You are looking at 1 - 5 of 5 items

  • Author or Editor: Andy Pratt x
Clear All Modify Search
You do not have access to this content

Andy Pratt

This chapter examines the changing nature of the relationship between gentrification and the cultural economy in theory and practice, it also highlights a gap in debates about gentrification. Whilst the role of culture in the gentrification process has received much attention, the cultural economy has not. The gap stems from tendencies to instrumentalise culture, to reduce it to consumption, and to ignore its value(s) and the means of its production. The chapter focuses on a complex and sometimes misunderstood field, that of cultural production. The paradox that we encounter is that cultural workers and artists are often portrayed as both the causes and the victims of gentrification. An important step in the chapter’s argument is to broaden and contextualise debates about gentrification to make sense of this paradox. It argues that gentrification – drawing on its classical definition as displacement of former residential tenants – should also be further explored in relation to movements and displacements between manufacturing, office, retail and cultural sites.

You do not have access to this content

Andy C. Pratt

You do not have access to this content

Andy C. Pratt

You do not have access to this content

Andy C. Pratt

This chapter seeks to understand innovation in the cultural economy. It argues that the normative innovation literature obscures innovation in the cultural economy, and hence this literature and its conceptualisation of knowledge and innovation needs to be revised. The chapter is divided into three parts. First, I review normative innovation practices and their relationship to the philosophy of science. Second, I argue that due to normative assumptions about knowledge, the focus of analysis and empirical investigation is on the transfer of knowledge. The third part proposes a more helpful focus, namely the translation of knowledge, one that expresses the generative, relational and situated nature of knowledge making. The normative model of the ‘leaky pipe’ analogy of knowledge transfer is where the very formation of knowledge is assumed to be concerned with incremental change (that is, minimally innovative). By contrast, the notion of ‘making in translation’ is conceived of as a constructive and constitutive practice: one that is focused on radical change.