As the rise of cultural economies and post-industrialization of cities, the culture-led development has been widely accepted as a renewed tool for urban revitalization. The trend is based on the perception that the cultural activities, ranging from artistic production to cultural festivals, have substantial economic and social impact on urban revitalization such as job creation, community building and social integration.
One key string of the cultural waves is the approach emphasizing city’s role as a tourist destination. These literatures known as city marketing or city branding perspectives are distinctively focused on the consumption function of place. On the other hand, there is an another line of literatures, stressing the role of creative minds in urban economy. As illustrated in Richard Florida’s work, this line of thought asserts that the talents or the creative class can provide cities with global competitive edge and eventually contribute to regional development. These two different approaches, however, share common ground in that they are looking for outside forces for their solution rather than inside. Regardless of tourists or talents, the cultural promotion strategies aiming at external forces are inclined to result in the neighborhood disruption. Displacement, gentrification, and social polarization are the often-raised issues in relation to this type of culture-led development strategies.
In recent years, many cities in industrialized countries has witnessed that cultural clusters became driving forces of dynamic change in urban landscape. For instance, powered by the influx of young artists, East End in London and Williamsbug in New York have been emerged as the cultural icons of cities from abandoned industrial towns. However, it is also true that many cultural clusters are facing the crisis of dismantlement and clearance under increasing market pressure. We believe that artist network and its community connection are pivotal in preserving place identity and cities’ long term cultural development in such a volatile economic environment.
This study is focused on the city’s art production functions as a catalyst for urban revitalization, not the consumption role that previous approaches often place emphasis on. In this light, the cultural cluster in the study is defined as the dense social network among artists, art-related institute and local citizen at neighborhood level. By adopting the research framework of industrial cluster studies which has been developed in economic geography circle in the past two decades, we try to take a look at the social ecology of artists as the locus of creativity of cities.
After reviewing and mapping the current situation of cultural clusters in Korea, the authors selected two clusters for in-depth analysis, which are Totatoga in Busan and Daein art market in Gwangju. Totatoga project was launched in 2009, when Busan city government decided to provide young artists with working spaces at the center of Busan city. The Busan cultural foundation, the management body of the project accommodated artists by renting vacant offices for 3 years in declining city center, instead required artists to engage in the education programs and festivals for local people. On the other hand, Daein art market was started with a residency program operated as a sideline of Gwanju biennale festival in 2008. After the residency program ended, the artists stayed at the market by themselves and the local government launched supporting project targeting at artists and merchants in the market. As a troubled traditional market, it is more urgent for Daein art market to gain vitality through art-related activities. The analysis focused on the three factors of the cultural clusters; the sense of community among artists, the work network of artists and the local connections artists.
(The rest is omitted)
- 도시재생을 위한 문화클러스터 활용방안 연구(Cultural cluster strategy as a tool for urban revitalization)
- 박세훈; 김은란; 박경현; 정소양
도시재생을 위한 문화클러스터 활용방안 연구(Cultural cluster strategy as a tool for urban revitalization)
|Series Title; No||국토연 / 2011-45|
|Subject Country||South Korea(Asia and Pacific)|
|Subject||Territorial Development < National Land Development|