we hypothesise that (segments of) cultural industries oriented towards the former will have more difficulty in getting funding from commercially oriented actors than those geared towards mainstream markets. Here we make a generalisation including local and global markets, though we envisage some sectors will draw more on the global scale than others (e.g. popular music and video games, as opposed to dance – this is also related to the levels of mobility of the product at hand). Finally, we would expect there to be a transversal dimension covering the wider macro-institutional and environmental conditions, shaping the afore-mentioned dimensions. The institutional conditions for creativity and innovation are anything but static. In the last three decades or so, they have been affected by four related macro changes (Hesmondhalgh 2007; Kloosterman 2010b). The first important development concerns the developments in ICT. This has fundamentally changed the ways of production, distribution and consumption in many cultural industries. The valuation of creativity, particularly in the recognition and remuneration of intellectual property rights, has been altered in many of these cultural industries. Inputs, processes of distribution, and outputs changed many cultural industries almost beyond recognition. In the music industry, for instance, inputs can be digitalised enabling not just new types of music but also lowering the barriers of entry as songs are built by using computer samples. The internet has radically altered not

177

Chapter 7 Keeping the market at bay Table 7‑2: Matrix for innovation configurations

Factors High Low Input RESOURCE Human capital REQUIREMENTS Financial capital Social capital and networks Infrastructure requirements Process NATURE OF Level of fragmentation in project teams PRODUCTION PROCESS Level of participation in communities of practice Degree of consumer co-production Level of technological change Level of slack resources Pace of production cycle Output VALUE AND Degree of formalisation of aesthetic CHARACTERISTICS convention in the field OF THE OBJECT Functional value of output Mobility of outputs Degree of replicability of outputs Markets NATURE OF Appeal to mainstream markets MARKETS Appeal to niche markets (Potential and actual) circulation of outputs beyond local bounds Macro- INSTITUTIONAL Level of funding for culture (by sector) conditions AND CONTEXTUAL CONDITIONS Level of amateur activities (by sector) Degree of competition/collaboration Degree of integration with educational system Labour market size External/internal shocks

only the output or format of the music (e.g. MP3 files), but also the ways of distribution and marketing (You Tube, I Tunes etc.). The second macro change constitutes processes of individualisation which helped (together with the introduction of flexible specialisation production methods) to break up mainstream consumer markets into almost countless niche markets thus creating more opportunities for product differentiation and product innovation through aesthetic qualities. Mainstream markets are, obviously, still there, but the long tail of niche markets has become much more important thus altering both the balance between large-scale and small-batch production and putting more pressure on producers to create distinctive goods and services.

178

Capterh 7 Keeping the market at bay The third macro change is the increasing pace of the processes of globalisation. The circulation and scope of cultural products has increased thereby enhancing competition and deepening the division of labour. Locally clustered cultural production is often now linked to global markets (Kloosterman 2008; Scott 2000). Markets have thus expanded geographically – making even niche markets global and thereby weakening the link between the locally clustered production and the presence of a local critical mass of consumers. Taste makers and intermediaries, the actors who link innovations to wider markets, also had to upscale to be able to maintain these linkages. The fourth change is the shift in the relationship between state and market as neoliberal policies took hold. After 1980, the role of the state in the domain of culture in many European countries (and cities) has shifted from aiming at distribution of (high) culture through subsidies, to increase the scope of the market (Judt 2005; Sassoon 2006; Scott 2004). This has affected the macro-conditions and cultural industries, consequently, had to become more market-oriented, construct a new business model and, in many cases, to come up with new ways of protecting workers in the creative phase against too much intrusion from market imperatives.

7.5 rief A b illustration: the Dutch case The Netherlands provides an example of corporatist national institutional frameworks for the arts and cultural industries that shifted towards a more neoliberal stance after 1980 (cf. Clifton and Cooke 2009). The national context for cultural practice in the Netherlands moved away from the more corporatist and even paternalistic, rather generous policies aimed at (socially and spatially) redistributing culture through subsidising, to a more market-oriented attitude after 1980. This shift was partly driven by budget considerations, but it was also ideologically inspired, in line with a general reduction in the role of the state. The grant system was drastically cut and changes in the allocation system meant that funding decisions were delegated to committees of experts, thereby creating an overarching institutional field of gatekeepers for the arts. The preferences of groups such as young people and migrants, however, tended to be more or less neglected, to the advantage of more mainstream audiences. According to the Junior Minister of Culture Rick van der Ploeg, a renowned economist, a ‘gatekeepers’ bias’ had emerged after 1980. This was addressed in a policy brief Cultureel ondernemerschap (Cultural Entrepreneurship), published in collaboration with the Ministry of Economic Affairs in 1999. This brief marked a shift in approach, rewarding cultural entrepreneurs who were indeed reaching out to new, larger audiences. The distinction between high and low culture became more blurred and more commercial forms (e.g. advertising and design) were now also seen as cultural expressions. Dance companies, orchestras, museums, and artists were now stimulated to seek actively for sponsors and a wide variety of linkages between the cultural producers and the private sector emerged. This shift also resonated with young artists and who seemed to be much less market averse. More recently, the role of the state was revised again. With the growing awareness of the economic importance of culture and arts as engines of growth and as drivers of

