Content uploaded by Marina Matetskaya
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Marina Matetskaya on Oct 28, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
47
SANTALKA: Filosoja, Komunikacija 2011, t. 19, nr. 2. ISSN 2029-6320 print/2029-6339 online
CULTURE AND LOCAL DEVELOPMENT: THE INTERACTION
OF CULTURAL HERITAGE AND CREATIVE INDUSTRIES1
Valery Gordin1, Marina Matetskaya2
National Research University “Higher School of Economics”, Saint-Petersburg
E-mails: 1vegordin@gmail.com; 2matetskaya@hse.spb.ru
e aim of the study is to examine the various forms of interaction between cultural heritage and creative
industries to support the development of various types of cultural clusters in St. Petersburg. e study was
based on a model, which provides several types of partnership cultural heritage (CH) could have with the
creative industries (CI): CH as a “decoration” for the CI, as “content”, as a “brand”, as the creator of the needs.
Authors’ classication of cultural clusters in St. Petersburg is described, including clusters of cultural heritage,
ethnic cultural clusters, the mass-cultural (consumer-oriented) cultural clusters, art - incubators. One of the
main ndings is the low willingness of many public cultural institutions to have any form of interaction with
the creative industries. e second group of ndings concerned the ability to attract creative industries to
provide services for residents of St. Petersburg in cooperation with public institutions of culture.
Keywords: creative industries, creative clusters, festivals.
doi:10.3846/coactivity.2011.14
1 e study was implemented in the framework of the Programme of Fundamental Studies of the Higher School of
Economics in 2010–2012, №43.1.
becomes the basis for producing and distribu-
ting new knowledge.
e start of post-industrial, informational
and even creat ive period has remar kably
changed the whole context of existence of cul-
tural institutions in a modern city. e concept
of cultural industry (CI) has become a widely
used tool at a regional level.
e possibility to develop non-commercial
branches of economy with high creative share
and added value on the basis of present cul-
tural and human resources looks an excellent
perspective for many Russian cities. e main
modern city traits are variety of individuals
and search for ways of their interaction. Both
Introduction
e future of Russia depends on the develop-
ment within the frames of innovation econom-
ics and prompt transition to innovations and
social-oriented development model (in terms of
the concept of long term social and economic
development of the Russian Federation for
the period till 2020). Herewith, such spheres
as education and science are being prioritized
while cultural and creative industries produ-
cing symbolic (creative) content are paid less
attention. Obviously, integration into the world
cultural heritage scope as well as involvement
into universal cultural space which is specic to
the period of development of symbolic welfare
and impressions economy (Pine, Gilmour 1999)
48 Valery Gordin, Marina Matetskaya Culture and local development: the interaction...
aspects have always belonged to the scope of
culture (Zelentsova et al. 2010). us, the deve-
lopment of CI is to be connected not only with
economy growth but also with social modi-
cations in the regions where CI are localized.
Involving culture and creative resources into
the programs of city development resulted in
positive transformation of many cities around
the world. However, the development of CI is
facing a number of diculties. e cultural sec-
tor is still being viewed within narrow bounds
and apart from other branches of economy and
is considered inecient and unprotable.
Narrow understanding of culture results in
its low legal and social status, lack of demand
in cultural potential at all state levels and poor
investments for CI. (In 2010 federal budget al-
located 88 bn roubles ( approx. 4 bn Euros) on
culture made up compared to 200 bn roubles
(approx. 50 bn Euros) initially claimed for es-
sential nancing).
The major part of cultural institutions is
still the state property. e process of changing
ownership basis for state cultural institutions
and implementing more suitable organizational
mechanisms is well under way. However, it
should be noted that denition of creative in-
dustry has not been formulated for purposes of
national policy (social and innovation spheres)
or xed in legal documents. CI sector itself is
disjointed and is still being formed.
Creative industries in Russia
The term “creative” (cultural) industry is a
new one in Russian culture. CI: those activities
which have their origin in individual creativity,
skill and talent and which have the potential for
wealth and job creation through the generation
and exploitation of expressive value that creates
insights, delights and experiences (modified
from DCMS 1998: 3).
Although the CI formation and develop-
ment models are actively imported to the
culture market of Russia, there is no unied
understanding of the role such activities may
play for economy development in general and
innovation support in particular (Ruutu et al.
2009). The term ‘creative industry’ has been
scientically used for more than 20 years but
it is still subject for discussion. ere are dif-
ferences between the terms ‘cultural industries
and creative industries’ which, however, are
oen used interchangeably; there is little clarity
about these terms and little appreciation or of-
cial explanation of the dierence between the
two. us, in order to ensure consistency of this
research a proper denition and clarication of
CI as a term is needed.
