[Tian Qian] Research on the Development Path of Intangible Cultural Heritage Cultural and Creative Industries

The development path of cultural and creative industries in the perspective of intangible cultural heritage (hereinafter referred to as "intangible cultural heritage") is a topic that must be faced directly, whether it is for "intangible cultural heritage" protection or cultural and creative industry theory.

On the one hand, what exactly is a cultural and creative industry? How does the "intangible cultural heritage" protection work involved in cultural and creative industries work? Many scholars in various disciplines hold their own opinions and use their own discipline concepts to conduct relevant research and interpretation, forming a continuous and lively debate scene in which hundreds of schools of thought contend in the academic community about cultural and creative industries.

However, overall, the topic of interaction between "intangible cultural heritage" and cultural and creative industries has not been studied in depth and a deep consensus has been reached.

In the absence of academic foundation, cultural and creative industries face the risk of building towers on a beach in the practical field.

On the other hand, the cultural and creative industries in the era of "intangible cultural heritage" are regarded by society as an important means of protecting and inheriting "intangible cultural heritage" because of their "compatibility" in concept with "intangible cultural heritage", which undoubtedly highlights cultural and creative industries.

The value of the times.

In 2009, it was proposed by academia that "productive protection should become an officially recognized protection method.

In the interaction between" intangible cultural heritage "and cultural and creative industries, will cultural and creative industries rely on strong capital to destroy endangered" intangible cultural heritage "in the name of" productive protection "? The two fields have been fortunate enough to integrate due to the opportunity of the times, but there is also a serious problem of misreading "intangible cultural heritage".

Based on the rigour of academic research and scholars 'sense of responsibility to society, the author believes that the interactive relationship between "intangible cultural heritage" and cultural and creative industries must be discussed in some conceptual and empirical aspects, clearly point out the problems, and propose and formulate feasible measures to further properly solve the numerous and complex problems arising from the interaction between the two.

Contradictions in interactions: Cultural and creative industries in the era of "intangible cultural heritage"

There are many definitions of cultural and creative industries related to "intangible cultural heritage" in Chinese and foreign academic circles.

In 1998, the British Creative Industries Working Group first explained the connotation of cultural and creative industries in the "Creative Industries Special Report", believing that it is "derived from personal creativity, skills and talents, and through the generation and access of intellectual property rights, an industry that creates wealth and increases employment potential." Some scholars in China have also put forward relevant opinions, believing that "the foothold of cultural and creative industries is still culture.

Although they appear as industries of an economic nature, they require cultural creation and improvement.

The fundamental trajectory of action is to use cultural development to drive economic development and upgrading, rather than focusing on its short-term economic benefits first." These definitions generally capture several key characteristics of cultural and creative industries: cultural production, economic development, cultural creativity, personalization, etc.

However, these definitions have never clarified how to carry out cultural creation during the development of cultural and creative industries, how to carry out cultural "reproduction and smelting, and have not clarified whether cultural and creative industries are" industries ".

This increases the dangers in the practice of cultural and creative industries.

How to respect local knowledge and reflect care for cultural holders in the context of cultural and creative industries urgently needs answers.

Interaction between "productive protection" of "intangible cultural heritage" and cultural and creative industries

Since the concept of "intangible cultural heritage" was proposed in 2003,"intangible cultural heritage" has established a theoretical connection with human creativity.

In fact, the vitality of "intangible cultural heritage" has directly clarified the concept of ensuring the survival and development of "intangible cultural heritage" in cultural production practice activities.

Therefore, the concept of "productive protection" after 2009 proposes and emphasizes the concept of "intangible cultural heritage" cultural production, unifying the spiritual and material attributes of "intangible cultural heritage" into cultural creativity from the perspective of cultural products.

As a key path for the sustainable implementation of productive protection, cultural and creative industries are gradually moving into public view.

Specifically reflected in the following: First, the cultural and creative industries have expanded the field of productive protection of "intangible cultural heritage".

Protecting the historical form of "intangible cultural heritage" and exploring the resource value and daily service functions of current life in a living way is the purpose of "intangible cultural heritage" productive protection, and it is also the main body of all aspects of "intangible cultural heritage" protection.

However, productive protection focuses more on traditional skills, traditional art and traditional medicine heritage belonging to the technological and scientific levels, and pays less attention to the protection of other cultural product attributes of "intangible cultural heritage".

As a protection strategy for the spiritual attribute of "intangible cultural heritage" and a key way to enter contemporary life, cultural and creative industries perfectly integrate the explicit material form in productive protection with the implicit spiritual qualities such as creativity, extension, and reengineering.

Secondly, the cultural and creative industries have clarified the connotation of "intangible cultural heritage" productive protection culture.

Spiritual value is the core factor that distinguishes "intangible cultural heritage" from material heritage, and the cultural creativity that reflects the essence of people in the inheritance and protection of "intangible cultural heritage" is the creative and meaningful form formed by people in the historical process of exploring nature and society, which is also the key to understanding the cultural creativity of "intangible cultural heritage".