179

Chapter 7 Keeping the market at bay positive externalities (creating and sustaining urban amenities) thereby enhancing the quality of a place, the art/economy binomial moved to the forefront of recent policy developments. This resulted in the Cultuur en Economie programme, a collaboration between the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Ministry for Education and Culture. In Ons creatief vermogen, a policy brief setting the tone for future policy in 2005, the need to bring two separate worlds together was stated. Echoing Richard Florida’s work on creativity, a link was drawn between structural factors (i.e. arts and heritage) and economic performance, through the intermediary of the creative class and creative enterprises. The role of institutions – not only educational but also those matching supply and demand - was seen as crucial in boosting quality and accessibility. The importance of experiments and innovation, moreover, was acknowledged and even the fact that creative experiments are often more likely to thrive in subsidised environments was explicitly recognised4. One of the cultural industries that benefited from this insight was the classical music scene, which developed as a highly (and, at first glance, somewhat paradoxically) innovative cultural industry, catering to global niche markets. How was this particular industry able to shield off its workers in the creative phase from too much market pressure? Classical music in the Netherlands can be considered as innovative from the perspective of the symbolic and aesthetic content of outputs. This is the result of a combination of factors, from experimental programming, multi-disciplinarity with cross-fertilisation among art forms. Yet this has not always been the case, and there is general consensus as to the presence of a turning point in the 1960s. Young composers joined forces, under the name of De Notenkrakers (the Nutcrackers) and demonstrated at the Concertgebouw against the conservatism and restricted scope for new voices in programming (MCN 2009). This movement led to greater innovation, not just in the outputs but also in the experience of classical music by its audiences. One notable change in fact was the emergence of an ‘ensemble culture’ in the country, as well as providing fertile grounds for the work of pioneering early music experts, notably Frans Brüggen and Gustav Leonhardt, and paving the way for the national and international success of the Amsterdam Baroque Orchestra and the Orchestra of the Eighteenth Century. Innovation in classical music has also been driven by ‘necessity’ to reach out to new audiences and reduce the aura of elitism and inaccessibility often referred to by our respondents. In a highly controversial book, Abbing (2006) claims that the conservative classical concert etiquette is part responsible for declining levels of interest and participation among younger people. The author further argues that, as a result, the split between high art and new art will gradually disappear, as the classical music scene adopts more informal practices and variation (Abbing 2006). While one might disagree with Abbing’s pessimistic outlook, several routes towards greater experimentation and access can be seen, for instance in the Concertgebouw’s Tracks programme, offering a combination of short concerts and DJ sets to young professionals at more convenient times and affordable prices, or the Opera Flirt, using the same principles for opera. Moreover, classical music is being brought and performed outside its traditional venues, following a new trend originated in Hamburg on initiative of Universal Classics, and known as the Yellow Lounge. The Amsterdam

180

Capterh 7 Keeping the market at bay Grachtenfestival, now approaching its 13th edition (though at the time of writing, the next edition is under thread due to public funding and private sponsoring cuts), also offers classical music concerts at various locations throughout the city, including canal boats, bridges and squares. The case of classical music reminds us of the difficulties of defining innovation. While one might argue that an immutable programme is a sign of lack of innovation, a musician might retaliate that every performance is a voyage of discovery of the piece and a novel experience of sharing and communicating through a piece of music. Moreover, the sheer quantity of ‘old’ music provides a seemingly endless well of resources to draw upon in putting together repertoires. In this domain, the process of production of a performance or piece of recorded music has been greatly enhanced, through the online access to archives and past performances.

7.6p Im liCATIONs for further research Innovation in cultural industries has long been seen as the work of individual geniuses. Howard Becker and Pierre Bourdieu, already in the 1980s, showed that innovation in the cultural industries was strongly embedded in wider fields encompassing gatekeepers, supportive institutions, suppliers, customers etc. Allen Scott elaborated this view and made the point that innovation in cultural industries manifests similarities to innovation in high-tech industries dependent on spillover of knowledge and, therefore, on physical proximity (Scott, 2000). We aimed at systematically unpacking the institutional conditions for innovation. Our point of departure is questioning the need for slack and decommodification in the first, creative phase of the value chain to permit experimentation and product innovation – a sine qua non in cultural industries in the long run. We surmise that national, local, but also sectoral conditions affect the institutional set-up. State-sponsored configurations can shield off market forces, but also in liberal states, protection is possible as private sponsors, public-private institutions (e.g. lotteries) or grass-roots organisations can create environments conducive to experimentation and innovation. By expanding the analysis of innovation in cultural industries and borrowing both from business studies and comparative political economy we have sought to construct a more comprehensive framework to grasp processes of innovation in cultural industries. Whereas empirical research in business studies on concrete processes of innovation emphasised the importance of slack resources for experimentation, comparative political economy research underlined the salience of institutional variation in capitalism and thus of the possibilities of organising slack resources in more than one way and this can vary both across countries and over time. More in particular, the role of the state can vary from directly organising the slack resources through subsidies to a completely private sector provision. We assume that not just national institutional variations impact on how this slack is organised, but we also expect that sectoral characteristics are important in explaining these differences in concrete configurations of cultural industries. We theorise that sector-specific capital requirements, the nature

181

Chapter 7 Keeping the market at bay of the production process and markets, and the aesthetic and functional value of the object impact on how experimentation can be organised. With the recognition of cultural industries as drivers of advanced urban economies by both academics and policymakers, the conditions for successful development of these industries in the long run have come to the fore. Because the volatility of markets, the need for distinction, and the drive towards product differentiation to cater to more or less sophisticated niche markets, most cultural industries would be doomed in the long run without product, process and/or experience innovation. Innovation in cultural industries - as in other industries – is, however, anything but purely individualistic process. Instead, innovation is very much embedded in wider socio-cultural and institutional structures. Cultural industries tend to differ from other industries because of the (potential) inherent tension between, on the one hand, symbolic or aesthetic considerations, and on the other, commercial or humdrum considerations. This creates the necessity for room for artistic experimentation and an atmosphere conducive to creativity. The resulting innovations are thus nested in broader institutional configurations which support creativity and experimentation and channel it towards commercial outcomes. The embeddedness of such configurations is anything but static. Dissecting how market and non-market considerations in the art worlds/fields are intertwined calls for an elaboration of different national, local and sectoral contexts, understanding the extent to which four macro changes have affected the conditions for creativity and innovation in the cultural industries: the changing relation between states and markets, individualization, ICT advances and globalisation. Several key questions emerge. Which institutional configurations are more prone to innovation than others? On what level is this determined (spatial, sectoral, firm)? Can we identify institutional set ups which generate many or just a few innovations? How have the macro changes identified affected the institutional configurations over the past two decades? How have key actors in the field adapted to these changes? To what extent can we identify a spatial footprint of processes of creativity and innovation in the cultural industries? Further international comparative research calls for paired cases along sectoral and spatial lines to further unpack the dynamics at work.

Rferencee s Abbing, H. (2006). From High Art to New Art. Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press. Amin, A. and N. Thrift (1992). “Neo-Marshallian nodes in global networks.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 16(4): 571-587. Appadurai, A. (1988). The social life of things: commodities in cultural perspective. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Becker, H. S. (1982). Art Worlds. Berkeley, University of California Press. Bourdieu, P. (1980). “The production of belief: contribution to an economy of symbolic goods.” Media, Culture and Society 2(2): 261-93. — (1993). The field of cultural production. Cambridge, Polity Press. Brandellero, A. M. C. and R. C. Kloosterman Commodifying diversity in the cultural industries: Scaling the commodification gradient, Working paper. Burt, R. S. (2004). “Structural holes and good ideas.” The American Journal of Sociology 110(2): 349-99.