Although the majority of CI models and tra-
ditional art and culture types are included into
the term “CI” (UNESCO 2006) it is important
to distinguish between them as it is required
by the purpose of the present research. is is
caused by a number of reasons.
First, the notion “culture” is understood by
the Russian scientists in a narrow sense as tra-
ditional forms of art or cultural heritage that is
chiey a part of state property or is under direct
governmental control. is is supported by the
mode of culture nancing. In Russia, in most
cases investing in culture means preservation of
traditions and cultural values and not innova-
tion in any form (Goncharik 2008; Gnedovsky
2005).
Second, there is a great dierence between
administrative mechanisms existing in such
spheres as CH and CI. In fact, the organizations
preserving and developing cultural heritage are
still maintaining the administrative structure
which has existed even in the Soviet Union.
e process of privatization has hardly changed
the sphere of traditional culture; the main
administrative innovation has been the transi-
tion from federal nancing of CI to regional
and municipal nancing schemes. Almost the
whole sphere of CI is privatized and the limited
governmental subsidies are channelled to very
few branches such as TV broadcast, movies and
book industries.
ird, the sector of CI is not distinguished
as a separate economy sector either at the
level of CI self-identication agents or at the
49
SANTALKA: Filosoja, Komunikacija 2011, 19(2): 47–59
level of state policy regarding this sector. us,
Gnedovsky (2005) raises an issue of common
identity of creative class. According to his point
of view CIs are atomized and they do not form
a unied eld in Russia. Creative professionals
do not see themselves as members of one ’crea-
tive class’. Also the rest of the society doesn’t see
CI as a separate sector of economy and this is
reected at political level.
Conception of CI in Russia has not been
reected either in the legislation or in the sys-
tem of state policy support mechanisms yet. As
a whole, Russian CI has not become the object
of intense public attention. Some investigations
have been done with regard to creative indus-
tries in Russia (e.g. Gnedovsky 2005; Goncharik
2008; Zelentsova et al. 2010; Ruutu et al. 2009).
e research gap is obvious as well as the lack
of information.
Despite all these fundamental challenges the
statistics show that CI plays quite a prominent
role in Russian economy (see Creative Economy
Report 2008). Already in 2005 CI comprised
7.3% of national employment and their con-
tribution to gross domestic product (GDP)
in Russia was 6.06%. Also many international
researchers and analysts of creative industries
have stated that Russian economy has a huge
potential for growth and great opportunities for
creative industries. For example, Florida (2008)
presents quite a positive picture of the potential
creative industries in Russia. According to him
a truly global creative class has emerged and is
still growing in Russia and the country’s young
people are participating in cutting-edge trends
via internationalized television and movies,
Internet boom and social media.
Cluster approach and creative clusters
e idea of clusters (as a result of the work of
the Harvard economist Michael Porter (1990,
1998) has been accepted as a long-term stra-
tegy for regional development on the basis of
networking, growing interaction between main
economic agents as well as information support
and cooperation. e goals to be achieved by
the economic entities in cultural sphere are the
following: implementation of new administra-
tive and economic mechanisms, creating new
technological chains, integrating into the world
markets of creative values. Achieving these
goals is possible only in case of well-established
communications both within the sector and
with other economy sectors. Cultural networks,
unions, associations, developed informal re-
lationships and partnership experience are of
prime importance in the process of CI market
development.
Many researchers account for the popular-
ity of cluster approach in the sphere of culture
and CI highlighting the possibilities it provides
in integrating cultural institutions into other
sectors of economics (Davis et al. 2009; Panlo
2011; Bagwell 2008). Creative cluster is dened
in this research as: a geographical concentration
of interconnected companies, specialized sup-
pliers, service providers, rms in related indus-
tries, and associated institutions (for example,
universities, standards agencies and trade asso-
ciations) in the eld of CI. For example, tourist
clusters are considered to be one of the most
popular cluster types (Russo 2000).
However, the nature of the relationship
varies from charitable, to transactional, to
in-depth cooperation (Austin 2000). e key
characteristics of clusters remain unchanged
despite the industry. ese key characteristics
are numerous linkages among geographically
proximate firms and institutions, especially
suppliers, business services, research institu-
tions, and educational institutions (Davis et al.
2009). Components which help to shape the
cluster include the choice of location, level of
involvement in the local community, improve-
ment in the quality of the group and aggrega-
tive cooperation. (Tien 2010). The result of
these advantages has been that policy makers
around the globe have supported clusters as
an economic development strategy for various
industries and creative industries are no ex-
ception. Creative cluster development is now
central to the economic strategies of regional
50 Valery Gordin, Marina Matetskaya Culture and local development: the interaction...
development agencies across many regions of
the world (Bagwell 2008). As for main die-
rences, Davis et al. (2009) argue that creative
clusters are much more deeply embedded in the
social environment and political economy both
at the local and national levels, than technology
clusters. Austin (2000) poses that the benets of
collaboration for non-prot organizations, such
as museums and galleries, include cost savings,
economies of scale and scope, synergies and
revenue enhancement.
