The Economics of Art and Culture. (Book Reviews/Comptes Rendus)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
James Heilbrun and Charles M. Gray, The Economics of Art and Culture, 2nd edition. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001, 410 pp. Sociological analysis of the arts has developed over the last 35 years as arts organizations increased enormously in number and in their degree of institutionalization. So too has public support for the arts and other cultural expressions, in North America through the Canada Council and the National Endowment for the Arts, provincial, state and local agencies. Increasing in turn has been the need for such organizations to become publicly accountable, thereby providing systematic and quantitative data subject to more than the ethnographic and case study analysis by social scientists that have formed the original basis of the field. Such studies continue to be done, but now greatly enhanced by the more universal survey data that is available. Not surprisingly, as the field has grown so too have academic conferences and publications proliferated. Most notable for sociologists is the annual Conference on Social Theory, Politics and the Arts and its now-affiliated journal, the Journal of Arts Management and Law. The STPA in 1989 our host at University of Toronto was Joseph G. Green and in 1996 at University of Montreal, Francois Colbert organized the conference. Each published selected proceedings under the respective titles of From Orchestras to Apartheid (Guiot & Green, 1990; it includes the keynote address by Mayor Moore) and Selected Proceedings: Cultural Policy (Colbert 1997). While STP&A has been multi-disciplinary since its early years, including sociologists, political scientists and policy analysts, anthropologists, historians, aestheticians, economists, arts administrators and occasionally even an artist (!), the Conference on Cultural Economics has attracted primarily economists, drawn to mathematical models. It has produced its own eponymous journal. There are now European-based variants of both of the above conferences and journals, to say nothing of mainstream publication of anthologies and other studies in the field, with many social scientist multi-linguists participating in both. Notable among these has been cultural economist Harry Hillman Chartrand of Saskatoon, most of whose publications are available online. With all of this scholarly attention, what have we learned? The book under discussion here, The Economics of Art and Culture (2nd edition), is gracefully written, filled with more recent data and sound analysis. James Heilbrun and Charles M. Gray are both economists, if somewhat less inclusive in their purview than Chartrand in their analysis of the culture industry. (Indeed, they do not cite his work.) The first edition of their text was published in 1993. Their second edition, like the first, focuses primarily on the micro- but also the macroeconomics of artistic production and its social meanings. They provide a remarkably clear analysis of a large number of data sets, summarized in tables that even someone like myself, qualitative to the core, can understand, along with a few mathematical models. The data are taken from sources in the United States and internationally, public agencies as well as foundation and corporate reports. Their analysis is nuanced in recognition of the limitations of such surve y quantitative data. They are consistent in comparing the views of those who oppose any public funding of the arts, who favor complete privatization, with those who support at least some such funding -- as do they. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,008 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,060 | 0,031 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».