Developing impact goals for Cultural Heritage 3.0 - Pier Luigi Sacco

1. Developing impact goals
for Cultural Heritage 3.0
Pier Luigi Sacco
IULM & Harvard & EC

2. The Culture 3.0 paradigm
• Culture 1.0 (Patronage):
Highbrow vs. lowbrow,
culture as spiritual
cultivation, no industrial
organization
• Culture 2.0 (CCIs): copyright,
culture as entertainment,
market organization
• Culture 3.0 (open
communities of practice):
blurred distinction
producers/users, culture as
collective sense-making,
networks organization

3. Culture 1.0: patronage
• The pre-industrial regime: no
possibility of organized markets;
culture does not produce major
economic value added but absorbs
it; small, elite audiences that
gradually expand as more
sophisticated sub-regimes emerge
• Initially founded on the virtue of
parsimonia: emphasis on human
cultivation and balance
– Classical patronage
– Strategic patronage
– Public patronage
– Committed patronage
– Civic patronage
– Entrepreneurial patronage

4. Museums 1.0:
temples of knowledge
• In the patronage regime, the
museum is mainly focused upon
the conservation, development
and presentation of its collections
• The creation of value is connected
to the strengthening and
cultivation of the museum
audience, and to the transfer of
knowledge and competences that
this implies
• Economic sustainability concerns
are seen as an interference with
the pursuit of the mission of the
museum, and the very goal of
patronage is that of freeing the
museum from the pursuit of
activities that are extraneous to its
educational mandate

5. Culture 2.0:
cultural and creative industries
• With the massive urbanization that
follows the industrial revolution,
and with the ‘cultural’ industrial
revolution that happens at the turn
of the XX century, cultural markets
can finally emerge
• The industrialized forms of culture
become profitable, the size of the
audience expands dramatically, and
culture becomes increasingly linked
to entertainment
• Emphasis on profitability and
audience response:
– Proto-industry
– Mainstream
– Counter-mainstream
– Subcultures
– Fan ecologies

6. Museums 2.0:
entertainment machines
• Although the museum cannot be
properly ‘industrialized’, there is
an increasing expectation that
the museum is generating
income, is managed efficiently,
and contributes to the
development of the tourism
industry
• Economic returns are not seen as
an interference in the pursuit of
the museum’s mission
• Audience response increasingly
becomes an explicit success
factor and significantly
constraints the museum
strategies and policies
• The museum environment itself
performs a spectacular function

7. Culture 3.0:
content communities
• Collapse of the separation
between producers and
audience: a blurred continuum
of active/passive participation
• A new wave of technological
innovation that enables
massive, shared and shareable
production of content and
instant diffusion and
circulation
• The production of value moves
to the social domain and
connects to all of the main
dimensions of civic
functioning: innovation,
welfare, sustainability, social
cohesion, lifelong learning,
social entrepreneurship, local
identity, soft power

8. Museums 3.0:
participative platforms
• The idea of a passive audience
is gradually substituted by a
spectrum of forms of direct
engagement
• Museums can create value in
terms of innovation hubs,
welfare hotspots, sustainability
facilitators, social cohesion
gateways, etcetera
• The new forms of value entail
different forms of social
interaction and exchange as
constituent factors
• The museum opens its
collections to the possibility of
creative appropriation and
remix of its contents by users

9. The Heritage 3.0
framework
• Heritage 1.0 (Conservation):
Preserving ‘stones’ is the
priority, Heritage is for
connoisseurs
• Heritage 2.0 (Entertainment
machines): Attracting people
and making profit is the priority,
Heritage is for customers
• Heritage 3.0 (Community sense-
making): Involving everybody in
the production, circulation and
conservation of culture is the
priority. Heritage is made,
preserved and enjoyed by the
community

10. Impact
goal 1:
Innovation

11. Innovation/cultural participation
Innovation Union Scoreboard 2014 (top 23) Index of Cultural Practice Eurobarometer 2013 (top 23)
Sweden Sweden
Denmark Denmark
Germany Netherlands
Finland UK
Luxembourg Luxembourg
Netherlands France
Belgium Spain
UK Estonia
Ireland Germany
Austria Ireland
France EU
EU Finland
Slovenia Slovenia
Estonia Malta
Cyprus Austria
Italy Lithuania
Czech Republic Belgium
Spain Latvia
Portugal Croatia
Greece Italy
Hungary Czech Republic
Slovakia Bulgaria
Malta Romania
Croatia Poland