In addition, the fact that creative clusters
cut across many dierent economic sectors has
been identied both as strength and weakness
- a strength because it implies new inter-sector
connections and potential innovations; a weak-
ness because lack of coherence makes it dicult
to focus policy or measure economic value
(Evans 2009).
In present research a special attention will
be paid to horizontal integration of cultural
heritage institutions and CI, so-called strategic
alliances (Russo 2000).
Reasons for choosing the subject of research
are given above and connected with the fact
that market-oriented control mechanisms are
rapidly implemented into the culture and other
social spheres in Russia. However, it’s not a rare
case when CI is not oriented towards cultural
heritage activities.
Interaction of cultural heritage and
creative industries on the basis
of cultural clusters
The purpose of the research was to study a
variety of interaction formats between cultural
heritage and CI to provide adequate reasons for
establishing dierent types of cultural clusters
in St. Petersburg.
e literature review shows that there are
a number of strategies available to organiza-
tions setting up collaborations within the cul-
tural community or with other agencies. Lord
(2002) argues that three approaches can be
employed: packaging, partnership and promo-
tion. Packaging combines cultural attractions
in a variety of locations under one ticket price
or trip. is may make the cultural destination
more attractive to a wider market. Cultural at-
tractions can, along with local tourism agencies,
form partnerships and work together to enlarge
the community’s tourism potential. In terms
of promotions, it is critical to link current and
potential cultural attractions to the travel mo-
tivators and market prole of potential cultural
tourists. Mommaas (2004) points out that cul-
tural clustering strategies usually rely on vertical
collaboration, although horizontal thinking and
action are becoming increasingly important in
cultural policy. Austin (2000) mentions that
collaboration may arise from political or social
forces and it is necessary to examine the strategy
relating to this issue.
e research studies the purposes formu-
lated for cultural clusters. e authors regard
these purposes in the following way:
to provide conditions for professional –
growth of intellectual specialists on the
basis of cross-sectional cooperation with
organizations and related industries;
to assist in territory development by rai- –
sing its attractiveness for creative experts,
investors, tourists and residents;
to provide favourable creative conditions –
as well as to raise competitive advantages
of dierent creative organizations-mem-
bers of the cluster;
to increase interactivity of cultural pro- –
ducts developed within cultural clusters;
o provide favourable conditions for deve- –
lopment of CI including those aimed at
attracting tourists;
to establish new cultural tourism products –
capable of attracting dierent categories
of tourists;
to form a ne w cultural image of the –
territory by promoting creative groups
activity.
Recent years in Russia and St. Petersburg
have been marked by establishment of various
cultural clusters of interregional, regional, city
and local nature. The peculiarity of culture
51
SANTALKA: Filosoja, Komunikacija 2011, 19(2): 47–59
development in St. Petersburg lies in the fact
that signicant part of cultural products is con-
sumed by dierent categories of tourists rather
than by the residents themselves.
According to social polls the vast majority
of St. Petersburg citizens avoid visiting cultural
institutions (Ille 2008). is fact predetermines,
on the one hand, the necessity to develop
strategies aimed at involving local residents
in the process of active “consumption” of cul-
tural benets created by St. Petersburg cultural
institutions and, on the other hand, increases
the role of tourists as consumers of cultural
products. Herewith, the marketing strategies of
cultural institutions show that these customer
segments dier from one another. ese dier-
ences should be taken into consideration when
developing, positioning and promoting cultural
products.
e role model of interaction between
cultural heritage and creative industries
Within the framework of the present research
the authors developed and analyzed the original
concerning the following roles of cultural heri-
tage in interaction with CI (Table 1):
a. Cultural heritage as “scenery” for cre-
ative industries
e notion of cultural heritage as scenery for
CI can be illustrated by museums and museum
modelled quarters as the ground for develop-
ment of touring industries, CI and contempo-
rary art (Richards 2006). Richards describes
them as: the loci of cultural consumption,
comprehending individual monuments and
sites, as well as other concentrations of artworks
and heritage, and the urban landscape itself (a
set of buildings and public spaces of dierent
periods and schools). By this kind of cultural
loci we mean that the institutions using cultural
heritage in their activity create a certain cultural
environment both through material artefacts
and with the help of established stereotypes of
cultural behaviour. us, CI located in a certain
area proceeds from well-established conditions
of supplying cultural benets and services that
have been formed over decades and centuries.
e cultural district is dened as “a well-
recognized, labelled, mixed-used area of a
city in which a high concentration of cultural
facilities ser ves as the anchor of attraction.