182

Capterh 7 Keeping the market at bay Cameron, S. (1995). “On the role of critics in the culture industry.” Journal of Cultural Economics 19(4): 321-331. Castañer, X. and L. Campos (2002). “The determinants of artistic innovation: Bringing in the role of organizations.” Journal of Cultural Economics 26(1): 29-52. Caves, R. E. (2000). Creative industries: Contracts between art and commerce. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. Cowen, T. and A. Tabarrok (2000). “An economic theory of avant-garde and popular art, or high and low culture.” Southern Economic Journal 67(1): 232-253. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, Harper & Row. Currid, E. (2007a). “How art and culture happen in New York.” Journal of the American Planning Association 73(4): 454-467. — (2007b). The Warhol economy: how fashion, art, and music drive New York City. Princeton, Princeton University Press. DiMaggio, P. and K. Stenberg (1985). “Why do some theatres innovate more than others? An empirical analysis.” Poetics 14(1-2): 107-122. Eikhof, D. R. and A. Haunschild (2007). “For art’s sake! Artistic and economic logics in creative production.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 28(5): 523-538. Frey, B. S. (1999). “State support and creativity in the arts: Some new considerations.” Journal of Cultural Economics 23(1): 71-85. Garnham, N. (2005). “From cultural to creative industries.” International journal of cultural policy 11(1): 15-29. Hall, P. (1998). Cities in Civilisation. London, Pantheon. Handke, C. (2008). On peculiarities of innovation in cultural industries. 15th International Conference on Cultural Economics. Northeastern University, Boston. Heilbrun, J. and C. M. Gray (2001). The economics of art and culture, Cambridge University Press. Hesmondhalgh, D. (2007). The cultural industries. London, Sage. Hirsch, P. M. (1972). “Processing fads and fashions: An organization-set analysis of cultural industry systems.” American journal of sociology 77(4): 639-659. Judt, T. (2005). Postwar: A history of Europe since 1945. London, William Heinemann Ltd. Kloosterman, R. C. (2008). “Walls and bridges: knowledge spillover between ‘superdutch’ architectural firms.” Journal of Economic Geography 8(4): 545-563. — (2010a). “Building a career: labour practices and cluster reproduction in Dutch Architectural Design.” Regional Studies 44(7): 859 - 871. — (2010b). “This is not America: embedding the cognitive-cultural urban economy.” Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 92(2): 1-14. Lang, G. E. and K. Lang (1988). “Recognition and renown: The survival of artistic reputation.” The American Journal of Sociology 94(7): 79-109. Lash, S. and J. Urry (1994). Economies of signs and space. London, Sage. MCN (2009). Classical and contemporary music in the Netherlands, Muziek Centrum Nederland. Miles, I. and L. Green (2008). Hidden innovation in the creative industries, NESTA. Negus, K. and M. Pickering (2004). Creativity, communication and cultural value. London, Sage. Nohria, N. and R. Gulati (1996). “Is slack good or bad for innovation?” The Academy of Management Journal 39(5): 1245-1264. Peterson, R. A. (1976). “The production of culture: A prolegomenon.” American Behavioral Scientist 19(6): 669. — (1994). Culture studies through the production perspective: Progress and prospects. The sociology of culture. D. Crane. Oxford, Blackwell: 163–89. Peterson, R. A. and D. G. Berger (1975). “Cycles in symbol production: The case of popular music.” American Sociological Review 40(2): 158-173.

183

Chapter 7 Keeping the market at bay Pratt, A. C. (2007). “An economic geography of the cultural industries.” LSE Research online, from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/855/1/EconomicgeoTODAY.pdf. Rosen, S. (1981). “The Economics of Superstars.” The American Economic Review 71(5): 845-858. Ryan, B. (1992). Making capital from culture. Berlin and New York, Walter de Gruyter. Sassoon, D. (2006). The culture of the Europeans: from 1800 to the present. London, Harper Collins UK. Scott, A. J. (2000). The cultural economy of cities. London, Sage. — (2004). “Cultural-products industries and urban economic development: prospects for growth and market contestation in global context.” Urban Affairs Review 39(4): 461-490. Stoneman, P. (2009). Soft innovation. Towards a more complete picture of innovative change, NESTA Research Report. Throsby, C. D. (2001). Economics and culture. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Throsby, D. (1994). “The production and consumption of the arts: a view of cultural economics.” Journal of Economic Literature 32(1): 1-29. Törnqvist, G. (1983). “Creativity and the renewal of regional life, in: A. Buttimer, (Ed.) Creativity and Context: A Seminar Report.” Lund Studies in Geography. B. Human Geography 50: 91-112. Williams, R. (1981). Culture. London, Fontana. Zukin, S. (1995). The cultures of cities. Cambridge, MA, Blackwell Publishing. Zukin, S. and J. S. Maguire (2004). “Consumers and consumption.” Annual Review of Sociology 30: 173-97.

1 Professor of Economic Geography, University of Amsterdam 2 Even before the digital crisis of the Music industry, Denisoff (1986) estimated that only one in ten albums released by artists with recording contracts are profitable, with a lower success ratio for artists releasing their first album. 3 Research on theatre innovation in the USA found that higher levels of shielding from the dictates of the market (in the form of grants and contributions) is generally associated with greater levels of innovation DiMaggio, P., Stenberg, K. (1985), ‘Why do some theatres innovate more than others? An empirical analysis.’ Poetics, 14:1-2, 107-122. 4 HOFSTEDE B. and RAES S. (Eds.), Creatief vermogen, De economische potentie van cultuur en creativiteit. Elsevier Overheid, ‘s-Gravenhage: 155-187.

