{"word_count": 7532, "character_count": 52003}
ABSTRACT:Following global changes in the contemporary economy, Istanbul now appears to have entered the global competition to get the “creative city” label. Pursuing international attractiveness by exposing its cultural heritage and its large number of cultural events, the metropolis also has to compose with territorial governance complexity and urban inequalities in order to maintain or develop a cultural economy.Most of the literature and concepts forged around “creative economy” – considered as a new way to enter a “knowledge economy” and the circle of influent global cities – derive from 90’s experiences in occidental cities like London, Montreal or San Francisco. This theory is now framed, with various acceptations, in different official documents (UNESCO, UNCTAD, UCLG, European Commission) but mainly in the communication sciences through the concept of “cultural industries”. The concepts and the possibility of adaptation in other occidental cities have been themselves questioned, so should it be in the case of Istanbul?The main issue of this paper would be to open the “creative city” and “cultural economy” theories from the point of view of industrial geography and communication sciences, to look how its components have evolved and which tools could be used to analyze cultural industries of Istanbul.Completed by a work in collaboration with Eda Yücesoy and Murat Güvenç (Sehir University) of an analysis of the particular cultural industries sector of television in Istanbul this panel would like to propose an use of the concept of “territory” in cultural industries studies, and underline the importance of statistical, urban, historical and qualitative datas to improve evaluation’s methods in cultural policies for urban development.&#160;KEYWORDS:Industrial geography Territory Cultural industries Socio-economical models Field analysis Television and medias industries Istanbul Urban marketingSUMMARY:INTRODUCTION1.    THEORETICAL CROSSOVER FROM INDUSTRIAL GEOGRAPHY TO CULTURAL INDUSTRIES STUDIES1.1.    Evolution of the relationship between industry and culture in geography, apparition of the “territory” 1.1.1.    The economical geography1.1.2.    Human geography or the “cultural turn”, and the industrial geography1.1.3.    The concept of “territory”               1.2.    The “creative city”, and cultural industries theories in communication sciences     1.2.1.    The “creative city”1.2.2.    Cultural industries theories evolution in communication sciences1.2.3.    Socio-economical models typologies1.3.    The territory as an epistemological tool2.    THE MEDIAS AS A CULTURAL INDUSTRY IN ISTANBUL2.1.    Television in Istanbul as a cultural industry2.1.1.    Focus on production2.1.2.    First geographical study of the TV production2.2.    Integration of the notion of territory/territories2.2.1.    Problem of the definition of territory2.2.2.    From relational or fields analysis towards a socio-economical matrix analysis3.    CONCLUSION3.1.    Learning from Istanbul?3.2.    Theoretical and crossovers approach4.    BIBLIOGRAPHY[caption id="attachment_1458" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="Satellite picture of Istanbul, 2007 (source: NASA, IFEA)"][/caption]FULL TEXT Looking for the territories of a “creative city” in Istanbul.  Inputs from industrial geography into cultural industries studies.INTRODUCTIONThis paper is a first public communication from a PhD thesis research which begun one year ago on a particular cultural industry in Istanbul: the production of the television. During this first year the topic of my research had evolved considerably, mainly because of the many doubts I had on the capacity of the traditional tools of urban studies to be able to analyze medias or such mutations of the socio-economy of a city. Those doubts were partly founded I guess, and lectures in communication sciences fields opened some new toolbox. But once thrown by the door, the question of the space came back by the windows. This paper aims to present the evolution of this reflection.Working on the notion of “creative city” is sometimes seen as a fashion stream in urban studies, as a too recent notion or too much covered by medias to be scientifically studied, or – worst – implying too much ready-made analysis or solutions of Richard Florida for urban development[1]. Moreover many cities or local governments are pursuing this title, giving many reasons to doubt about the objectivity in the use of the concept. Consequently urban planners searchers are often tempted to reduce this fashion to some “urban marketing” policies. But once opened the different definitions included in the terms of “creative city” and “cultural industry”, once described the genealogy and apparition of this notion in geography and communication in the last decades, it appears the question of culture and economy are recurrent in those two different academicals fields. Some very primary concept as “place” (or “territory” in French literature) could draw a bridge between disciplines to help the comprehension of evolution of the “creative cities”.So the main objective of this paper is both epistemological and methodological: epistemological in the way it will propose a pluridisciplinary reflection showing the convergence of geographical and communication problematics; and consequently how this convergence implies methodological innovation in urban and communication analysis.In the following paragraphs I’ll first try to find how the specific notion of “territory” implies nowadays a critical approach from the field of industrial geography, and how it could be seen as a complementary notion to communication studies on cultural industries; then we’ll check how Istanbul could be studied as a specific implementation of a global model, and consequently which criterions could be integrated into a geographical research on Istanbul’s cultural industries; and I’ll conclude proposing some methodological ideas to allow us to continue our epistemological travel, in order to make in a same time some progress on theoretical and concrete geographic analysis levels.