12. Culture-innovation
clusters
• Top innovation + culture: Sweden,
Denmark, Netherlands, UK, Ireland,
Luxembourg, France, Germany
• Top innovation + culture lagging: Finland,
Belgium, Austria
• Top culture + innovation lagging: Spain,
Estonia
• Lagging innovation + culture: Slovenia,
Malta, Croatia, Italy, Czech Republic
• Bottom innovation + lagging culture:
Lithuania, Latvia, Bulgaria, Romania,
Poland
• Bottom culture + lagging innovation:
Cyprus, Portugal, Greece, Slovakia,
Hungary

13. Impact
goal 2:
Welfare

14. Hierarchy of factors
affecting psychological
well-being
1 Diseases
2 Cultural participation
3 Income
4 Age
5 Education
6 Gender
7 Job
8 Geography

15. Classical music concerts

16. Theatre

18. Impact
goal 3:
Sustaina-
bility

19. Cultural
access and
waste
recycling

20. Best 10
EU15
Capital
cities
for waste
mgmt &
land use
Amsterdam
Helsinki
Berlin
Vienna
Copenhagen
Stockholm
Brussels
London
Paris
Dublin

21. Impact
goal 4:
Social
cohesion

22. Social cohesion
1
certain types of cultural
projects may produce
strong and significant
effects in terms of
juvenile crime prevention,
pro-social vocational
orientation, or conflict
resolution (Abreu
program, projeto Axé,
etc.)
2
these projects are
generally focused on
active cultural
participation, as it is
made possible for
instance by programs of
music education
3
the indirect effect of
cultural participation on
social cohesion is the
overcoming of self- and
others-stereotyping as
provoked by incumbent
social prejudices, often
linked to ethnicity factors
4
the Maisons Folie system
of cultural facilities
realized by the Région
Nord-Pas de Calais in the
context of Lille 2004
European Culture Capital

23. Impact
goal 5:
Entrepre-
neurship

24. Entrepreneurship
the cultural and creative field may be a powerful
incubator of new forms of entrepreneurship
the rapid growth of the online content industries, just to
make a particularly evident example, is creating the stage
for a new entrepreneurial cultural with a strong
generational basis
the development of creative entrepreneurship still lags
behind substantially if compared to the attention and
resources devoted to development and support of
entrepreneurship in other sectors of the economy
these new forms of entrepreneurship could improve
significantly the employability of graduates from the
humanities sectors, which are commonly considered to
have a weaker employability potential than the graduates
from quantitative and technology areas

25. Impact
goal 6:
Learning

26. Learning
the association between active cultural participation and
lifelong learning is a pretty natural one, and unlike others is
not particularly surprising
one might even think of active cultural participation as a
specific form of lifelong learning
as lifelong learning is well targeted by structural funds
programming and takes a central place in EU long-term
strategies, it could be of interest to launch and pursue
innovative programs and actions that exploit the strategic
complementarities between the former and culturally and
creatively based communities of practice as instances of
advanced platforms of cultural and creative production

27. Impact
goal 7:
Soft power

28. Soft power
cultural and creative production may
contribute to a great extent to increase
the visibility, reputation and
authoritativeness of a country/region
at all levels of international
relationships, from the political to the
economic
01
high level of soft power may open up
new markets to national/regional
products through the identification
and emulation dynamics which are
typical of post-industrial consumption,
may attract more visitors, talents and
investments, may stimulate new,
sophisticated strategies of value
creation through branding and
marketing tools
02

29. The IfG/Monocle ranking
of soft power
1 UK
1 France
3USA
4 Germany
5 Switzerland
6 Sweden
7 Denmark
8 Australia
9 Finland
10 Netherlands
11 Spain
12 Canada
13 Singapore
14 Norway
15 Japan
16 Italy
17 China
18 Israel
19 Korea
20 South Africa
20 Brazil
22 Mexico
23 India
24 UAE
25 Turkey
26 Russia

30. Impact
goal 8:
Identity

31. Local
identity

32. Local identity
considerable emphasis has been put on
the role of the installment of new,
spectacular cultural facilities in the
catering for global visibility of one specific
urban or regional milieu
but the developmental potential of a
culturally-rebuilt local identity lies in the
capacity to stimulate new dynamics of
production of cultural content and new
modes of cultural access by the local
community, as a consequences of the new
opportunities created by the attraction of
outside resources
example: the Newcastle/Gateshead urban
renewal strategy, Bilbao, Mons, etc.