184

Capterh 7 Chapter 7

88888

Cncuo l ding remarks Concluding remarks As this thesis draws to a close, we would like to reflect on its implications for research on the cultural industries and the production of culture more generally. As stated in the opening chapter, this research has been greatly influenced by theories that put forward the idea of cultural production as occurring in dense, highly networked ecologies of actors, often connected to, or orbiting around, metropolitan areas. Intermediaries play a central role in channelling the tastes and preferences towards certain products, while filtering out others. Considerable attention has been drawn to this mediation process, particularly to the individuals, places and institutions acting as gatekeepers. Yet the symbolic and aesthetic nature of cultural-industry products has been summarily investigated, with limited attention to the effect of cultural value systems on cultural production in the context of increasingly diversifying cities. We have posited that intermediaries are linchpins in highly negotiated processes of diffusion and hybridisation of cultures. Our voyage into these aspects started by considering the participation in cultural industries of entrepreneurs with migrant backgrounds. The relevance of ethnicity as a structuring force in cultural production mattered from two angles. The ethnic repertoires that migrants may potentially draw upon can be mobilised as a competitive source of aesthetic and symbolic content. Ethnicity, as a socially structured and structuring force, can also become a lens through which we view, interpret and label a migrant cultural entrepreneur’s work, irrespective of the work’s connection to aesthetic and symbolic content pertaining to his or her ethnic background. A fashion collection presenting a contemporary take on African prints by a Cameroonian designer at a makeshift catwalk in a restaurant in Paris’s XVIII arrondissement somewhere at the beginning of the noughties has a different meaning, audience and impact in the world of global fashion from a collection based on African prints by established fashion designers, Marc Jacobs and Givenchy, in Spring 2010. What from a value chain perspective we may call original production or creativity, might well in fact be a case of diffusion and adoption of symbols and aesthetics from a different culture. In its wake, this symbolic appropriation may boost the popularity and exposure of other designers using African prints, be they part of said designer’s cultural heritage or not. Whether African prints become a staple part of a composite system of symbols is another matter entirely, yet the differential effect on the imaginary of fashionistas the world over has more to do with processes of mediation than with an objective evaluation of the apparel in question. Beyond a wider ethical question about the imitation and appropriation of cultural symbols, this example highlights the oft complex commodification trajectories of products drawing on diverse cultural symbols, and their positioning in relation to niche and mainstream markets. Conceptualising commodification as a potential status of objects has been very helpful in refining our understanding of the situatedness of cultural production, and we are greatly indebted to Appadurai’s rich contribution to the study of the life of things (1986). The concept of ‘commodification gradient’ developed in the framework of this thesis relates this commodification potential to the object’s trajectory in time and place. It is not just that the commodification prospects of a product are highly dependent on context. How an object becomes commodified is contingent upon the negotiated access to localised opportunity structures. The case of world music in Paris highlighted

189

Cncuo l ding remarks a multi-level cluster where local diversity feeds into a celebratory image of the city as capital of world music and its rich history of music migrations. Yet a closer look reveals a hierarchy of music, based on ethnocentric assessments of authenticity of other cultures’ expressions and practices and structured around parallel production chains, different sets of institutions, intermediaries and creative inputs. To cite an extreme case, popular music from Ghana would thus be unauthentic because unbound from a musical tradition frozen in time and place. The suggestion of branding world music ‘made in Paris’ fails to reflect critically on the deterritorialisation of world music and the significance of a (Western) appellation of geographical origin in sealing the value of a product. World music does not include all the world’s music, but rather a selected compilation thereof. While opportunities for ‘breaking out’ of one chain and into another exist, we found quasi-impermeable symbolic and aesthetic standards, creating artificial separations between artists based on a possibly fictitious assessment of authenticity. From a spatial perspective, the dynamics of cultural production, valorisation and consumption call for a multi-level analysis. The Paris world music cluster’s competitiveness was shown to be tied to trans-local trajectories of knowledge diffusion, its transmission and mediation through individual and collective actions, and the mobilization of public and private actors towards a unitary response to the critical music industry conjuncture. The role of the state in shaping, directly and indirectly, the fortunes of the cluster and cultural production in general was highlighted. Paris’s function as a turntable for world sounds is clearly influenced by the country’s migration and urban policies, as indicated by collective actions in support of artists’ mobility and calls by music entrepreneurs for less restrictive visa rules. Cultural policy, albeit with a strong focus on the francophone world, has not only contributed to the development of a locally-based critical infrastructure, but also to the encouragement of audience participation. Hence the need to understand the process of creativity in the cultural industries beyond organizational and network dynamics, in wider institutional and regulatory frameworks. World music also offers interesting insights into global processes of cultural mediation. The continued dominance of London, New York and Paris in the diffusion of world music suggests the persisting relevance of processes of cultural valorisation centred on mediators in the West. The economic mediation is apparent in the discrepancy between world music chart entries from, say, Mali, and the presence of record labels connected to that country. While an explanation connected to an availability and quality of recording infrastructure appears to be surpassed, as a more decentralised geography of world music production centres emerges, this discrepancy points to the differential capacity to draw upon and combine the multiple scales and networks of cultural production and consumption. As Connell and Gibson have posited in their research (2003), this confirms that world music is primarily a commercial venture, which has strongly relied on the construction of discourses on place and identity via the intermediary of the West. This leads us more generally to a reflection on the connections between creativity and instances of its commercialisation in the cultural industries. There has been much interest recently in creativity as an engine of economic development and

190

Capterh 8 Concluding remarks competitiveness (Miles and Green 2008; Pratt and Jeffcutt 2009). Cultural industries tend to differ from other industries because of the (potential) tension between, on the one hand, symbolic or aesthetic considerations, and on the other, commercial or humdrum considerations (Caves 2000). This creates the necessity for room for artistic experimentation and an atmosphere conducive to creativity. The resulting innovations are thus nested in broader institutional configurations which support creativity and experimentation and channel it towards commercial outcomes. In a sense, the concept of creativity is unhelpful in understanding the dynamics at work in the cultural industries. It suggests a limitless potential of original ideas that we can all draw from. Paired with innovation, as the application of new ideas in practice, creativity is often portrayed in a footloose manner. However, our investigation of cultural industries as producers of symbolic and aesthetic content suggests a more bounded understanding of cultural production, working within or in any case in relation to systems of symbolic and aesthetic value, which shape creativity, its innovative potential and its reception. As a result, a general conclusion that can be drawn from this research is a critique of individual creativity as the starting point of the cultural industries value chain. What this research points to is a more balanced approach, where the focus should shift from individual creativity as the originating source of cultural products, to the wider embeddedness and destination of cultural innovations. Going back to Williams (1981), if culture is a study of relationships, the study of diversity in the cultural industries should depart from an analysis of the changing cultural interactions in space and time.