&#160;1. THEORETICAL CROSSOVER FROM INDUSTRIAL GEOGRAPHY TO CULTURAL INDUSTRIES STUDIES From the late 90’s cities as London, Paris, and now Istanbul are trying to define how culture could be a resource for local economical development. Local actors as politics and private sector are shaping a discourse on a new sector of the economy called “cultural” or “creative” industry[2], and empirically norming relationships between culture and industry. Starting with the double observation of a local impulse for cultural urban development and the evolution of industry’s sector itself, it seemed quite logical to see how industrial geography had or not considered the role of culture, and - in a back-feeding process - to check how information-communication sciences (as the principal other scientific field studying cultural industries) are theorizing the evolutions of the cultural industries sector.&#160;1.1.  Evolution of the relationship between industry and culture in geography, apparition of the “territory” The term of “industry” considers Sylvie Daviet, underwent through, in one hand, three main periods of historical changes, and in another hand through different schemes of analysis in geographical studies. This leaded to a segmentation of knowledges in the field of industrial geography during the last 50 years (at least in the french geography), due to the several definitions given to the word “industry” in tension between two poles: economy and culture (Daviet, 2008)[3].Without hoping summing the historiographical analysis of Sylvie Daviet in a couple of phrases I’d like to underline the main periods she notices, helping us to draw an historiological draft of analysis and pointing out some recurring theoretical elements in geography studies.The Alembert and Diderot’s encyclopedia edited in 1752 defines the entry “industry” with a humanist connotation, strongly associating culture and industry: “either the simple handwork or the intentions of the mind into useful machines, relatively to arts and professions; industry includes sometimes one, sometimes the other of both things and often bring them together” (Poussou, 1996)[4].The 19th century industrial revolution makes that definition evolve due to the mutation of the sphere of production, substituting the machine to the tool, the artisan to the salaries employee, the artwork to the product… Industry begins to be sectorized, aiming a mass production for a mass consumption, compensated by a central regulation as described by Boyer and Saillard in their theory of regulation[5]. David Harvey[6] would add the concentration of production means in the same space makes the regulation process a control of space process, directed either by the State or by private capital.The third period of structural changes begins with globalization and the financialization of the economy. This period shows a renewal of cultural inputs in an industry now supposed to be based on a “knowledge economy” for which main words are: research, creativity, deregulation, decentralization, variety, communication, and so on... Mutations of the technologies of communication (NTIC) allow a global deterritorialization of the industry (unverticalization of the production         amongst several places), accompanied with the development of the service sector. For instance countries industrialized like France had almost 80% of its industries working in services sector in 2010 (source INSEE), making obsolete the usual division (agriculture, transformation, services) in use in traditional geographical planning. Moreover the consumption and production, even based on a mass production model, are more and more individualized, leading to a requalification of the demand and the products.Evidently the frontiers I draw here between those three periods are quite caricatural, and it would be a bit subtler to talk in terms of differential shifts of paradigms, depending on a lot of factors for every nation or city. However this temporal backward step allows us to see the linkage between industry, economy and culture not as a contemporary specificity but as a changing shape on a long-term scale.At those periods of structural changes correspond mutations in the geography academic field. The searchers are inheriting of conceptual gaps provoked by the diversification/segmentation of the disciplines, and the apparition of the economy as a specific one at the 18th century (differences then fixed by the institutionalization of the disciplines). Beside, Daviet (2008) reminds us geography and sociology appeared as disciplines at the end of the 19th, far after history or economy.1.1.1.     The economical geographyAs a rationalist science economy quickly occupied a dominant place in humanities at the industrial era. In the 40’s, human geography was criticized for its descriptive approach and was then influenced by economics, finding in the market a way to explain and predict spatial order. To fit in this framework, this “new geography” adopted a corpus of notions and methods we could resume by this sentence: “distances in economy are not measured in kilometers but by costs” (Paul Claval, 1976)[7]. In that vision every activity could be divided into channels and sectors, each able to be controlled. Daviet qualifies this vision of space as “neoclassical”:“With the industrial era, market supplants nature in the space organization, the space itself become economic: the plan on which economical agents, as atoms, agglomerate or disperse according to market laws, depending on a quasi-mathematical layout. In this perspective, economic actors, consumers and producers are just agents making “rational choices”.” (Author’s trad.)1.1.2.     