Microsoft word - contents.htm

1. Art is What People Call Art / 2. Cultural Inferiority and Superiority Color the Economy of the Arts / 2. ‘Art is Sacred' / 4. ‘Art is Authentic' / 5. ‘Art is Superfluous and Remote' / 6. ‘Art Goes Against the Rules and so Adds to Cognition’ (Goodman) / 7. ‘Artists Resemble Magicians’ (A personal view) / 8. The Mythology of the Arts Influences the Economy of the Arts / 9. Conclusion Why are Gifts to the Arts Praised, While Market Incomes Remain Suspect? 1. The Arts Depend on Gifts and Trade / 2. The Amount of Donations and Subsidies is Exceptional / 3. ‘Art that is Given Must not be Sold’ / 4. ‘The Market Devalues Art’ / 5. The Arts Need the High Status of the Gift Sphere / 6. The Economy in the Arts is Denied and Veiled / 7. A Dual Economy Requires Special Skills / 8. Conclusion 3. ECONOMIC VALUE VERSUS AESTHETIC VALUE Is There Any Financial Reward for Quality? 1. Aesthetic Value and Market Value Differ in Definition/ 2. ‘In the Market there is no Reward for Quality’ / 3. Values are Shared / 4. There is No Such Thing as a Pure Work of Art / 5. Buyers Influence Market Value and Experts Aesthetic Value / 6. Power Differences Rest on Economic, Cultural and Social Capital / 7. In Mass Markets Quality and Sales Easily Diverge / 8. The Strife for Cultural Superiority in the Visual Arts (an example) / 9. The Power of Words Challenges the Power of Money / 10. The Government Transforms Cultural Power into Purchasing Power / 11. Donors and Governments Know Best / 12. Market Value and Aesthetic Value Tend to Converge in the Long Run / 1. The selfless Artist is Intrinsically Motivated / 2. Rewards Serve as Inputs / 3. Artists are Faced with a Survival Constraint / 4. Autonomy is Always Relative / 5. Intrinsic Motivation Stems from Internalization / 6. Habitus and Field / 7. Selfless Devotion and the Pursuit of Gain Coincide / 8. Artists Differ in Their Reward- Orientation / 9. Types and Sources of Rewards Matter to Artists / 10. Three Examples of Orientation Towards Government Rewards in the 1. Incomes in the Arts are Exceptionally High/ 2. Art Markets are Winner-Takes-All Markets / 3. People Prefer Authenticity and are Willing to Pay for It / 4. Incomes in the Arts are Exceptionally Low / 5. Five Explanations for the Low Incomes Earned in the Arts / 6. Artists are Unfit for ‘Normal’ Jobs / 7. Artists are Willing to Forsake Monetary Rewards / 8. Artists are Over-Confident and Inclined to Take Risks / 9. Artists are Ill-Informed / 10. Conclusion Do Subsidies and Donations Increase Poverty? 1. Artists Have Not Always Been Poor / 2. The Desire to Relieve Poverty in the Arts Led to the Emergence of Large-Scale Subsidization / 3. Low Incomes are Inherent to the Arts / 4. The Number of Artists Adjusts to Subsidy Levels / 5. Subsidies in the Netherlands Have Increased the Number of Artists Without Reducing Poverty / 6. Subsidies Are a Signal that Governments Take Care of Artists / 7. Subsidies and Donations Intended to Alleviate Poverty Actually Exacerbates Poverty / 8. Low-priced Education Signals that it is Safe to Become an Artist / 9. Social Benefits Signal that it is Safe to Become an Artist / 10. Artists Supplement Incomes with Family Wealth and Second Jobs / 11. Artists Reduce Risks by Multiple Jobholding / 12. Artists Could be Consumers Producers / 13. Is there an Artist ‘Oversupply’ or are Low Incomes Do Rising Costs in the Arts Make Subsidization Necessary? 