개인구독
소속 기관이 없으신 경우, 개인 정기구독을 하시면 저렴하게
논문을 무제한 열람 이용할 수 있어요.
지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The current government once expressed the features of its cultural policies as ①public-centered, ②field-oriented, ③localized, ④internationalized. A series of considerable changes have taken place in the cultural legislations since this government was established in February 2003. This article reviewed briefly the general intimate relationship between policy and law(Part Ⅰ), then made up a section-by-section list of newly legislated or amended laws(Part Ⅱ), and finally came to some critical comments as follows(Part Ⅲ):
1. Concerning legislative forms, we are suffering from a flood of promotion acts. We currently have 16 promotion acts in cultural context. However hardly there be any objections to the state’s duty to promote culture and arts, the excessive (mis-)use of the word“ promotion”will bring about resemblance among acts to prevent minute law-making as well as its clear understanding. Worse than all, the most promotion acts are full of regulatory steps such as approval, authorization, enrollment, registration, notice and declaration.
Lately another problem has been added, i.e. the appearance of urban development law under the cloak of cultural law, even in the form of special act. A series of special act without any general act will undoubtedly destroy the unity of our legal system, while probably increasing political corruptions.
2. Concerning localization, we have no experiences of local decentralization, which is different from traditional federal states like Germany. I think the localization trend is preferable, though, which should mean the development of local cultures. To make the trend effective, it is not sufficient for central government merely to transfer (some of) its power to local one, because the transfer would perhaps give that a chance of exempts from responsibility. Rather, the central government has to be ready to fulfill the constitutional duty of cultural promotion by bearing the burdens of supporting the local authorities.
3. Concerning the stress on cultural industry, as is described in Article 22 of the Korean Constitution, the starting point of our cultural policy should be improvement of cultural capacities of all the nations, which precedes the legal and economic protection of the creators. Acts on cultural industry seem to be far from cultural legislations in a true meaning.
If we reinforce culture and arts education to improve our cultural capacities, we will have voluntary culture instead of coercive one. If we strengthen cultural publicness to secure common space for professional artists, the cultural market shall be changed from the separated dichotomy between producers and consumers to the cooperated interrelationship among all of us. The term droit a la culture should be used to sum up all the process. Only on the term would any cultural policy be available; only on the policy any cultural act. Hence the three questions to be answered by us in the discussion of long term cultural policy: Is there any cultural act in the true meaning now in this country? Is it necessary to us? If yes, why?
1. Concerning legislative forms, we are suffering from a flood of promotion acts. We currently have 16 promotion acts in cultural context. However hardly there be any objections to the state’s duty to promote culture and arts, the excessive (mis-)use of the word“ promotion”will bring about resemblance among acts to prevent minute law-making as well as its clear understanding. Worse than all, the most promotion acts are full of regulatory steps such as approval, authorization, enrollment, registration, notice and declaration.
Lately another problem has been added, i.e. the appearance of urban development law under the cloak of cultural law, even in the form of special act. A series of special act without any general act will undoubtedly destroy the unity of our legal system, while probably increasing political corruptions.
2. Concerning localization, we have no experiences of local decentralization, which is different from traditional federal states like Germany. I think the localization trend is preferable, though, which should mean the development of local cultures. To make the trend effective, it is not sufficient for central government merely to transfer (some of) its power to local one, because the transfer would perhaps give that a chance of exempts from responsibility. Rather, the central government has to be ready to fulfill the constitutional duty of cultural promotion by bearing the burdens of supporting the local authorities.
3. Concerning the stress on cultural industry, as is described in Article 22 of the Korean Constitution, the starting point of our cultural policy should be improvement of cultural capacities of all the nations, which precedes the legal and economic protection of the creators. Acts on cultural industry seem to be far from cultural legislations in a true meaning.
If we reinforce culture and arts education to improve our cultural capacities, we will have voluntary culture instead of coercive one. If we strengthen cultural publicness to secure common space for professional artists, the cultural market shall be changed from the separated dichotomy between producers and consumers to the cooperated interrelationship among all of us. The term droit a la culture should be used to sum up all the process. Only on the term would any cultural policy be available; only on the policy any cultural act. Hence the three questions to be answered by us in the discussion of long term cultural policy: Is there any cultural act in the true meaning now in this country? Is it necessary to us? If yes, why?
목차
Ⅰ. 논의의 출발점
Ⅱ. 참여정부 수립 이후 문화법제의 변화
Ⅲ. 종합적 평가
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
문화도시의 요건과 법적 과제
경영법률
2008 .01
-
대중예술문화산업과 헌법－법제개선을 위한 기본방향－
일감법학
2013 .01
-
문화재정책 및 법제의 미래지향적 발전방향
법과 정책연구
2010 .01
-
Neoliberal Reform, Cultural Policy Changes, and the Transformation of Cultural Industries in South Korea
아시아리뷰
2018 .02
-
신문화도시 부산의 문화산업 특화와 문화컨텐츠 개발
한국문화산업학회 학술대회
2009 .06
-
신문화도시 부산의 문화산업 특화와 문화컨텐츠 개발
문화산업연구
2009 .06
-
문화국가를 위한 법체계 검토
문화정책논총
2007 .02
-
지역문화산업의 활성화를 위한 논리와 전략
도시행정학보
2000 .06
-
지식정보사회의 문화산업정책
정부학연구
2004 .01
-
지역문화진흥법 시대 지역문화지표의 수립에 관한 연구
관광레저연구
2018 .04
-
文化財保護法制의 硏究
법학연구
2002 .12
-
‘문화적 자본’ 이론을 활용한 지역문화향유의 함의에 관한 연구
한국사회와 행정연구
2009 .05
-
문화행정법 영역 내에서 본 지역문화정책의 역할과 범위
문화정책논총
2007 .02
-
문화복지와 부산문화재단의 역할
지역사회연구
2012 .12
-
신라문화의 국제경쟁력 제고를 위한 역사문화자원 개발 방안
서울행정학회 학술대회 발표논문집
2007 .12
-
지역 문화주권의 인식과 문화창조력
지역사회연구
2007 .06
-
국력으로서의 문화력 측정지표 모형 개발 및 G20 국가들에 대한 적용
한국IT서비스학회지
2019 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2013-505-003510095