Human geography or the “cultural turn”, and the industrial geographyAs a coming back of the values of human geography, the normativity of the economical model in geography was also being criticized by economical geographer themselves (Benko, 2008)[8] or by defenders of the concepts of specificity and subject, entities easily expulsed from the rationalist framework of economics. The link between industry, society and culture is reconsidered (even in the private sphere of the enterprise) by the questions of identity, appropriation, symbolic… framing an intention to go beyond the supposed objectivity of space operating a “cultural turn” (Barnes, 2004)[9], transferring the question of “what” to the one of “who” resumed by Sylvie Daviet in the sentence “to give or give back to space its human, sociocultural depth, and its political dimension” (ibid.).Searchers as Pierre Gourou associate technics and values interpreting the industry as a “fact of civilization”(Gourou, 1973)[10] able to transform the environment. In the stream of the human geography this posture complicates the traditional naturalistic interpretation of the human adaptation to its environment, adding to it the feedback and effects of the “institutionalization” and its capacity to regulate the environment.Another kind of local development phenomenon as clusters or districts (developed by the studies of the Italian industries in the 80’s) draws the attention on the central role of culture in the territorialization of the industry. This kind of studies concluded with the capacity of industries to foster a culture, a social environment and an organization at the root of the productive system, like a creation of an “industrial imaginary”. Adopted to the extreme, this position (like by Porter[11], Marshall)[12] emphasizes on the endogen capacity of clusters to exist by themselves, without consideration of external and un-territorialized inputs. The resources of “creativity” and “innovation” are placed at the top, amongst the other factors allowing a cluster to develop. This posture reveals proximity with the shortcuts of Richard Florida[13], supposing that once the correct socio-geographical parameters are completed a city could know an ideal economical development as a “mega-cluster”.This excessive effort of re-territorialization of the concept industry seems too reductive, principally because of the under-evaluation of the contemporary global structure of the industry. Avoiding such exaggeration the point of correlation at a theoretical level between industry and culture still remains, leaded by a critic of determinism: “it seems possible to define a territoriality of the industry soldering a community to a lived space, through a product, a common professional sphere and an imaginary” (Daviet, 2005)[14].So industrial geography in France inherits of most of the patterns of social and cultural geography (Castells, 1972), and of Marxist theories (Lefebvre, 1974) for whose space is a “social product” or a support for “uneven development” (Harvey, 1991), all allowing a transition from space to territory.1.1.3.     The concept of “territory”“Territory” is supposed to come from Latin word territorium and evoke the idea of domination of a space by a form of power (usually State or local government), which legitimates its authority by this control[15]. This concept born in the 80’s in French geography’s corpus has a recent history we could link to the decentralization processes, and synthetized by Jean Paul Ferrier (1981)[16] as follows: “geography’s first use is to deal with territory”.So the segmentation of knowledges in geography pointed by Daviet depends on two aspects: periods of structural change of industry, and evolution of the weight of the domains of economy and culture with respectively economical geography and human geography. At the edge of this opposition lies the notion of “territory”, invented by the opponents to economical geography and supposed to merge space/economy and social/culture into one notion.  In those last conceptualizations, territory acts as an actor of the spatialization of the value.In the Dictionary of geography and space of societies (Levy, Lussault, 2009) “territory” is also derived into three definitions:“Space with topographic metric”;“Arrangement of material and symbolical resources able to structure practical conditions of an individual existence or a social collective, and inform back this individual or this group on its own identity”;“Every portion humanized of the surface of the Earth”.To sum up the definitions in human geography Guy Di Méo proposes the following: “we’ll keep two major constitutive elements of the territorial concept; its component of social space and its component of a subjective space.