Typically, the area is geographically dened and
incorporates other land uses, but the dening
characteristic is the concentration of cultural
facilities and related activities” (Frost-Kumpf
1998: 10). ere are dierent types of cultural
districts: cultural compounds, districts with an
arts and entertainment focus, those focused
on major arts institutions, and those oriented
towards cultural production. e best museums
work with their local community and act as
catalysts for city development. is relationship
between museum and city is best described in
terms of the cultural cluster model (Tien 2010).
In St. Petersburg the relationship of this type
can be observed in such cultural clusters as
“Petropavlovskaya fortress and its surround-
ings”, “Museum quarter” (St. Isaac’s Cathedral
and neighbouring quarters).
Cultural heritage clusters, in particular, mu-
seum quarters are examples of good practice that
can be observed in some countries, including the
Museumplein in Amsterdam, the Museuminsel
in Berlin and the Museumsquartier in Vienna.
ese clusters have attracted much attention
from academics (e.g. De Frantz 2005; Mommaas
2004; Tien 2010).
b. Cultural heritage as “content” for cre-
ative industries
Cultural heritage is oen treated as “con-
tent” for CI.
is is because the contemporary society
alongside with the tendency towards the con-
stant innovation of cultural content keeps a
certain “pietism” to traditional content of cul-
tural processes. However, innovation quite oen
deals with the form but not with the content as
an element of cultural heritage.
c. Cultural heritage as “brand” for creative
industries
Due to the fact that cultural heritage has
long been xing a certain system of values in the
52 Valery Gordin, Marina Matetskaya Culture and local development: the interaction...
public minds, it has been performing the func-
tions which are being performed nowadays by
brands (territorial, organizational, individual,
social brands, etc.).
e activity of CI is oen based on ready-
made brands of specified items of “cultural
branding”. All this allows a consumer of cultural
products to distinguish one or another item
more distinctly.
d. Cultural heritage as a “demand builder”
in creative industries
When building a demand for cultural be-
haviour content, cultural heritage creates and
develops among its consumers a demand for
newer and newer forms and ways of obtaining
cultural values. us CI becomes very popular
as a base for new form of cultural heritage
presentation.
e. e inuence of creative industries on
cultural heritage
According to theoretical developments
mentioned above, CI can exercise considerable
inuence over the activity of cultural institu-
tions representing cultural heritage in the fol-
lowing way:
By using an attractive brand of cultural –
heritage objects CI (e.g. travel agencies)
engaged in cultural tourism can attract
more visitors. For instance, St. Petersburg
uses dierent forms of cultural heritage
such as festivals “Music of Bolshoi Her-
mitage”, “Art Square”, “Palaces of St. Pe-
tersburg”;
Establishing new forms of presentation –
of cultural heritage objects, for instance,
by means of various video and audio
insta llations in museum expositions.
Nowadays one of the most common ways
to attract visitors to traditional museums
is to organize audio-visual installations
(e.g. a multimedia performance “The
Copper Horseman” that took place at
e Russian Museum of Ethnography in
November 2010). All exhibitions (tempo-
rary or permanent) in e Russian State
Museum are oen supported by original
video performance, a video story about an
artist, of a picture, etc. Another example is
St. Petersburg Museum of History where
next to the model of the Alexandriyskaya
column a video session telling the history
of its installation is demonstrated;
Promoting rapid growth of people visi- –
ting (really or virtually) cultural heritage
objects by means of Internet, TV and
movie industry. ere used to be a series
of TV programmes “My Hermitage” and
“e Age of e Russian Museum” featu-
ring the heads of the major St. Petersburg
museums M. Pietrovskiy and V. Gusev.
e lm by A. Sokurov “e Russian Ark”
devoted to Hermitage was a remarkable
event for the world culture. Many popular
scientic lms and programmes devoted
to travelling popularize the objects of cul-
tural heritage. Making feature lms within
historic scenery (historic city centres,
backgrounds of well-known monuments,
interiors of famous palaces) contributes
to eective promoting of these cities and
monuments and makes them popular and
attractive for visitors as well;
Establishing virtual communities among –
users interested in various museums. In
addition, there are a lot of web sites (non-
ocial sites of museums) devoted to ac-
tivities of separate museums or museum
groups on topical or territorial principle.
e topic of visiting museums and other
objects of cultural heritage is very popular
on many travel forums. When choosing
places to visit tourists can have a look not
only at ocial description of collections
of one museum or another but consider
the opinions of real visitors. ese opi-
nions very oen become the main factor
for independent tourists when choosing
places to visit;
Attracting public attention to problems of –
preservation and development of cultural
heritage by inuencing public opinion.
