Now, we'll speak about the early school of cultural industries sold in huge cultural industries, the second half of the 20th century and it's starting with the work which has been published as a book under the title capitalism and cultural industries in French language; "Captalisme et Industries Culturelles" by few French scholars and in this book, they define main peculiarities of cultural industries and we will trace it next week. So first of all, they proposed the idea of cultural industries in plural because according to them, they could have different logics and different types of products inside and they are just defining such kind of products. Then the second main probably idea is the idea of random exchange value. The idea that the exchange value of cultural industries in great extent is a random so unpredictable you cannot- before launching a particular television series, for example, predict the result of the series or commercial result of the series. Just because it depends on the nonmeasurability of the collective tastes. And as you know the cultural products are dependent on collective ecstatic tastes. Then so, from this point of view, the researchers are arguing then non-applicability of the supply marketing. You can do a demand marketing, you can try to incite people to go to watch the movie but you cannot measure the popularity of particular plots of movie and then doing this movie, you should do that movie before and then try to commercialize it, try to distribute it. You can not do a kind of marketing research and then according to this marketing research, provide a product just because this product is based on collective tastes, which are much more complicated, you cannot measure such tastes by classic marketing tools. Then another peculiarity coming from non-elasticity of the demand for cultural products means that the price for cultural products doesn't necessarily bring to the growth of demand or vice versa. Just because if I would like to buy a book of Dostoevsky I will buy a book of Dostoevsky even if the price will be higher than the book of Tolstoy because I would like Dostoevsky. So, and the same is working in the majority of cultural industries such as film, music, et cetera. And the final point is the editorial function and probably one of the most important thing which Huet, Ion, Lefebvre, Miege & Peron proposed is the idea of the editorial function. Editorial function is the function which is performed by so-called editor, which could be present in any branch of creative industries. The title of this editor could be different. Sometimes we call it producer, sometimes we call it major, sometimes we call it publishing house, et cetera, but the function is the same, the editing function brings together the artistic elements or creative side of production and commercial reproduction, so the technical production. So, it means that the editor brings together the creative income, the creative process, which is personally driven idea, immeasurable immaterial, et cetera. and brings it together with a technical reproduction, technical preparation we'll say of this product to be distributed across different platforms. We'll speak right now about Patrice Filchy's contribution and his probably most important book is, "Les Industries de I'imaginaire" (the industries of the Imaginary) published at the beginning of 1980s. So, he's trying to map the way the cultural products historically become industrially and massively reproduced goods. So, from this point of view for him, it's not only the production, which is important but also the consumption. According to Filchy, such industries democratize the culture and make it more visible, more massive and this idea Filchy will say use reproduced from the works of Benjamin even because Benjamin said in his works that, "Yes the technical reproducibility makes the culture more massive, more visible for the big mass of people." And of course stole the core thing for Filchy, the question of practice. How people use different media technologies in particular period of time. So, it means that the practice could be not evolving during few dozen years, but the technical devices and types of content could be different inside these few dozen years but the function for which such kind of technology will be used will be the same. So, Filchy is mainly the sociologist of the usage of the media and contemporary form of communication. He's mainly interested in practices in the cultural practices. Then British school. The British schools are coming from Marxist cultural studies and the Marxist cultural studies was focused mainly on the idea how culture is related to more general phenomena such as power, capital, et cetera. And here if we will take a look on the work of Nicholas Garnham, "Capitalism and Communication: Global Culture and The Economics of Information," which is influenced by cultural studies, we cannot say that Nicholas Garnham was a part of cultural studies but he was at a great extent influenced by. So, he's trying to rethink the basic Marxist paradigm of the relationship between base and superstructure model in a way that defines media and culture as products of the industrial base of capitalism. So, he's trying to say that the culture was industrialized to the point that it dissolved into the base. So, according to Garnham, both production and dissemination of mass culture are related in the material world. So from this point of view, if for Marx the base is the labor relations and the superstructure is other spheres of the human activities for cultural studies approach, the base is the culture, which is structuring particular labor relations and this superstructure will be either spheres of human activity including economy even including labor relations. So it means that the labor relations dependent in some extent from culture.