“ (Di Méo, 1998)[17]. Its definition includes four other hypotheses:“[Territory] describes, on the basis of the spatial datas of geography, insertion of each subject in a group or several social group of reference. […]”“Territory traduces a way of segmentation and control of space guaranteeing specificity and permanence, reproduction of the human group occupying it. It’s its political dimension. […]”“[Territory] constitutes a remarkable symbolic field. […]“The importance of the long-term scale, of history in the matter of symbolical construction of the territory. […] “Territory needs the thickness of time […] to exist as territory” (Marié, 1982). […]” As a conclusion Di Méo inscribes the territory within three orders: “the materiality, or concrete reality”, “the individual psyche”, and “the collective, social and cultural representations”.Though the notion of the territory is not free from critics in the field of geography, the connotation of territorium often referring to a close and monoscalar group. Frederic Giraut (2008)[18] categorized those critics into three main families:§ It’s a reductive notion, not taking in account mobility of social relations;§ Territory isn’t able to integrate networks and the question of the interaction between territories;§ Territory could be seen as a myth, too delimited to take into account social and economical factors.The revival of the notion of territory is due to the conception of simultaneity and co-existence of scales, but not often well studied in geographical and urban approaches, reducing in most of the studies the territory to a close system. So the “territory” experiences nowadays a crisis, from the academic field, but also due to its overuse by the various actors of the public sphere. So which term should be used to avoid too much reductionism when we’re studying cultural industries: “metropolis”? “Landscape”? “Sphere”? “Area”?Pointing out the movement of “culturization” of the economy and the geography the temporary hypothesis I’ll propose here should be to still use “territory” as a potentially useful notion, though needing to be readapted at the light of other disciplines like communication sciences for a more complete understanding of cultural industries, and must integrate some of its theoretical and methodological tools to be effective.1.2.  The “creative city”, and cultural industries theories in communication sciences1.2.1.     The “creative city”It’s interesting to notice how cities appropriated themselves the concept of creativity or cultural industries following the lead of London, first city to order a inventory of it (London Department of Medias, Culture and Sports, 1998-2001). One of the main characteristics of this evolution is the empirical aspect of the development of this paradigm by institutions, its blind appropriation firstly by local politics and then by international organizations (UN, UNESCO, CGLU, Europe…). In France this situation appears very clearly due to the specific angle of public cultural policies since Malraux (minister of Culture, 1959-1969): the traditional cultural sphere before dedicated to arts and mostly protected from economy sphere by the state policies, is now breached by the ambition of local governments to participate to the global competition for the title of “creative city”. The development of a metropolitan “cultural economy” – where arts are placed at the same level than advertisement – aims to improve the potential of attraction of new private investors, of whom economical growth would help to better the urban environment. This situation could even be compared to the national cultural policies in Turkey in the second half of the 20st century, and its evolution until today on a private-public partnership pattern[19]. 2010 was a year particularly relevant from this point of view and we could quote several actions made in this frame: the inventory of cultural heritage, the list of editions and conferences made about the cultural economy, and so on [20]…The first point to notice is the term of “creative cities” is not equivalent of “cultural development of the territories”, and sometimes culture might be seen as a tool to legitimate models of economical development. There is also a conceptual blur in both cases between culture and creativity, considered as resources for local development: either to shape the territory’s identity (urban marketing) or to support a sectorial economical growth. But we might pay attention to differentiate these two specific notions (“cultural”/“creative”) to qualify this “new” knowledge economy. For reasons I won’t develop here I’ll exclusively use the term “cultural industries” and the debates enveloping it[21]. So the political posture about cultural industries implies a discourse of an entrepreneurial vision of the city: on an ideological level, on governance and the transformation of leadership, and on identity, three dimensions declined as follows by Le Galès (2003)[22]:“The discourse on concurrency and market, including image and identity matters, the political priority given to matters as economical development and investments attraction, fluxes and privileged social groups, the transformation of local governments towards organizational forms as public-private partnership giving to private actors an important role to play in the definition of city’s public interest, priorities, managements models as well as the realization of projects.“ (Author’s trad.)The concept at the core of the “creative city” is one particular vision of the cultural economy and industries by public authorities. Andy Pratt (2004) notes in his analysis of creative functions in global cities[23] two recurring themes: the “pragmatic instrumentalization of culture for economical ends, [and] the economic value of cultural economy playing a major role in a lot of urban economies”. He concludes with the importance of the vision of cultural industries as a frame for the creation of value chain. So it won’t be honest to contest the reality of the urban marketing side of cultural public policies for metropolis, but it would be reductive to end up the analysis at this point: the cultural industries are indeed partly regulated by public policies, but the mainstream of its development is clearly to find into mutations of the structure of the private sector. So, putting aside for a moment the geography, we’ll make a detour and consider how the mutations of the society and the rise of the cultural economy (as the paradigm of the “knowledge industries”) are studied in information and communication sciences since the late 80’s.1.2.2.     