The most evident example is St. Peter-
sburg providential escape from realization
of “The Okhta Centre Project”. It was
53
SANTALKA: Filosoja, Komunikacija 2011, 19(2): 47–59
made possible due to the joint action of
CIs (magazines, Internet publications,
radio, etc.);
Protecting cultural heritage institutions in –
the situation of tough competition as well
as bringing them to the most protable
culture markets.
In particular, the above goals can be achieved
by organizing festivals, entertainment programs
with the elements of traditional culture as well
as arranging scientific events, weddings and
birthday parties on the territory of museums,
reserve museums, park areas. For example,
some St. Petersburg museums oer a service
of arranging children’s birthday parties which
include a theatrical excursion, creative master
classes, a photo session and a tea party at the
museum’s cafe. is contributes to popularizing
cultural activities and raises public interest in art
making us more enthusiastic about culture and
art, kindles the sense of patriotism. However,
similar services are delivered by celebration
agencies, i.e. by representatives of CI.
Classication of culture clusters
In the meantime the authors have classied the
already existing and potential cultural clusters
in St. Petersburg into the following groups:
cultural heritage clusters, –
ethnocultural clusters, –
mass-culture clusters, –
creative clusters, –
art-incubators (Gordin, Matetskaya 2010) –
(Table 1).
From architectural-historic point of view
St. Petersburg divides into 4 zones:
1) historic centre built mostly in the 18–19th
centuries;
2) industrial areas established in the 19th
and in the beginning of the 20th century;
3) residential areas formed in the middle
of the 20th and in the beginning of the 21th
century;
4) suburban open air museums (Peterhof,
Pushkin, Pavlovsk, Oranienbaum).
e map shows that most cultural heritage
and creative clusters are located in the 1st zone
(Fig. 1). Mass-culture clusters are being formed
in the 2nd zone and mostly where passenger
ows intersect. Art-incubators are gradually
appearing on the premises of art universities
in the 1st zone. However, it should be admitted
that only the 3rd zone can boast of potentially
vacant areas (which naturally require invest-
ments into renovation of buildings and the
area itself). It seems viable to launch creative
clusters, art incubators and probably cultural
heritage clusters in exactly these areas. e ap-
proach stems from well-reputed international
experience of transforming former industrial
areas into dierent kinds of creative zones, los
and art incubators2.
Creative institutions in St. Peters burg
have recently become active in developing
former industrial areas. However, the process
is rather slow as it requires targeted support
from the city authorities (<http://www.loft-
projectetagi.ru/>; <http://www.tkachi-project.
com/>). Recultivating former industrial areas
into creative activity zones is benecial from
two points of view. First, the process provides
creative institutions with fairly cheap premises
(which is very important considering high pri-
ces on commercial property in other areas in St.
Petersburg). At the same time the process lays
the foundation for preserving unique objects of
industrial architecture of the 18–19th centuries
and very few industrial buildings of socialist
constructivism of the1920–30s.
is can be illustrated by the rst and only
one museum quarter in St. Petersburg – the
project “Museum Quarter” (<http://www.
museum-city.ru/>). is project is interesting
because the integration of the four museums,
located on a common territory in the area of
pedestrian accessibility, was initiated by mu-
seums themselves. e concept of the project
2 http://www.kaapelitehdas./;http://www.suvilahti.
;http://www.korjaamo./ru/page/info/dobro-
pozhalovat%D1%8C-v-korjaamo;http://www.ar-
lingtonarts.org/cultural-aairs/arts-incubator.aspx;
http://artsincubatorkc.org/facilities/.
54 Valery Gordin, Marina Matetskaya Culture and local development: the interaction...
aims the development of a unied marketing
strategy for the museums of dierent thematic
focus of the project – a museum-monument
St. Isaac’s Cathedral, Central Museum of
Communications, the State Museum of Religion
and History Museum, museum of Vladimir
Nabokov. All these museums are regulated by
state authorities at dierent levels from federal
to city. Subject characteristics of dierent pro-
fessions, as well as a historical retrospective of
urban life have become the main ideas to build
up a common excursion programs for these mu-
seums. One of the major results of this project
is to create economic and legal model for the
existence of cultural clusters in the urban space,
in particular, the establishment of institutional
mechanisms of interaction with organizations
of various kinds of activities and forms of own-
ership (private, public and state sectors). Some
features in the project activities outsourced
(information support, design and development
of promotional materials), is actively developing
infrastructure of the territory of the museum
quarter in the development of tourism potential
(such as catering, information, landscaping,
logistics).