8.1cientific S contributions The empirical research in this dissertation attempted to build a bridge between several disciplines, notably economic geography, sociology of culture, ethnic entrepreneurship studies and cultural studies more generally. We will discuss how this research relates to these fields. Firstly, in economic geography, the literature often takes the symbolic and aesthetic content of cultural industry products as a given, at best connecting the competitive advantage of certain places in mobilising a certain reputation or status for related products. This research has explored the significance of the dynamics of construction and valorisation of this symbolic content and their implications for the processes of valorisation of products mobilising a diversity of cultural or ethnic repertoires. An important finding relates to significance of boundaries between cultures in the valorisation of symbolic and aesthetic content of cultural products. The boundaries come to matter in two ways: structurally, in terms of potential stereotyping or preconceived judgement of migrant cultural entrepreneurs and their outputs; symbolically, by acting as potential caveats to the appreciation of diversity in trending preferences and consumption patterns. Two contributions follow from the understanding and appreciation of such dynamics. The first relates to the opportunity structures facing migrant cultural entrepreneurs. We

191

Chapter 8 Cncuo l ding remarks have argued that these are shaped in parallel production chains, which are connected to the symbolic and aesthetic content mobilised. The research pointed to the fact that the categories of ‘mainstream’ and ‘ethnic niche’ are still influential in determining the positioning of products in the fields of cultural production and consumption. These terms are very much part of the organizational practices of intermediaries, though the boundaries are in a state of flux. Hence, while the content and confines of these categories may vary, our fieldwork pointed to the pertinence of these two extremes of a spectrum in shaping the positioning of products and their valorization in particular, as well as in creating opportunities to break in and out of specific market clouts. Tied to this is a second contribution linked to the dynamics of commodification of products mobilising diverse symbolic and aesthetic contents. As the biographies of products trace complex trajectories in time and space, their relation to a commodified status can be seen as regulated by a ‘commodification gradient’. Building on Appadurai’s rich description of the lives of commodities and their pre-commodified status, the conceptualisation of a gradient helps us to understand the changing commodity potential of products in time and place and their relation to concrete opportunity structures and mediators. The case of world music in Paris highlighted a dense ecology of actors involved in the production, valorization and consumption of music originating from around the world. We have seen variations in the way ethnic and geographical differences have been selected, commodified and marketed in changing contexts. Commodification is negotiated through ‘regimes of value’ and the symbolic capital bestowed to musical outputs by mediators linked to the different production chains.

8.2 LIMITATIONs and suggestions for further research The aim of this research has been to tease out mechanisms and dynamics at work in the commodification of diversity in the cultural industries. Due to its exploratory nature, a number of limitations arise. Firstly, the heterogeneity of our research population and of the cultural industries in general makes generalisations problematic. While we have sought to highlight common dynamics relating to the question of diversity of aesthetic and symbolic content and its potential as creative fuel in the cultural industries, we acknowledge that the diversity of organizational practices, local rootedness, and sectoral career trajectories among others things make it difficult to consider the commonalities but from an explorative ground. Nonetheless, we found a striking similarity of concerns and experiences relating to the more primordial question of the positioning of individuals in relation to cultural and ethnic boundaries, be they perceived or actual. Secondly, the study acknowledged the impact of ethnocentric value assessments on the opportunity structures open to migrant cultural entrepreneurs. On the one hand, cultural diversity as a system of intelligibility of diverse cultural symbols and aesthetics emerged, as a structuring element in the positioning of migrant cultural entrepreneurs. Moreover, the individual ethnicities were often a source of prejudice

192

Capterh 8 Concluding remarks and stereotyping. A more structured study of the values against which intermediaries assess cultural products could help to tease out how and under which circumstances ethnic diversity comes to matter. Summoning authenticity and immutable tradition as a judgement criteria, as in the case of traditional world music, may apply much less in designer fashion, where, conversely, contemporary takes may be more favourably assessed, subject to short-lived trend cycles of course. An interesting avenue for further research would be to explore the art of being different in a comparative perspective, taking the experiences of migrant cultural entrepreneurs in large, medium and small-sized cities. This would help to capture the extent to which different places have specific roles in global processes of reorganisation of culture. Moreover, this comparative approach could help shed more light into the notion of a critical mass (Zukin 1991) supporting the spread of certain trends and preferences. Do we see a level of specialisation in certain forms of diverse cultural expressions? Or is a more general process of hybridisation, reflecting global trends, apparent? Can we identify a ‘tipping point’ at which products cease to be linked to ethnic market clouts and become part of mainstream consumption patterns for instance? This could also lead to interesting insights as to the changing gradient of commodification of diversity, potentially identifying and mapping changes in the local opportunity structure’s threshold. Linked to this, further analysis into the dynamics of consumption would help move away from a deterministic approach to mediation and the influence of tastemakers, to a more organic process of co-constitution of preferences in time and place. Diverse resident populations, as potential proximate consumers of local cultural industry products, have gone largely unexplored in this research. Unpacking their changing preferences and their relation, if any, to their contiguity to other ethnic and cultural groups and practices would provide a fruitful avenue for research, as would an exploration of the extent of the ‘local’ nature of these interactions and their repercussions on wider processes of cultural globalisation.

8.3actica Pr l implications This research was mainly written for an academic audience, although in some cases we highlighted the practical implications for policy developments in the cultural industries. We would like to conclude with some issues for consideration in the policy field. While the cultural industries are associated with artistic experimentation, the relevance and often constraining influence of conventions and ‘ways of doing’ on the implementation of creative ideas has been noted elsewhere (see Becker 1982 for instance). Greater awareness of these conventions at work, as well as transparency in relation to how different cultural standards and norms may impact would promote a more constructive exchange with diversity. Education and training institutions in the field of cultural industry professions play a significant role in shaping and assessing the practices of budding cultural entrepreneurs. Our research pointed to the need for openness to diverse symbolic and aesthetic standards at these early stages, not