Cultural industries theories evolution in communication sciencesFacing in one hand the strategic role of the technologies of information in the new economical system, and in another hand the rise of cultural matters in the services industries, searchers from Adorno to Philippe Bouquillion, Pierre Moeglin, Bernard Miège or Gaëtan Tremblay[24] insist in their researches on the importance to theorize this evolution. The first analysis of cultural industries by the Frankfort school and Adorno (1974)[25] describes an "industrialization of the culture” (which could be seen at the opposite of the re-culturalization of the industry pictured before by Daviet in industrial geography), and pictures this evolution as a threat for culture itself, only sector of society supposed to exist positively outside the sphere of economy. Recent works, conserving its distinction but more pragmatic and at ease with the reality of economy in culture, are describing the new forms of industries, and underline the key role in the last decades of the NTIC on the structuration of the industry.“[Cultural and informational contents] play an important role in the construction of dispositives [of the cultural industries] and in the valorization of the products and services they offers. […] A “culturization” phenomenon seems to be at work. In a first level, supports become products of creation [like the Ipod or Iphone]. On a second level, informational and cultural are destined to distinguish offers of these dispositives from their competitors, attract consumers, reveal their tastes and buying behaviors in multiple domains.” (Bouquillion, 2008, author’s trad.)Without developing all the sides of the reflection of Bouquillion, several points of the contemporary situation of cultural industries deserve to be noticed: the market fragmentation and individualization, the strategies of diversification, the importance of regulation, the financialization, and finally the selective concentration of the economic actors.Despite the diversity of examples usually included in the conceptualization of cultural industries, some common structural points could be noted: the non-economical characteristic of cultural contents at the level of their emergence and consumption (the use’s value); consequently the uncertainty in their capacity to create economical value; and the ideological mutations gravitating around the concept of “creativity”.Bouquillion also describes a structure of cultural industries – as a chain of production and diffusion of cultural contents – shaped on a “oligopolies with fringes” scheme: an oligopolistic situation with poor concurrency at the level of diffusion and value creation, and “fringes” or margins at the level of production, composed of a multiplicity of private actors at the core of the symbolical production. Bouquillion reminds us industries like telecommunication were firstly generally in situation of private or public monopolistic networks due to the cost to cover the territory, a situation then exacerbated by the deregulations and loss of power of the states.1.2.3.     Socio-economical models typologiesThe description of the main structural evolutions would be incomplete without a conceptualization of the economical models of the cultural industries and the way they produce economical value. The notion of “socio-economical models” tries to gather simultaneously the consideration of the private economical strategies and the cultural factors (practices, juridical frames, policies…) regulating the production or consumption. Pierre Moeglin (2007)[26] proposes a classification of socio-economical models of the cultural industries - preferring the description via “ideal-types” instead of “functioning models”[27] -, especially efficient for medias:“Editorial“ model: based on the model of the traditional press, the incomes come from the retail of one particular product;“Flow”: the model of the hertzian television (public or commercial), for which the advertising buy space in the day’s grid, depending on audiences rates;“Club”: model of the satellite television, the consumer pays a subscription for the access to an exclusive range of programs;“Audience meter”: the model of publicity on internet, close to the “flow” model, with the difference the audience is measured individually;“Informational broking”: the economical revenues come from the selling of information on the consumer and not anymore  (best example being Google).This ideal classification has to be moderated once considered the coexistence of the models, sometimes for the same enterprise (as a newspaper living from the incomes of publicity, the retailing of the newspapers, audience rating on their website…). Moeglin lists some of the explicative approaches trying to integrate the evolution and mutation of the models: a “genealogical” approach considers every model inherits from a previous one; the principle of a “substitution” indicates a clear replacement of a new model for another; and finally the “tillage” of different models. Searching for a less reductive approach, Moeglin proposes a “matrix” analysis grid, perhaps more able to take into account the multiple possibilities of coexistences of models. This matrix he imagines would be organized according to two axes, consumption and financing.In my opinion, despite a huge effort of conceptualization, communication sciences still bump on the difficulty to surround not the consumption (now quite de-territorialized thanks to the NTIC), but the first steps of the production in its cultural dimension: what are the conditions of creativity, what defines a “cultural compost”, how this “material prima” - the cultural resource itself needing to be transformed and diffused to gain a value in the consumption circuits - composes a “fringe”? The previous reflections on industrial geography lead me to think the notion of “territory” could help to conceptualize this comprehension.1.3.  