Attractiveness of cultural objects within
the framework of cultural tourism
e authors have studied interactions between
cultural institutions and creative industries in
organizing various kinds of cultural tourism on
the basis of cultural heritage objects. To assess
the degree of activity in this sphere the authors
have grouped basic attractive tourist objects
according to the citation index on touring op-
erators’ sites oering tours to St. Petersburg for
Russian and foreign tourists (Table 2).
Fig. 1. Creative clusters in the historic centre of Saint-Petersburg
55
SANTALKA: Filosoja, Komunikacija 2011, 19(2): 47–59
Locating the objects on St. Petersburg map
proved that the majority of objects are within
the historic centre. At the same time the list of
objects oered to tourists, especially foreign
ones, is rather limited (Table 2 ).
is very fact combined with acute trans-
portation problems in high season causes logis-
tic headaches for companies providing service
for incoming tourists.
Surveys presenting opinions of experts on
cultural programs oered by touring operators
which was carried out by the authors (Gordin
2010) provides evidence that cultural tourism
industry lacks innovative exible management
mechanisms. Interactions between touring
companies and local cultural institutions and
creative industries are rather limited. Tailor-
made, innovative excursion programs around
major museums, palaces, renowned suburbs
are not in demand. The responding experts
underlined that routine excursion formats
make up about 90% of supply. The tourist
market in general is slow in diversifying tourist
oerings. e fact is especially alarming, if we
consider rapid development of cruise tourism
which promises up to 10,000 tourists ready to
visit basic tourist objects within 2–3 days. e
existing territorial structure of tourist supply
has become one of the crucial constraints for
tourism development.
Designing programs for incoming tourism
on the basis of a limited range of attractive tour-
ist objects proves unsuitable under current con-
ditions. Considering tough international com-
petition this model cannot provide competitive
advantages for cities of cultural heritage.
Festivals as mobile cultural clusters
e authors have investigated the role of fes-
tivals as an eective form of linking cultural
heritage and creative industries. e authors
argue that from territorial point of view many
festivals can be regarded as peculiar mobile
clusters created for a certain period in dierent
areas of the city. Clusterization in this case can
be qualied as a task-oriented, well-planned
process. Multi-genre festivals, competitions,
holidays allow to concentrate various cultural
institutions and creative companies represent-
ing cultural heritage and creative industries in
dierent city areas or in dierent towns of a
region at a certain moment.
e research included the analysis of the
role festivals play as stages linking cultural
heritage and creative industries which helps to
make joint activity within certain projects more
active. ere have been shown favourable pros-
pects for developing cooperation in this very
Organizations of cultural heritage / Variety level of interaction H (high) A (average) L (low) Total
brand (absolute number) 20 10 2 32
percentage of total 8.8 4.4 0.9 14.1
decoration (absolute number) 17 20 22 59
percentage of total 7.5 8.8 9.6 25.9
content (absolute number) 52 23 23 98
percentage of total 22.8 10.1 10.1 43
need‘s creator (absolute number) 27 7 5 39
percentage of total 11.8 3.1 2.2 17.1
Total 228
Table 1. Level of interaction between cultural heritage & CI
56 Valery Gordin, Marina Matetskaya Culture and local development: the interaction...
Table 2. Basic attractive tourist objects according to the citation index on touring operators’ sites offering
tours to St. Petersburg to Russian and foreign tourists
Russian tourists Foreign tourists
Total number 40 Total number 40
Group 1 rate of mentioning Group 1 rate of mentioning
City tour 100 % City tour 100 %
Peter and Paul Fortress Hermitage
Hermitage Rivers / canals tours
Tsarskoye selo Tsarskoye selo
Petergof Churches
Pavlovsk Peter and Paul Fortress
Churches Russian Museum
Palaces Synagogue
Group 2 rate of mentioning Group 2 rate of mentioning
Myths / Legends 75 % Petergof 57 %
Russian Museum Aurora ship
Kunstcamera museum Palaces
Rivers / canals tours Pavlovsk
Night Petersburg Gatchina
Aurora ship e Oceanarium
e Oceanarium Cra market
Kronstadt city Museum of Musical Instruments
Oranienbaum
Group 3 rate of mentioning Group 3 rate of mentioning
Apartment Museum 37 % Art centre „Pushinskaya 10“ 15 %
Erarta (contemporary art
museum) Circus
Water park Water park
Zoological Museum Museum of Russian Vodka
Naval Museum
Gatchina
Icebreaker Krasin
Art centre “Pushinskaya 10”
Museum of the Siege of
Leningrad
Puppet Museum
57
SANTALKA: Filosoja, Komunikacija 2011, 19(2): 47–59
format considering current complicated red-
tape system of nancing which exists in Russia.