The "intangible cultural heritage" cultural creativity here not only includes the overall conceptual "creativity" that takes daily life as the source, emphasizing the creative value of daily life with the essence of "intangible cultural heritage" and the life ideal based on the "living world", and realizing it through the exploration of historical experience; it also covers cultural innovation with the meaning of life as the driving force, and uses modeled life as the driving force for promoting contemporary cultural innovation.

Thirdly, cultural and creative industries have activated the historical experience of productive protection of "intangible cultural heritage".

The cultural and creative industry is an industrial chain in the economic field.

It aims to condense and industrialize aesthetic symbols and cultural products that can be accepted by contemporary society through understanding, understanding, understanding and innovation of cultural traditions.

Human historical experience is most concentrated in the experience of daily life, and "intangible cultural heritage" resources are the precious wisdom accumulated in various fields of human daily life in the process of long-term social development.

Excavating the cultural creativity of "intangible cultural heritage" and forming an industry can not only adapt to the requirements of the market economy for "intangible cultural heritage" formed in history, but also better enable "intangible cultural heritage" to enter the scope of contemporary life and promote it from the root causes.

Inheritance of culture.

Finally, cultural and creative industries enrich the cultural characteristics of "intangible cultural heritage" productive protection.

The content of "intangible cultural heritage" is extensive and all-encompassing.

Through the cultural and creative industries, the market-oriented integration of the various intertwined forms of "intangible cultural heritage" and the refinement of diverse, harmonious and unified aesthetic images and symbol elements can not only better demonstrate the original value of "intangible cultural heritage" and have great practical significance for the productive protection of "intangible cultural heritage".

The contradiction between "intangible cultural heritage" and cultural and creative industries

Considering the current research on cultural and creative industries, we conduct a preliminary discussion on its relationship with "intangible cultural heritage".

There are some contradictory contents between the two, which directly affects the organic integration of the two at the practical level.

First of all, there is a path contradiction in practice between the two.

Among the many measures for "intangible cultural heritage", including "productive protection", the emphasis is on protection as the core and development must be based on protection.

This is the basic principle for cultural protection and development in the era of intangible cultural heritage.

Cultural and creative industries are different.

Although cultural and creative industries emphasize production with cultural significance, they have a clear tendency for economic development.

Scholars have repeatedly emphasized the concepts of "high added value," creative processing "and" animation production "of cultural and creative industries, but in fact they emphasize the market orientation based on innovation.

This has been confirmed many times in practice and it has lost respect for cultural attributes.

Secondly, there is a contradiction between production and consumption between the two.

"Intangible cultural heritage" from the perspective of productive protection emphasizes the unity of time and space between production and consumption.

This unity affirms that the holders of "intangible cultural heritage" carry out "intangible cultural heritage" production practices based on their own cultural logic and cultural demands.

Looking at the cultural and creative industries, one of its core purposes is to enter the market circulation field.

Consumers 'consumption demands are an important direction for the development of cultural and creative industries.

It can be seen that there are differences in production purposes between the two, which directly determines the conceptual conflict between the two production practices.

This also brings up another topic, that is, who will innovate the cultural and creative industries? Whose cultural creativity is it?

Struggle in the game: "Intangible cultural heritage and the multiple forces in the cultural and creative industries

Whose cultural creativity? This wake-up question directly questions the cultural and creative industries in the era of "intangible cultural heritage".

When we observe cultural and creative works including the Disney cartoon "Hua Mulan", who will think of the inheritors of Hua Mulan's folk stories? They have passed down living and oral folk stories from generation to generation through oral transmission and heart-to-heart teaching.

However, in the process of developing cultural and creative industries, they have disappeared invisible and become outsiders.

This is at odds with the core view of "intangible cultural heritage".

The key to the difference between "intangible cultural heritage" and material cultural heritage lies in the close relationship between the inheritors and the form of "intangible cultural heritage".

As the logical carrier of local knowledge, the behaviors of the inheritors reflect the connotation of regional culture.

Only the "intangible cultural heritage" created by their cultural production and practical activities can have the flavor of "grammar".

Should we reflect on the status of inheritance groups in cultural and creative industries? Without the creative activities of cultural inheritance groups, how can cultural and creative industries become a true productive protection? If the reproduction of culture is cultural production based on the inheritor's acquisition of existing culture and the unconscious use of cultural logic, then cultural reconstruction more reflects the social forces 'interpretation of a certain cultural matter based on their own intentions.

Re-creation of meaning.

Isn't this a production activity currently being carried out in many cultural and creative industries?

Regarding the game of forces among all parties in the "intangible cultural heritage" protection pattern, folk scholar Zhao Deli proposed: "In the protection of intangible cultural heritage, the government is an indispensable leading role.

Without government policy support and financial assistance, intangible cultural heritage cannot be properly protected; cultural scholars are the brains of the protection of intangible cultural heritage.

Because of their profound knowledge accumulation and less biased value stance, they will provide less utilitarian, more academic and human opinions and suggestions for the protection of intangible cultural heritage; the private sector is the main body of intangible cultural heritage protection.

