Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Cultural Crowdfunding Platforms as Cultural Intermediator of the Art Field that Produce Symbolic Value

Year 2022, Issue: 8, 11 - 28, 24.09.2022

Şebnem Sankır

https://doi.org/10.46372/arts.1092809
Cited By: 1

Abstract

By being between cultural production and the field of consumption cultural mediators, not only contribute to the production of meaning and value of cultural production, but also help artist achieve success with their activities. The digitalization process started in the 1970s has led to the emergence of new mediators such as cultural crowdfunding platforms in the field of art. The aim of the study is to enlighten how cultural crowdfunding platforms contribute to the symbolic value production process of cultural producers from different fields of art. In line with the objectives of this study, that is discussing cultural mediator activities of cultural crowdfunding platforms, social-scientific researches on crowdfunding in the cultural sector were focused. By understanding the cultural mediation functions of cultural crowdfunding platforms, it is aimed to contribute to the understanding of the shaping influence on cultural producers and cultural products being in different fields of art. As a result, cultural crowdfunding platforms serve as a curatorial and regulatory mediaries, mediate the financing of artistic production and ensure that cultural producers and artistic products are visible and accessible. In addition, these platforms expand the social capital of cultural producers and contribute to the credibility and reputation of the artist.

Keywords

cultural intermediaries arts cultural field cultural crowdfunding platforms symbolic capital