1. ‘Artistic Quality Should Remain the Aspiration, Regardless of the Costs’ / 2. ‘The Arts are Stricken by a Cost Disease’ / 3. Technical Progress has Always been Part of the Arts / 4. There is no True Performance / 5. The Taboo on Technical Innovation in classical Music is a Product of the Times / 6. The Cost Disease Contributes to Low Incomes while Internal Subsidization Contains the Cost Disease / 7. There is no Limit to the Demand for Works of Art / 8. Changing Tastes Can Also Cause Financial Problems / 9. Pop Music has Attractive Qualities that Classical Music Lacks / 10. Subsidies and Donations Exacerbate the Cost Disease / 11. Conclusion 1. Donors Receive Respect / 2. Donors Have Influence and are Necessarily Paternalistic / 3. Art Sublimates Power and Legitimizes the Donor’s Activities / 4. Gifts Turn into Duties / 5. Donations and Subsidies are Embedded in Rituals / 6. Artists Give and Pay Tribute / 7. Family and Friends Subsidize Artists / 8. Private Donors Give to Street Artists as well as to Prestigious Art Institutions / 9. Corporations and Private Foundations Support Art / 10. Conclusion Do Art Subsidies serve the Public Interest or Group Interests? 1. Art Subsidies Need Reasons / 2. ‘Art Subsidies are Necessary to Offset Market Failures’ / 3. ‘Art has Special Merits and must be Accessible for Everyone’ / 4.The Merit Argument has been Used Successfully / 5. ‘Government Must Help Poor Artists' / 6. ‘Art is Underproduction' / 7. ‘Art Contributes to Economic Welfare and so Must be Supported' / 8. ‘Society Needs a Reserve Army of Artists and must therefore Support Art' / 9. Government Distorts Competition in the Arts / 10. Self-Interest Hides Behind Arguments for Art Subsidies / 11. The Art world Benefits from Subsidies / 12. The Government is under Pressure to Subsidize the Arts / 13. Conclusion How Symbiotic is the Relationship between Art and the State? 1. Governments Have Interests and Tastes / 2. Art Appears to be Less Serviceable than it was during Monarchical Times / 3. European Governments Carried on the Former Patronage / 4. Veiled Display Serves Social Coherence / 5. The Cultural Superiority of the Nation Needs Display / 6. Government Taste Serves Display / 7. Governments are Willing to Support the Arts / 8. An Arts Experts Regime Harmonizes Government and Art World Interests / 9. Conclusion / Appendix: Differences between Government Involvement 11. INFORMAL BARRIERS STRUCTURE THE ARTS 1. In other Professions Barriers Inform Consumers, Restrain Producers and Limit Competition / 2. The Arts Resist a formal control of numbers of Artists / 3. In the Past Numbers of Artists were Controlled / 4. Granting Certificates to Commercial Galleries in the Netherlands (An example) / 5. Characteristics of Informal Barriers / 6. Informal Barriers Protect Collective Reputations / 7. Innovations in the Arts are Protected and Indirectly Rewarded / 8. The Arts are Structured and Developments are Controlled / 9. The Risks of some are Reduced at Why is the Exceptional Economy of the Arts so Persistent? 1. The Economy of the Arts is an Exceptional Economy / 2. Despite the Many Donations and Subsidies Incomes are Low in the Arts / 3. A Grim Picture has been Drawn / 4. Winners Reproduce the Mystique of the Arts / 5. Society Needs a Sacred Domain / 6. Future Scenarios Epilogue: THE FUTURE ECONOMY OF THE ARTS Is this Book’s Representation of the Economy of the Arts Outdated? 1. Signs of a Less Exceptional Economy of the Arts / 2. Artists with New Attitudes Enter the Scene (1) / 3. Artists with new Attitudes Enter the Scene (2) / 4. ‘Art Becomes Demystified as Society Becomes More Rational’ / 5. ‘Borders in and Around the Arts Disappear’ / 6. ‘New Techniques, Mass Consumption and Mass Media Help Demystify the Arts’


Microsoft word - korrekturen lim .doc

Eidgenössisches Departement des Innern EDI Bundesamt für Gesundheit BAG Direktionsbereich Kranken- und Unfallversicherung CH-3003 Bern , BAG Referenz/Aktenzeichen: Ihr Zeichen: Unser Zeichen: Fo Liebefeld, 25. Februar 2009 Irrtümliche Limitationen in der on-line Spezi alitätenliste (SL) seit 1.12.2008 Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren Wir weisen Sie darauf hin, dass seit dem 1.

Curriculum Vaitae and Academic Record Name: Soryia El-Tantawy HafezDate of birth: 14/01/1957Graduations: B.Sc in Entomology – grade: "Excellent" –6/11/1979 Faculty of Science, Ain shams university- M.Sc in Entomology "Toxicology"- Ph.D in Entomology "Toxicology"Professionals: - Demonstrator, Ent. Dept – Fac. Sci Positions Date: 06/11/1979Faculty of science, A

Copyright © 2010 Health Drug Pdf