The territory as an epistemological toolCultural industries studies point out a twin problem in both disciplines: the problem for industrial geography to manage multiple territories for a single sector in the new configuration of industry; and the lack of integration of local and spatial analysis in the process of creation of value within the field of information and communication sciences. But at the junction of the problematics lays a symmetrical convergence: the culturization of the industry in one side, and the industrialization of culture on another side, converging – in my opinion – with the concept of territory in industrial geography.This first reflection on the notion of territory in cultural industries studies shows us multiple dead-ends in the list of methodological tools: the simple study of location (as in economical geography) is not enough in a geographical approach due to the cultural essence of the production. Secondly the description of one particular cultural territory is neither enough to embrace the entire network at the root of knowledge economy. Thirdly in economics (in its acceptation of control of people and products) “territory” is not anymore the main factor of control. Finally, the local political actions concerning cultural industries indicate a situation of posterior reaction to legitimate an economical development on liberal basis. Claude Raffestin would add to this point the temporal aspect of the governance, noticing the territorialization is now presided by the network and possibilities offered by communication technologies so “not anymore controlled from the inside but from the outside”[28]. But a point remains: it seems impossible in the definitions given before to consider the territory has not a essential role to play in the chain of creation of value, or to be more precise in the socio-economical models. In fact we could imagine territory acts as a condition of the creation of value within some of the channels of production at the margins (the “fringes”), inputting symbolic value of cultural products; and as an argument for public policies retrospectively in the legitimation of a speech or for the run in a global competition; but territory is inefficient at the end in the real moment of creation of economic value composed by the channels of diffusion.Geographers like Allen Scott (2005)[29] tries to check out some fields in order to figure how geography could participate with its tools to the cultural industries studies: 1/ the networks studies, 2/ the local markets of working forces, 3/ the process of innovation and creativity.The hypothesis for a contemporary analysis of cultural industries in Istanbul would be the following: the concept of “creative city” – having at its core the development by the cultural industries – should be seen as a territory not institutionalized yet, in the frame of other stakes. Furthermore the territory must be seen as a “complex system” (Morin, 1990)[30], where the loops of retroactions between territory and society (in charge of planning, management and organization of the space) modify each other. This interpretation implies a constant run for territorialization by the local actors, always delayed due to the acceleration permitted by the NTIC and their effects on the structuration of the industry.  2. THE MEDIAS AS A CULTURAL INDUSTRY IN ISTANBULIn the frame of my PhD thesis on cultural industries I choose to study the geography of television production in Istanbul. Audiovisual medias are indeed in the theoretical, institutional, and economical literature, forming one of the most significant and commented sectors of the cultural industries. I’d mention for instance the several books edited in 2010 by Bilgi University, TÜBITAK and the Municipality of Istanbul[31], the Cultural Inventory of Istanbul[32], or the reports of TÜRKSTAT on medias economy and consumption[33].2.1.  Television in Istanbul as a cultural industryIn an article written with the help of Eda Yücesoy and Murat Güvenç in the beginning of 2011[34], we detailed the results of a co-presence analysis of TV production enterprises based on a database from the Istanbul Chamber or Commerce (ITO). This analysis was carried using the framework of Bourdieu (1979) and his theory of “fields”[35].2.1.1.     Focus on productionThe choice to focus on production was driven by the interpretations of cultural industries from lectures in geography and communication sciences I quoted previously. The chain of audiovisual production is quite complicated, including juridical, financial, creators, producers, and so on[36]. Briefly, the structure of the audiovisual production corresponds to what Moeglin and Bouquillion described: a plurality of socio-economical models; a small group of major financial actors, mostly holdings (Dogan, Cukurova, etc.