References

  • Alexiou, K., Wiggins, J., & Preece, S. B. (2020). Crowdfunding acts as a funding substitute and a legitimating signal for nonprofit performing arts organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(4), 827-848.
  • Becker, H. S. (2013). Sanat dünyaları (Çev. E. Evren). İstanbul: Ayrıntı.
  • Bourdieu, P. (1999). Sanatın kuralları (Çev. N. K. Sevil). İstanbul: Yapı Kredi.
  • Bourdieu, P. (2006). Pratik Nedenler. (Çev. H.U. Tanrıöver). İstanbul: Hil.
  • Brabham, D. C. (2017). How crowdfunding discourse threatens public arts. New Media & Society, 19(7), 983-999.
  • Dalla Chiesa, C., & Dekker, E. (2021). Crowdfunding artists: beyond match-making on platforms. Socio-Economic Review.
  • D’Amato, F., & Cassella, M. (2021). Cultural production and platform mediation: A case in music crowdfunding. New media & society, 23(9), 2575-2592.
  • Davidson, R., & Poor, N. (2015). The barriers facing artists’ use of crowdfunding platforms: Personality, emotional labor, and going to the well one too many times. New Media & Society, 17(2), 289-307.
  • De Voldere, I., & Zeqo, K. (2017). Crowdfunding: Reshaping the Crowd's Engagement in Culture. Publications Office of the European Union.
  • Galuszka, P., & Bystrov, V. (2014). Crowdfunding: A case study of a new model of financing music production. Journal of Internet Commerce, 13(3-4), 233-252.
  • Galuszka, P., & Brzozowska, B. (2016). Early career artists and the exchange of gifts on a crowdfunding platform. Continuum, 30(6), 744-753.
  • Gerber, L., & Hui, J. (2016). Crowdfunding: how and why people participate. In International perspectives on crowdfunding. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
  • Gürler, C., & Çağlar, M. (2021). Success Prediction of a Crowdfunding Project in Art Categories. In Crowdfunding in the Public Sector (pp. 147-166). Springer, Cham.
  • Handke, C., & Dalla Chiesa, C. (2022). The art of crowdfunding arts and innovation: the cultural economic perspective. Journal of Cultural Economics, 1-36.
  • Janssen, S., & Verboord, M., 2015. Cultural Mediators and Gatekeepers. In: James D. Wright (editor-in-chief), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Vol 5. Oxford: Elsevier. pp. 440–446.
  • Kribs, K. (2017). The artist-as-intermediary: Musician labour in the digitally networked era. eTopia.
  • Langley, P. (2016). Crowdfunding in the United Kingdom: A cultural economy. Economic geography, 92(3), 301-321.
  • Langley, P., & Leyshon, A. (2017). Platform capitalism: the intermediation and capitalization of digital economic circulation. Finance and society., 3(1), 11-31.
  • Lin, M., & Viswanathan, S. (2016). Home bias in online investments: An empirical study of an online crowdfunding market. Management Science, 62(5), 1393-1414.
  • Lizé, W., & Renard, F. (2016). Cultural consecration and legitimation–Modes, agents and processes. Poetics, (58).
  • Maguire, J. S., & Matthews, J. (2012). Are we all cultural intermediaries now? An introduction to cultural intermediaries in context. European journal of cultural studies, 15(5), 551-562.
  • Menger, P. M. (2006). Artistic labor markets: Contingent work, excess supply and occupational risk management. In Victor A. Ginsburgh and David Throsby (Ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture 1 (ss. 765-811). Elsevier B.V
  • Mollick, E. (2014). The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study. Journal of business venturing, 29(1), 1-16.
  • Mollick, E. R. (2016). Containing multitudes: the many impacts of Kickstarter funding. Available at SSRN 2808000.
  • Regner, T. (2021). Crowdfunding a monthly income: an analysis of the membership platform Patreon. Journal of Cultural Economics, 45(1), 133-142.
  • Rykkja, A., Maehle, N., Munim, Z. H., & Shneor, R. (2020). Crowdfunding in the Cultural Industries. In Advances in Crowdfunding (pp. 423-440). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
  • Rykkja, A., Munim, Z. H., & Bonet, L. (2020). Varieties of cultural crowdfunding: The relationship between cultural production types and platform choice. Baltic Journal of Management.
  • Röthler, D., & Wenzlaff, K. (2011). Crowdfunding schemes in Europe. EENC report, 9, 2011.
  • Sankır, H. (2018). Gündelik Nesnenin Sanatsal Dönüşümü: Sıradan Nesnelerin Sanat Eserine Dönüşüm Süreci Üzerine Sosyolojik Bir Değerlendirme. Journal of History Culture and Art Research, 7(5), 524-543.
  • Shim, A., Yecies, B., Ren, X., & Wang, D. (2020). Cultural intermediation and the basis of trust among webtoon and webnovel communities. Information, Communication & Society, 23(6), 833-848.
  • Swords, J. (2017). Crowd-patronage—Intermediaries, geographies and relationships in patronage networks. Poetics, 64, 63-73.
  • Swords, J. (2020). Interpenetration and intermediation of crowd-patronage platforms. Information, Communication & Society, 23(4), 523-538.
  • Thorley, M. (2012). An audience in the studio – the effect of the Artistshare fan-funding platform on creation, performance, recording and production. Journal on the Art of Record Production, 7, (Technology, Time and Place). http://arpjournal.com/
  • Vallas, S., & Schor, J. B. (2020). What do platforms do? Understanding the gig economy. Annual Review of Sociology, 46, 273-294.
  • Younkin, P., & Kashkooli, K. (2016). What problems does crowdfunding solve?. California Management Review, 58(2), 20-43.
  • Zolberg, V. L. (1990). Constructing a sociology of the arts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sanat Alanının Simgesel Değer Üreten Kültürel Aracısı Olarak Kültürel Kitlesel Fonlama Platformları