Project format of nancing allows organizations
and institutions from various economic sectors
to get nance from budgets of dierent levels.
is creates an opportunity for creative indus-
tries of commercial and unprotable sectors to
participate in various festival projects. Important
conclusions have been made to represent festivals
as a separate form of mobile cultural clusters
temporarily employing the infrastructure of
both cultural institutions and creative industries.
is is especially true considering two points.
e rst one is lack of ethnocultural clusters in
St. Petersburg (despite great numbers of migrants
and deep multinational roots of St. Petersburg
culture). Another point is the necessity to speed
up the process of establishing creative clusters in
St. Petersburg. In view of rapid development of
creative tourism throughout the world (counter-
weighing consumptive tourism) festivals are ca-
pable of forming attractive creative environment
for many categories of cultural tourists
Conclusions
e results of the research (some results ob-
tained are still under analysis) allow to make
some basic conclusions concerning prospec-
tive lines of developing interaction between
cultural heritage and creative industries in
St. Petersburg. One of the crucial points is weak
predisposition of many state cultural institu-
tions for any forms of interaction with creative
industries. e reason accounting for the fact
is the existing system of state budgeting which
guarantees most cultural institutions nancial
stability and at the same time pushes them be-
yond normal market relations. Underdeveloped
competitive environment defocuses those en-
gaged in this sphere from studying the demands
of the visitors and meeting their requirements
to meeting the demands of cultural authorities.
This very mode of interaction is peculiar to
cultural institutions which become objects of
mass tourist demand in high season.
Consequently, they chiefly focus not on
meeting the requirements of visitors on the
basis of segmenting these demands but on
further entrenching the system of unied mass
service. In the meantime most oers coming
from creative industries concerning servicing
separate tourist categories are being rejected.
e reason is that creative industries in most
cases are oriented towards highly profitable
market segments.
e same segments can provide high prot
for cultural institutions themselves and they
address commercial structures in some cases
on outsourcing basis. However, this mode of
interacting is impeded by existing procedures of
choosing service and goods suppliers in Russia.
Being targeted against corruption, these proce-
dures create obstacles for interaction between
commercial structures and law-abiding cultural
institutions.
Considering the problem from the point of
view of cluster approach it should be noted that
weak market focusing is specic for cultural
heritage clusters, most of which are formed on
the basis of state cultural institutions.
The second group of conclusions con-
cerns the prospects for providing service for
St. Petersburg residents on the basis of joint
eort of creative industries and state cultural
institutions. e research served the basis for
determining ways of improving the exist-
ing situation by means of developing mobile
formats of cultural servicing provided by cul-
tural institutions. Another prospective way is
to establish mass-culture clusters which allow
creative industries to oer cultural services on
demand. e process can involve well-known
cultural brands and cultural heritage content
they possess.
References
Austin, J. E. 2000. e collaboration challenge: How
nonprots and businesses succeed through strategic
alliances. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
58 Valery Gordin, Marina Matetskaya Culture and local development: the interaction...
Bagwell, S. 2008. Creative clusters and city growth,
Creative Industries 1(1): 31–46.
doi:10.1386/cij.1.1.31_1
Davis, C.; Creutzberg, T.; Arthurs, D. 2009. Ap-
plying an innovation cluster framework to a creati-
ve industry: e case of screen-based media in On-
tario, Innovation: Management, Policy and Practice
2: 201–214.
DCMS, Department of Culture, Media and Sport.
1998. Creative Industries Mapping Document,
Department of Culture, Media and Sport. UK,
London.
De Frantz, M. 2005. From cultural regeneration to
discursive governance: Constructing the agship of
the “Museumsquartier Vienna” as a plural symbol
of change, International Journal of Urban and Regi-
onal Research 291: 50–66.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2005.00569.x
Evans, G. 2009. From cultural quarters to creative
clusters: creative spaces in the new regeneration,
Urban Studies 42(5/6): 959–983.
Florida, R. 2008. Russia’s youth ready to embrace
the dawn of a new era, e Post-Superpower World.
Social Science.
Frost-Kumpf, H. A. 1998. Cultural districts: e arts
as a strategy for revitalizing our cities. New York:
Americans for the Arts.
Gnedovsky, M. 2005. Tvorcheskie industrii:
politicheskij vyzov dlja Rossii [online]. Avai-
lable from Internet: <http://www.strana-oz.
ru/?article=1106&numid=25>.
Goncharik, A. 2008. Politika v oblasti tvorcheskikh
industrij: zarubezhnyi opyt ili Rossijskie realii
[online]. Available from Internet: <http://www.
creativeindustries.ru/rus/publications/creative_in-
dustries_politics>.
Gordin, V. 2010. Cultural tourism in Saint Pe-
tersburg: challenges and perspectives, Journal of
International Scientic Publications: Economy and
Business 3.