Without folk culture and popular power, intangible cultural heritage will be difficult to develop sustainably and will therefore cease to exist." As of 2010,"intangible cultural heritage" protection and cultural and creative industries were in harmony and interacted frequently.

The structural pedigree originally constructed by the three types of roles, with the government as the leading role, cultural scholars as the main body, and the people as the main body, needs to be adjusted and supplemented.

As the leading role, enterprises and businesses responsible for developing cultural resources should be involved in it in a timely manner.

The wealth orientation it brings plays a strong guiding role.

The folk society as the main body can be subdivided into the holders of "intangible cultural heritage" and the cultural elites of the region or ethnic group; the main brain part is the intellectuals who hold a cultural protection stance, and this group has an intersection with the cultural elites of the region or ethnic group where the "intangible cultural heritage" is located.

Official forces dominate the development direction of "intangible cultural heritage" cultural and creative industries

The central government is the value determiner of the "intangible cultural heritage" protection movement and the most powerful promoter of the entire interest pattern.

Documents issued by the State Council, the Ministry of Culture, the National Ethnic Affairs Commission and other ministries and commissions have determined the value concept of "intangible cultural heritage".

As local governments at all levels in areas where various "intangible cultural heritage" are located, they should conscientiously understand and effectively implement the spirit of the central government.

However, the actual situation is that in the general environment of evaluating local political achievements based on various economic growth indicators, governments at all levels almost all Think about the position of "intangible cultural heritage" protection from the perspective of economic interests.

The protection of "intangible cultural heritage" needs to be driven by interests-once culture can bring about exponential growth in the local economy, officials will actively collude with businesses.

Businesses and enterprises that are involved through the government should be the stakeholders that benefit the most from cultural resources.

As competitors in the capital market, they must follow the laws of value and the rules of the game in their specific field.

Maximizing profits is both an instinct and a duty for them.

Once the law of value takes effect, they will not help but pursue short-term economic benefits and abandon long-term social benefits.

We can understand why similar farces of "culture sets the stage and economy sings the opera" are frequently staged in various places, and cultural and creative industries are "labeled" into the most direct, convenient and convenient way of "protection".

As for "intangible cultural heritage" projects that cannot bring immediate economic benefits, even if they are listed in the national-level protection list, they cannot escape the positioning of being worthless.

Their protection and inheritance status is not optimistic.

For example, intangible cultural heritage projects in various places have always continued the fate of "tragic folk literature".

Scholar think tanks provide intellectual support for the development of "intangible cultural heritage" cultural and creative industries

Cultural scholars who hold a stance on cultural protection are a relatively pure force in this game.

This group of scholars who are ridiculed as "no guns, no cannons, only a charge" have a keen sense of discovering problems.

For example, many scholars in the folklore and anthropology circles have discussed issues such as "authenticity" and "pseudo-folklore" in terms of the relationship between the interaction between intangible cultural heritage and cultural and creative industries.

However, the heated debate among scholars is only a victory for public opinion, and the final result is only to occupy the headlines of some media and play a very limited role in the actual development process of "intangible cultural heritage" protection.

In the process of wrestling with the interests of all parties, scholars 'words are very weak.

Their scientific research results are more presented in cultural reflection and social criticism.

They cannot influence policy makers or the public, or even arouse the academic community.

Resonance or echo.

As the main brain, it is very necessary to carry out cooperative research with various stakeholders and strive to gain a greater say in decision-making on major issues, so as to promote the positive grafting of "intangible cultural heritage" protection and cultural and creative industries.

[Editor in charge of this article: Liang Chunchan]

Holders of folk knowledge are the main body in the development of "intangible cultural heritage" cultural and creative industries

Holders of "intangible cultural heritage" are the main body under the influence of all parties.

In theory, the most important cultural holder in the protection of "intangible cultural heritage", as the main body in the game pattern, should be the party most concerned about the fate of "intangible cultural heritage".

However, this is not the case.

Based on the author's fieldwork practice in various places, many heritage holders who grew up in rural areas do not have a clear sense of cultural consciousness.

Their attitude towards "intangible cultural heritage" often depends on a practical, functional understanding of daily experience-is this heritage useful? When a heritage has little practical function in the real life of the party concerned, the cultural matter will gradually withdraw from the field of daily life.

In fact, the endangered fate of many "intangible cultural heritage" is precisely the same process as the unconscious abandonment behavior of ordinary people.

With the intervention of cultural and creative industries, in an instant, useless traditional relics and related skills have become treasures that can bring wealth.

Heritage holders have changed their attitude in the face of this culture that can "turn money"-ruthlessly and then become intentional.

However, the accompanying crisis is a change in the attitude of cultural holders towards "intangible cultural heritage" culture.

If we regard it as a "thing" or a "tourism product", it is no different from the goods on the supermarket counters.

So, can the ruthless attitude of the holders of "intangible cultural heritage" culture still allow "intangible cultural heritage" culture to carry spiritual meaning? The "productive protection" actively advocated by the academic community may be a wishful and illusory expectation.