Year 2022, Issue: 8, 11 - 28, 24.09.2022

Şebnem Sankır

https://doi.org/10.46372/arts.1092809
Cited By: 1

Abstract

Kültürel aracılar, sanatsal üretim ile üretilen sanat nesnesinin tüketilmesi arasında yer alarak kültürel üretimin anlam ve değer üretimine katkı sağlamalarının yanında etkinlik ve faaliyetleriyle sanatçıların başarıya ulaşmasına da yardımcı olmaktadırlar. 1970’li yıllarda başlayan dijitalizasyon süreci sanat alanında kültürel kitlesel fonlama platformları gibi yeni aracıların ortaya çıkmasına neden olmuştur. Çalışma, bu an- lamda kültürel kitlesel fonlama platformlarının sanatın farklı alanlarında yer alan kültür üreticilerinin sembolik sermaye yaratma süreçlerine katkılarını aydınlatmayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu doğrultuda sosyal bilimler literatüründe yer alan kitlesel fon platformlarının sadece sanat kategorisi üzerinde yapılan çalışmalara odaklanılmıştır. Kültürel kitlesel fonlama platformlarının kültürel aracılık fonksiyonlarının anlaşılması ile bu platformların kültür üreticilerine ve kültürel ürünlere etkilerinin ortaya konması hedeflenmiştir. Sonuç olarak, kültürel kitlesel fonlama platformları küratörlük ve düzenleyici aracılık hizmetinde bulunmakta, sanatsal üretimin finanse edilmesine aracılık etmekte, kültürel üreticilerin ve sanatsal ürünlerin görünür ve ulaşılabilir olmasını sağlamaktalar. Ayrıca bu platformlar kültür üreticilerinin sosyal sermayelerini genişletmekte ve sanatçının güvenilirliği ile itibar inşasına katkıda bulunmaktadır.

Keywords

kültürel aracılar sanat kültürel alan kültürel kitlesel fonlama platformları sembolik sermaye