…) or the State (TRT); and a huge diversity of little producers.Producers composing the “fringes” of the chain of creation of value are indeed in an economic or contractual relation with the channels, but also in relation with their own urban tissue. So the field analysis allows us to shape different kinds of urban “clusters”, though not as groups of predefined sectors, but more like a situation of relative co-presences of enterprises on the same geographical spaces of some sectors. 2.1.2.     First geographical study of the TV productionThe study was enlarged to 75 different families of activities (classification NACE)[37] linked directly or not to television production, for a total of 34.000 enterprises registered on the totality of the mahalles of Istanbul. The first results are described in the following charts.Chart 1: “clusters” of co-presences of all enterprises linked to medias (source: ITO, map: J. Paris, made on Udig)Chart 2: link Production - CreationChart 3: Link Communication - Holdings Chart 4: Link Finance - DiffusionA cultural corridor – or “creative triangle” (Aksoy, Enlil, 2010)[38] – is visible through those maps, but the method of co-presences analysis changes a bit the interpretation we could do about it: those maps doesn’t aim to show a census or localization of industries but the over-representation of some activities in the urban tissue. This method allows us: 1/ to take into account activities usually not included in the institutional reports (DMCS, EU, UNCTAD…), giving normative definitions of cultural industries; 2/ to link individual characteristics of the actors in their plurality to a larger scale of analysis, perhaps more systemic, and so making possible the inclusion of other qualitative categories in the scheme of statistical calculation.2.2.  Integration of the notion of territory/territoriesBeyond the graphical results, this kind of analysis remains incomplete regarding the previous concepts and methods brought forward in both geography and communication sciences. As we’ve seen upper, depending on their status on the chain of creation of value, some particular actors could have a very strategic role when a huge number of small private actors could be easily replaced in the chain of creation. 2.2.1.     Problem of the definition of territoryFirst the definition of a territory, usual problem in contemporary industrial geography, might be underlined: in the optic of a definition of cultural content mapping, these maps should indeed integrate different scales (international, national, regional, local) of the territories of production and diffusion, leading to a segmentation of production’s dimensions amongst a plurality of territories.In industrial geography a more correct analysis should take into account some dimensions of the territory other than the unique economical or localization aspects: a network analysis (links between private actors at every step of the production weighting some relatively to others), an historical analysis (the evolution in the time of the localization), the typologies of contents produced at the geographical level.Another problem we can’t underestimate here is the challenge (conceptual and graphical) to illustrate the co-existence of various territories on a same physical space, and even in a particular sector of cultural industries.2.2.2.     From relational or fields analysis towards a socio-economical matrix analysisThe intention finds its inspiration not in the concepts resulting from the Bourdieu’s “distinction” analysis, but in the philosophy at the very beginning of his reflection leading him to choose such statistical tools. The principle of such approach would be to be able to gather and compare simultaneously different dimensions of the territory, and so to measure or sketch gradients between extreme positions into the socio-economical models matrix. Consequently, traditional statistical tools (demography, employment, sales…) might be considered as tools amongst others, remaining to invent or import from other disciplines into geography.&#160;3. CONCLUSIONI hope this brief synthesis on cultural industries studies, from industrial geography and communication sciences positions, could help to bring to light a symmetrical convergence of analysis: industrialization of culture in communication sciences, and culturization of the industry in geography. This perception of a common problem at the crossover of two disciplines could produce some conceptual tools to improve the comprehension of the production’s system of cultural industries.3.1.  Learning from Istanbul?Paraphrasing Robert Venturi[39] we could ask: what could we learn from Istanbul? The differences between european countries and Turkey industries are obvious at the first glimpse, but it would be as much reductive to make of Istanbul an cultural exception in a globalized world, as it would be to consider all industries in this city entirely regulated by it. The media industry in Istanbul shows schemes of adaptation to global economy and differentiation from it as described for cultural industries in both geography and communication sciences. The television industry in Istanbul – as far I could analyze it – seems to be as much structured according to un-territorialized economical factors (holdings, broadcasts…), as much to urban/juridical/historical factors (all strongly territorialized).3.2.  