Gordin, V.; Matetskaya, M. 2010. Cultural resources
observing as basis for cultural tourism (e case of
Saint-Petersburg, Russia). Chapter in Boletin Gesti-
on Cultural. Edicion No 19, Observatorios cultura-
les en el mundo, Spain [online]. Available from In-
ternet: <http://www.gestioncultural.org/gc/boletin/
les/bgc19-VGordinMMatetskaya.pdf>.
Ille, M. 2008. St. Petersburg in the theater, concerts
and exhibitions, in Study of the artistic life of St.
Petersburg late XX – early XXI century. SPb.: Norma
(in Russian).
Jaaniste, L. 2009. Placing the creative sector within
innovation: the full gamut, Innovation: Manage-
ment, Policy and Practice. Special edition on creati-
ve industries innovation 11(2): 215–229.
Lord, B. 2002. Cultural tourism and museums.
LORD Cultural Resources Planning and Mana-
gement [online]. Available from Internet: <http://
www.lordcultura.com/Media/Artcl_CltTourismM-
SeoulKorea_2002.pdf >.
Mommaas, H. 2004. Cultural clusters and the post-
industrial city: Towards the remapping of quarters:
international perspectives. Stockholm: Institute of
Urban History.
Panlo, A. 2011. e Role of Creative Industries in
National Innovation System: e Creative Clusters
of Moscow. Aalto-yliopiston kauppakorkeakoulu,
Working papers.
Pine, J.; Gilmore, J. H. 1999. e experience econo-
my: work is theatre & every business a stage. Har-
vard Business Press.
Porter, M. 1990. e Competitive Advantage of Na-
tions. London: MacMillan.
Porter, M. 1998. Clusters and the new economics of
competition, Harvard Business Review 76(6): 77–90.
Richards, G. 2006. Cultural Tourism. Global And
Local Perspectives. NY: Haworth Hospitality Press.
Roodhouse, S. 1998. e Development of Museum
Training in the United Kingdom, International
Journal of Arts Management 1(1): 45–56.
Russo, A. P. 2000. e vicious circle of tourism
development in heritage destinations: why does
it occur and how can it be prevented, Tourism
Sustainability and Territorial Organisation. APDR,
Coimbra, 255–275.
Ruutu, K.; Panlo, A.; Karhunen, P. 2009. Cultural
Industries in Russia. Helsinki School of Economics,
Center for Markets in Transition: TemaNord.
Tien, Chieh-Ching, 2010. e formation and im-
pact of museum clusters: two case studies in Tai-
wan, Museum Management and Curatorship 25(1):
69–85. doi:10.1080/09647770903529434
59
SANTALKA: Filosoja, Komunikacija 2011, 19(2): 47–59
UNESCO, 2006. Towards Sustainable Strategies
for Creative Tourism, in Discussion Report of the
Planning Meeting for 2008 International Conference
on Creative Tourism. Santa Fe. New Mexico. USA,
October, 25–27, 2006.
Zelentsova, E.; Gladkeeh, N. 2010. Creative Indus-
tries: in eory and Practice. Classica XXI, Moscow
(in Russian).
KULTŪRA IR VIETINĖ PLĖTRA: KULTŪROS PAVELDO
IR KŪRYBINIŲ INDUSTRIJŲ SĄVEIKA
Valery Gordin, Marina Matetskaya
Tyrimo tikslas – analizuoti įvairias sąveikos tarp kultūros paveldo ir kūrybinių industrijų formas, skatinančias
įvairių tipų kultūros grupių plėtrą Sankt Peterburge. Tyrimas rėmėsi modeliu, siūlančiu kelis kultūros paveldo
(KP) ir kūrybinių industrijų (KI) bendradarbiavimo tipus: KP kaip KI „dekoracija“, kaip „turinys“, kaip „prekės
ženklas“, kaip paklausos kūrėjas. Autorių pateikta kultūros grupių Sankt Peterburge klasikacija aprašo kultūros
paveldo, etninės, masinės kultūros (vartotojų) grupes, meno inkubatorius. Viena iš autorių daromų išvadų yra
žemas daugelio viešojo sektoriaus kultūros institucijų pasirengimas kurti bet kokius ryšius su kūrybinėmis in-
dustrijomis. Kitos autorių daromos išvados susijusios su kūrybinių industrijų galimybėmis pritraukti paslaugų
teikėjus Sankt Peterburgo gyventojams, kooperuojantis su viešojo sektoriaus kultūros institucijomis.
Reikšminiai žodžiai: kūrybinės industrijos, kultūros grupės, festivaliai.
Įteikta 2011-08-14; priimta 2011-09-08