193

Chapter 8 Cncuo l ding remarks precluding the development of different artistic voices nor steering them towards more widely accepted conventions. More generally, whether we don African prints for a summer stint or adopt them as a central component of our wardrobe on a more regular basis, a constructive dialogue on cultural boundaries and their continuing meaning and relevance in determining the value of products is called for. Secondly, the research pointed towards the importance and impact of ‘cultural trailblazers’ in breaking down boundaries and reducing the distance between cultures and their symbols. These trailblazers may be expressing or adopting diversity for a variety of personal or professional reasons, opening up opportunities for others to follow in tow. Acknowledging emergent Black and Minority Ethnic designers through targeted initiatives and prizes can help boost visibility and promote a cultural entrepreneurs’ career in many ways. However, for some, this felt like ‘competing in a different category’ compared to other cultural entrepreneurs from non-minority backgrounds. A reflection on whether separate initiatives do not serve the purpose of maintaining and maybe even reinforcing boundaries could be usefully engaged. Lastly, the question of diversity in production and consumption within the cultural industries raises a deeper, underlying debate about cultural heritage, and not only its preservation, but also its renewal and regeneration. In large urban areas where hybridity is at its most vibrant and dynamic, the memories, experiences, expressions of peoples become ever more shared – boundaries are indeed crossed and become blurred and shift (see Jacobs 1969; Florida 2004). This in turn raises the question of the relevance of geographical boundaries, notably in measuring tangible and intangible heritage, and the pertinence of a transversal approach to measurement which takes into account how practices evolve and are recreated by communities around the world, simultaneously accounting for their uniqueness and plurality. Intangible heritage, understood as ‘the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith’ (UNESCO 2003, p.2), is deterritorialising and being constantly reproduced, recreated and shaped through the serendipitous and deliberate encounters and exchanges of cultural knowledge, values and representations taking place (mainly) in large urban areas. In this sense, it is necessary to recognise that cultures travel and keeping them alive might also be to support them in their new environments, forms of expression and dynamic practices.

194

Capterh 8 Concluding remarks Rferencee s Becker, H. S. (1982). Art Worlds. Berkeley, University of California Press. Caves, R. E. (2000). Creative industries: Contracts between art and commerce. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. Connell, J. and C. Gibson (2003). Sound Tracks. Popular music, identity and place, Routledge. Florida, R. (2004). The rise of the creative class, Basic Books New York. Jacobs, J. (1969). The economy of cities. New York, Random House. Miles, I. and L. Green (2008). Hidden innovation in the creative industries, NESTA. Pratt, A. C. and P. Jeffcutt (2009). Creativity, innovation and the cultural economy. Oxford, Routledge. UNESCO (2003). Convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage. Paris, UNESCO. Williams, R. (1981). Culture. London, Fontana. Zukin, S. (1991). Landscapes of power: from Detroit to Disney World. Berkeley, University of California Press.

195

Chapter 8 Cncuo l ding remarks

99999

Smarum y Summary Diversity in the cultural industries is a complex matter. It raises questions about the (expected or actual) positioning of the other in relation to cultural repertoires and symbols. It evokes distant geographies and places, and their articulation in the here and now. It leads to valuations of authenticity and exoticism, at the interface of diverse regimes of value. It opens discussions about one’s creative zeal and inspiration and related chances and opportunities in a business environment. It highlights the potential discrepancy between the process of expressing one’s identity through her or his work, and the reception of the outcome by others. While humble to the claim of offering an exhaustive theoretical and empirical analysis of these questions, this dissertation offers a contribution to our understanding of diversity in the cultural industries from a variety of vantage points, particularly the dynamics of production and valorisation of diverse cultural content in the cultural industries, and the embeddedness of these processes and industries in institutional dynamics and place. The thesis is structured around five articles, offering a variety of vantage points into cultural production, the dynamics of production and valorisation of diverse cultural content, and the embeddedness of these processes in place. Cultural production within the cultural industries is examined from the perspective of the market-structuring power of symbolic and aesthetic content, as in the exploratory research of migrant cultural entrepreneurs and the definition of the opportunity structures in the cultural industries. The analysis of the world music cluster in Paris and the development of product niches with parallel production, valorisation and consumption chains also shed light on the shifting boundary between mainstream and niche products. Chapter 3 explores the extent to which cultural industries can be considered vectors of diversity, taking the perspective of the participation and contribution of migrant cultural entrepreneurs to the production of commodified cultural goods and services. By combining three strands of thought, notably literature on cultural industries, ethnicity and culture, and migrant entrepreneurship, the chapter sheds light on the dynamic interaction between the cultural industries’ typically localised production processes and the global reach of the cultural identities and references on which migrants can draw. The result is a framework for analysis of: 1) the dynamics and opportunity structures through which ethnic diversity is potentially activated as symbolic and aesthetic fuel to drive innovation in processes of commodification of culture; 2) the extent to which the mediation of tastes and trends within the cultural industries come to shape the (perception of) boundaries between ethnic/non-ethnic cultural products. Chapter 4 applies the framework developed in the previous chapter to the case of world music production and the commodification of cultural diversity therein. The cultural or “ethnic” capital of migrants from less-developed countries may bestow a competitive edge in creating cultural products such as textiles, dance, and music. Converting these unique resources into commodities is, however, a complex process. To analyse this process, we introduce a new concept, namely that of the commodification gradient, as a socially embedded negotiated passage, albeit not an irreversible one, between creativity in posse and its commodity status. After unpacking this concept,