References

  • Alexiou, K., Wiggins, J., & Preece, S. B. (2020). Crowdfunding acts as a funding substitute and a legitimating signal for nonprofit performing arts organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(4), 827-848.
  • Becker, H. S. (2013). Sanat dünyaları (Çev. E. Evren). İstanbul: Ayrıntı.
  • Bourdieu, P. (1999). Sanatın kuralları (Çev. N. K. Sevil). İstanbul: Yapı Kredi.
  • Bourdieu, P. (2006). Pratik Nedenler. (Çev. H.U. Tanrıöver). İstanbul: Hil.
  • Brabham, D. C. (2017). How crowdfunding discourse threatens public arts. New Media & Society, 19(7), 983-999.
  • Dalla Chiesa, C., & Dekker, E. (2021). Crowdfunding artists: beyond match-making on platforms. Socio-Economic Review.
  • D’Amato, F., & Cassella, M. (2021). Cultural production and platform mediation: A case in music crowdfunding. New media & society, 23(9), 2575-2592.
  • Davidson, R., & Poor, N. (2015). The barriers facing artists’ use of crowdfunding platforms: Personality, emotional labor, and going to the well one too many times. New Media & Society, 17(2), 289-307.
  • De Voldere, I., & Zeqo, K. (2017). Crowdfunding: Reshaping the Crowd's Engagement in Culture. Publications Office of the European Union.
  • Galuszka, P., & Bystrov, V. (2014). Crowdfunding: A case study of a new model of financing music production. Journal of Internet Commerce, 13(3-4), 233-252.
  • Galuszka, P., & Brzozowska, B. (2016). Early career artists and the exchange of gifts on a crowdfunding platform. Continuum, 30(6), 744-753.
  • Gerber, L., & Hui, J. (2016). Crowdfunding: how and why people participate. In International perspectives on crowdfunding. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
  • Gürler, C., & Çağlar, M. (2021). Success Prediction of a Crowdfunding Project in Art Categories. In Crowdfunding in the Public Sector (pp. 147-166). Springer, Cham.
  • Handke, C., & Dalla Chiesa, C. (2022). The art of crowdfunding arts and innovation: the cultural economic perspective. Journal of Cultural Economics, 1-36.
  • Janssen, S., & Verboord, M., 2015. Cultural Mediators and Gatekeepers. In: James D. Wright (editor-in-chief), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Vol 5. Oxford: Elsevier. pp. 440–446.
  • Kribs, K. (2017). The artist-as-intermediary: Musician labour in the digitally networked era. eTopia.
  • Langley, P. (2016). Crowdfunding in the United Kingdom: A cultural economy. Economic geography, 92(3), 301-321.
  • Langley, P., & Leyshon, A. (2017). Platform capitalism: the intermediation and capitalization of digital economic circulation. Finance and society., 3(1), 11-31.
  • Lin, M., & Viswanathan, S. (2016). Home bias in online investments: An empirical study of an online crowdfunding market. Management Science, 62(5), 1393-1414.
  • Lizé, W., & Renard, F. (2016). Cultural consecration and legitimation–Modes, agents and processes. Poetics, (58).
  • Maguire, J. S., & Matthews, J. (2012). Are we all cultural intermediaries now? An introduction to cultural intermediaries in context. European journal of cultural studies, 15(5), 551-562.
  • Menger, P. M. (2006). Artistic labor markets: Contingent work, excess supply and occupational risk management. In Victor A. Ginsburgh and David Throsby (Ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture 1 (ss. 765-811). Elsevier B.V
  • Mollick, E. (2014). The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study. Journal of business venturing, 29(1), 1-16.
  • Mollick, E. R. (2016). Containing multitudes: the many impacts of Kickstarter funding. Available at SSRN 2808000.
  • Regner, T. (2021). Crowdfunding a monthly income: an analysis of the membership platform Patreon. Journal of Cultural Economics, 45(1), 133-142.
  • Rykkja, A., Maehle, N., Munim, Z. H., & Shneor, R. (2020). Crowdfunding in the Cultural Industries. In Advances in Crowdfunding (pp. 423-440). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
  • Rykkja, A., Munim, Z. H., & Bonet, L. (2020). Varieties of cultural crowdfunding: The relationship between cultural production types and platform choice. Baltic Journal of Management.
  • Röthler, D., & Wenzlaff, K. (2011). Crowdfunding schemes in Europe. EENC report, 9, 2011.
  • Sankır, H. (2018). Gündelik Nesnenin Sanatsal Dönüşümü: Sıradan Nesnelerin Sanat Eserine Dönüşüm Süreci Üzerine Sosyolojik Bir Değerlendirme. Journal of History Culture and Art Research, 7(5), 524-543.
  • Shim, A., Yecies, B., Ren, X., & Wang, D. (2020). Cultural intermediation and the basis of trust among webtoon and webnovel communities. Information, Communication & Society, 23(6), 833-848.
  • Swords, J. (2017). Crowd-patronage—Intermediaries, geographies and relationships in patronage networks. Poetics, 64, 63-73.
  • Swords, J. (2020). Interpenetration and intermediation of crowd-patronage platforms. Information, Communication & Society, 23(4), 523-538.
  • Thorley, M. (2012). An audience in the studio – the effect of the Artistshare fan-funding platform on creation, performance, recording and production. Journal on the Art of Record Production, 7, (Technology, Time and Place). http://arpjournal.com/
  • Vallas, S., & Schor, J. B. (2020). What do platforms do? Understanding the gig economy. Annual Review of Sociology, 46, 273-294.
  • Younkin, P., & Kashkooli, K. (2016). What problems does crowdfunding solve?. California Management Review, 58(2), 20-43.
  • Zolberg, V. L. (1990). Constructing a sociology of the arts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
There are 36 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Şebnem Sankır 0000-0002-4297-1062

Publication Date September 24, 2022
Published in Issue Year 2022Issue: 8

Cite

APA Sankır, Ş. (2022). Sanat Alanının Simgesel Değer Üreten Kültürel Aracısı Olarak Kültürel Kitlesel Fonlama Platformları. ARTS: Artuklu Sanat Ve Beşeri Bilimler Dergisi(8), 11-28. https://doi.org/10.46372/arts.1092809

Cited By

Dijital Medyada Kültürel İçerik Üreticiliğinin Ekonomik Sermayeye Dönüşümünde Patreon Modeli İncelemesi
Düşünce ve Toplum Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi
https://doi.org/10.55796/dusuncevetoplum.1395336
 Download Cover Image

ARTS is licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0 cc.svg?ref=chooser-v1by.svg?ref=chooser-v1nc.svg?ref=chooser-v1

PUBLISHER | JOURNAL BOARDS | INDEXES | PRICE POLICY | STATISTICS | MIAR | SHERPA ROMEO