199

Smarum y we explore an interactionist approach to the world music opportunity structure and the dynamics of commodification of culture therein based on interviews and fieldwork in the Paris world music scene. We show the importance of parallel value chains, exemplified in the presence of three market ‘clouts’: notably community, traditional, and contemporary world music markets and we emphasise the role of intermediaries and tastemakers in these distinct processes of commodification. Chapter 5 further explores the dynamics of world music production, valorisation and consumption within the Parisian world music cluster, and highlights the spatially multi-scalar and historically, socially and economically-embedded dimensions of its creative field. Taking a long-term and multi-level perspective, our study reveals that the world music scene in Paris cannot simply be explained by its dense network of producers. The cluster’s competitiveness is tied to trans-local trajectories of knowledge diffusion, its transmission and mediation through individual and collective actions, and the mobilization of public and private actors towards a unitary response to the critical music industry conjuncture. The scene’s historical roots and the role of key individual and collective actors, combining entrepreneurship with an understanding of the societal significance of world music in a diversifying society, are evident, creating a strong, shared social context. Moreover, world music should be understood in the framework of wider processes of cultural globalization, drawing upon multiple spatial dynamics of production and scales of cultural valorisation. In conclusion, our study calls for further analysis in the (formal and informal) collective actions within cultural industry clusters, beyond the temporary project-based pooling of resources. Chapter 6 looks more globally at the production of world music, offering an in-depth analysis into the clustered and transnational dynamics therein. Taking the European world music charts since 1991 as a surrogate measure of the salience of global economic and geographical linkages in world music production, we substantiate the claim that the valorisation of commodified musical content has traditionally been removed from its place of origin and centred on metropolitan areas in Western Europe and the USA. However, the paper suggests a growing diversification in the geography of production, with the emergence of secondary centres with an international and national orientation. It also offers promising avenues for further research into the positionality of cultural mediation and the increasing prominence of hybrid musical output. Chapter 7 focuses on the dynamics of creativity and innovation in the cultural industries more generally. The emergence of cultural industries as engines of economic growth reflects an economic and cultural conjuncture where commodity production has become tied in with artistic experimentation. Research on cultural industries, however, has revealed a latent tension between artistic/l’art pour l’art and commercial or so-called humdrum considerations (Caves 2000; Cowen and Tabarrok 2000; Kloosterman 2010a) As many cultural industries can only survive in the long run through constant product differentiation and innovation, ways have to be found to shield off creative workers – at least temporarily – from direct market pressures to be able to come up with new ideas and innovations. We theorise that sector-specific capital requirements, the nature of the production process and markets, and the aesthetic and functional

200

Capterh 9 Summary value of the object impact on how experimentation can be organised. Notwithstanding the basic similarities in the organisational and spatial format of cultural industries, we anticipate that there are various institutional configurations which can shield off market pressures and allow creative workers to pursue new roads. To illustrate our point, we briefly present findings from the Amsterdam case. Chapter 8 brings together the key contributions made in this thesis, and offers elements of conclusion and fruitful avenues for further research. As a result, a general conclusion that can be drawn from this research is a critique of individual creativity as the starting point of the cultural industries value chain. What this research points to is a more balanced approach, where the focus should shift from individual creativity as the originating source of cultural products, to the wider embeddedness and destination of cultural innovations. Going back to Williams (1981), if culture is a study of relationships, the study of diversity in the cultural industries should depart from an analysis of the changing cultural interactions in space and time.

201

Chapter 9 Smarum y

101010

Samenvatting Samenvatting De rol van diversiteit en dan met name etnische diversiteit in de cultural industries roept een reeks van vragen op. Ten eerste vragen over de (verwachte of daadwerkelijke) positie van de ander, in het bijzonder met betrekking tot het cultureel repertoire en de symbolen die de ander tot zijn of haar beschikking heeft. Daarnaast roept diversiteit beelden op over verre plaatsen: een wereld die geografisch gezien ver van ons vandaan ligt, maar tevens in ons hier en nu aanwezig is. Dit kan leiden tot uiteenlopende interpretaties van authenticiteit en exotisme, verwikkeld in verschillende culturele waardesystemen. Het snijdt discussies aan over de creativiteit, ambitie en inspiratie van de ander en diens kansen en mogelijkheden in het zakelijke milieu. Het benadrukt het potentiële verschil tussen het persoonlijke proces om uitdrukking te geven aan de identiteit en hoe deze identiteit daadwerkelijk wordt ontvangen door anderen. Deze dissertatie levert een bijdrage aan de discussie welke rol diversiteit speelt in de cultural industries. In het bijzonder wordt stil gestaan bij processen van productie en van valorisatie van diverse culturele inputs in de cultural industries en hoe deze is ingebed in de bredere institutionele context en dynamieken van plaats en tijd. Deze dissertatie is opgebouwd uit vijf artikelen, die elk vanuit een verschillend oogpunt een kijk geven op de culturele productie, haar dynamieken - in het bijzonder de processen van productie en valorisatie van cultuur - en hoe deze zijn ingebed in een bepaalde plaats. De culturele productie wordt bezien vanuit het perspectief van de structurerende macht die symboliek en esthetiek op de markt in de cultural industries hebben. Daarbij is een explorerend onderzoek verricht naar migranten ondernemers in de cultural industries en gekeken naar de definiëring van de kansenstructuur in deze specifieke sector. Tevens is de steeds verschuivende grens tussen de mainstream en de niche markt in acht genomen door één specifiek cluster nader te analyseren: dat van de wereldmuziek in Parijs. Hoofdstuk 3 onderzoekt in welke mate de cultural industries beschouwd kunnen worden als dragers van diversiteit, bezien vanuit de graad van participatie en de bijdrage van migranten ondernemers aan de productie en commodificatie van goederen en diensten in de cultural industries. Door informatie over drie onderwerpen te combineren - te weten de literatuur over de cultural industries, etniciteit en cultuur, en migranten ondernemerschap - geeft dit hoofdstuk een inzicht in de dynamische interactie tussen de, voor de cultural industries karakteristieke lokale productieprocessen en het mondiale bereik van de culturele identiteit. Tegelijkertijd wordt stilgestaan bij de referenties die deze producten, gecreëerd door migranten, kunnen uitdragen. Dit heeft geresulteerd in een theoretisch raamwerk voor de analyse van: 1) de dynamieken en de kansenstructuren waardoor etnische diversiteit wordt ingezet als symbolische en esthetische brandstof voor innovatie in het proces van de commodificatie van cultuur; en 2) de mate waarin de mediatie tussen diverse smaken en trends in de cultural industries de (percepties van) grenzen tussen etnische en niet- etnische producten vorm geeft. In hoofdstuk 4 wordt dit raamwerk toegepast op één specifieke case: de productie van wereldmuziek en de commodificatie van culturele diversiteit in deze sector. Het culturele of “etnische” kapitaal waarover migranten uit ontwikkelingslanden kunnen

205

Samentting va beschikken, zou een competitief voordeel voor hen kunnen zijn in de creatie van culturele producten als textiel, dans en muziek. Het betreft echter een zeer complex proces om deze unieke bronnen daadwerkelijk te commodificeren. Om dit proces nader te kunnen analyseren, is een nieuw concept geïntroduceerd: de commodificatie gradiënt. Dit is een sociaal ingebedde passage, een grensovergang tussen de fase van creativiteit en daar waar het product de markt bereikt, commodificeert. Deze grensovergang is overigens niet onomkeerbaar, maar onderhandelbaar. Nadat dit concept is ontleed, analyseren we, op basis van interviews en veldwerk in de wereldmuziek scene van Parijs, met behulp van een interactionistische benadering de kansenstructuur in de wereldmuziek en de dynamische processen die de commodificatie van cultuur daarin teweegbrengt. Aan de hand van drie verschillende markten – de gemeenschaps- , traditionele, en de huidige markt van de wereldmuziek - wordt het belang getoond van het bestaan van parallelle productieketens. Daarbij wordt de belangrijke rol die intermediairs, trendsetters en smaakmakers in deze verscheidene processen van commodificatie spelen verder uitgelicht. Hoofdstuk 5 gaat vervolgens dieper in op de dynamische processen in de productie, valorisatie en consumptie van wereldmuziek in Parijs en laat de verschillende ruimtelijke schalen naast de historische, sociale en economisch ingebedde dimensies van dit creatieve veld zien. Het lange termijn perspectief en de verschillende dimensies die daarbij in acht worden genomen, onthullen dat de wereldmuziek scene in Parijs niet simpelweg verklaard kan worden vanuit het feit dat dit veld bestaat uit een hecht netwerk van producers. De competitiviteit van dit cluster ligt in de translokale trajecten van kennis diffusie en de wijze waarop deze specifieke kennis wordt overgedragen door middel van zowel individuele als collectieve acties. Daarbij worden zowel publieke als private actoren gemobiliseerd, die een uniform antwoord geven op de conjunctuur in de muziek industrie. De historische wortels van de scene zijn daarbij evident, evenals de rol die individuele en collectieve sleutelfiguren spelen in dit proces. Door ondernemerschap te combineren met een begrip van het sociale belang van wereldmuziek in een multiculturele samenleving die steeds meer divers is, wordt een sterk sociaal draagvlak gecreëerd. Wereldmuziek zou dan ook gezien moeten worden vanuit een bredere context van processen van globalisatie van cultuur, waarbij tevens aandacht wordt besteed aan de verschillende ruimtelijke dynamieken van productie en de verscheidende schalen in de valorisatie van cultuur. Deze studie beveelt om deze reden een nadere analyse van de (formele en informele) collectieve acties in de cultural industries aan, die verder gaat dan slechts een analyse van de tijdelijke pool van bronnen die worden ingezet op basis van projecten. In hoofdstuk 6 wordt de productie van wereldmuziek vanuit een meer mondiaal perspectief bekeken, waarbij een diepte analyse wordt gegeven van de transnationale en cluster dynamieken die zich in deze specifieke sector afspelen. De Europese wereldmuziek hitlijsten vanaf 1991 worden daarbij gebruikt als graadmeter om de verzadiging in de globale economische en geografische verbanden in de productie van wereldmuziek te analyseren. Het argument dat de traditionele muziek is verplaatst van de originele plek van oorsprong naar de metropolen in West-Europa en de Verenigde Staten, wordt daarbij onderbouwd. Dit hoofdstuk toont echter ook een groeiende

206

Capterh 10 Samenvatting diversificatie in de productie geografie, waarbij een tweede lijn van centra verschijnt met een internationale en nationale oriëntatie. Dit geeft tevens veelbelovende aanknopingspunten voor toekomstig onderzoek naar de positionering van culturele mediatie en de toenemende productie van hybride muziekvormen. Hoofdstuk 7 focust meer algemeen op de dynamiek van creativiteit en innovatie in de cultural industries. De opkomst van de cultural industries als motor van economische groei reflecteert een economische en culturele conjunctuur waarin de productie van goederen en diensten nauw verbonden zijn met een artistieke ervaring. Onderzoek naar de cultural industries laat echter een latente spanning zien tussen het artistieke element (l’art pour l’art) en de commerciële (humdrum) belangen (Caves 2000; Cowen and Tabarrok 2000; Kloosterman 2010a). Veel cultural industries kunnen immers alleen op lange termijn overleven door middel van constante product differentiatie en innovatie. Om deze reden menen wij dat sector specifieke kapitaalvereisten, de aard van de markten en de productieprocessen, en de esthetische en functionele waarde van het product, allen invloed hebben op hoe de artistieke ervaring kan worden georganiseerd. Ondanks de gelijkenissen in het organisatorische en ruimtelijke veld van de cultural industries, anticiperen we in dit onderzoek op verscheidene institutionele configuraties die de creatievelingen kunnen afschermen van de druk die de markt op hen uitoefent en hen de mogelijkheid geeft nieuwe wegen in te slaan. Om dit punt te illustreren, zullen we kort ingaan op onze bevindingen in de case waarin Amsterdam is onderzocht. In hoofdstuk 8 worden tot slot de belangrijkste bevindingen samengebracht. Dit hoofdstuk biedt de handvatten om conclusies te trekken en geeft tevens zicht op vruchtbare elementen voor toekomstig onderzoek. Een algemene conclusie die uit dit onderzoek kan worden getrokken is een kritiek om individuele creativiteit als beginpunt te nemen in de analyse van de productieketen in de cultural industries. Dit onderzoek pleit voor een meer gebalanceerde benadering, waarbij zowel aandacht wordt besteed aan de individuele creativiteit en de wijdere inbedding als inspiratiebron voor culturele innovatie. Terugkomend op Williams (1981): als cultuur een studie van relaties is, dan zou een studie naar culturele diversiteit in de cultural industries moeten vertrekken vanuit een analyse van de transformerende culturele interacties in ruimte en tijd.

207

Chapter 10 Samentting va Curriculum vitae Curic r ulum vitae Amanda Brandellero is a British-Italian postdoctoral researcher and lecturer at the Department of Media and Communication at Erasmus University Rotterdam. She undertook her PhD research in economic geography at the University of Amsterdam. In 2007, she received the Cultural Policy Research Award for her study ‘Crossing cultural borders? Migrants and ethnic diversity in the cultural industries’, published by the European Cultural Foundation. Previously, Amanda headed Greater London Enterprise’s office in Brussels, working on European regional and urban affairs and transnational projects on behalf of London’s local authorities. Prior to that, she worked as a research manager for ECOTEC, a UK and European public policy consultancy. She holds a BA (First Class) in European Studies and an MSc in Regional and Urban Planning (with Distinction) from the London School of Economics. Her research interests centre on the cultural industries, popular music, cultural diversity and identity, and the geographies of cultural production.

209

Curic r ulum vitae