Theoretical and crossovers approachIn an attempt to sum up the various notions presented before I would note two levels to make progresses in a crossover research: an epistemological level and a methodological one.Some concepts epistemologically effective:–   The notion of “territory” at the crossroad of disciplines to re-interrogate the process of creation of value in cultural industries;–   The structure of cultural industries based on a scheme of “oligopolies with fringes”: this notion allows us to differentiate in the chain of creation of value the actors of the production territorialized and the actors of the diffusion in the financial sphere;–   The matrix and relational approach: in order to avoid the reduction to some “ideal-types”, a matrix approach of socio-economical models would allow us to take into account the co-existence of several models for a single enterprise. This matrix would need to be completed by a territory dimension.Some methodological propositions to create tools for analysis:–   Making a territorial and relational database (local characteristics, networks and fields);–   Timelines and comparative maps for territorial historical evolution;–   Typologies and characteristics of cultural contents for a particular sector (audiovisual for instance) produced in Istanbul.Authors like Morin or Moeglin defends a particular ethical position into the field of scientific research, requiring a big dose of doubt about the segmentation of disciplines and a simultaneous effort: at the theoretical level, and at the concrete observation level. In this ethic those levels are feeding and transforming each other in the journey of a research. I think the study of cultural industries in Istanbul should be driven following this ethic: defining and then questioning the conceptual models brought by the in western countries thanks to the observations of the specificities of the territories (scales, sectors, nets, practices) and production in Istanbul.This short paper is actually just a step in a PhD process, sketching a conceptual framework in parallel with concrete studies I’d like to solidify in the future. I am aware of the scientific risk of being imprecise, borrowing and mixing such different concepts from two very distinctive disciplines. The topic of this “work in progress” is in a first perspective to begin to build a common and solid “toolbox” legitimating this research in its pluridisciplinary posture, and in a more long-term perspective to open a debate with other searchers from the particular notion of “cultural industry”.Thank you for your attention and your questions.Julien Paris, July 15st 2011, Istanbul, 15h00&#160;4. BIBLIOGRAPHYAdorno, Théodor W. ”Prismes Critique de la culture et société”. Payot. Paris, 1974Aksoy, Asu; Enlil, Zeynep. “Kültür Ekonomisi Envanteri İstanbul 2010”, Bilgi University and turkish Ministry of Culture. Istanbul, 2010Auriac, Franck, and Brunet, Roger. “Espaces, Jeux et Enjeux”. Fayard &#38; Fondation Diderot. Paris, 1986Badie, Bertrand. “La fin des territoires : essai sur le désordre international et sur lʼutilité sociale du respect”. Fayard, May 10. Paris, 1995Barnes, Trevor, “L’évolution des styles: de l’analyse spatiale des années 1960 à la culture du lieu des années 2000 dans la géographie économique anglo-américaine”, in Géographie et cultures, n° 49, Paris, L’Harmattan, pp 43-58. Paris, 2004Benko, Georges. “La géographie économique : un siècle d’histoire”, Annales de géographie. Paris, 2008Berg, LVD, Erik Braun, W van Winden, LV den Berg, and WV Winden. ”Growth Clusters in European Metropolitan Cities: A Comparative Analysis of Cluster Dynamics in the Cities of Amsterdam, Eindhoven, Helsinki, Leipzig, Lyons, Manchester, Munich, Rotterdam and Vienna”. Ashgate Publishing Limited. London, 2001Bernardy, Michel. “Le territoire en sciences sociales : approches disciplinaires et pratiques de laboratoire”. Msh - Alpes. Paris, 2003Bouquillion P., Miège B., and Pradié C.. “Financiarisation des industries de la communication et mutations corrélatives.” Panam, industries culturelles et dialogues des civilisations dans les Amériques: 416–433. Paris, 2003Bouquillion, Philippe ; Combès, Yolande, (Collectif). ”Les industries de la culture et de la communication en mutation”. L’Harmattan. Paris, 2007Bourdieu, Pierre. “La distinction”. Editions de Minuit. Paris, 1979Boyer, Robert. “Théorie de la régulation : L’Etat des savoirs”. La Découverte. Paris, 2002Claval, Paul. “Essai sur l’évolution de la géographie humaine”. Annales Litteraires de l’Univ de Besancon. Paris, 1976Collectif. “Concepts de la géographie humaine”. Nouvelle. Armand Colin, April 22. Paris, 2004Daviet, Sylvie. “Trente ans de géographie industrielle dans les Annales de géographie (1970-1999).” Annales de géographie 641 (1): 73. Paris, 2005Daviet, Sylvie. “Economie et culture : regards croisés de la géographie.” Géographie, économie, société 9 (1): 3-18. Paris, 2007Di Méo G. and Buléon P. “Lʼespace social: Lecture géographique des societies”. Armand Colin. Paris, 2005Di Méo, Guy. “Géographie sociale et territoire”. Nathan. Paris, 1998Fache, Jacques. “Daviet (S.) – Industrie, culture, territoire.” Ed. Jacques Fache. Norois (200). Technopôles : un concept dépassé ? (September 1): 97-100. Paris, 2006Ferrier, Jean-Paul. “Prolégomènes au discours géographique suivis de discours géographique sur la région Provence - Alpes - Côte d’Azur”. State thesis. Paris, 1981Florida, Richard. “The Rise of the Creative Class”. Basic Books. New York, 2003Giraut, François. ”Conceptualiser le Territoire”, in Dossier Construire les territoires, Historiens et géographes n°403. Paris, 2008Gourou, Pierre. ”Les paysans du delta tonkinois: étude de géographie humaine”. Paris, 1955Harvey, David. ”Géographie et capital”. Syllepse. Paris, 2010Hesmondhalgh, David and Pratt, Andy. “Cultural industries and cultural policy”. International journal of cultural policy, 11 (1). pp. 1-14. 2005Hypergeo. “Historique du territoire”, http://www.hypergeo.eu/spip.php?article337, consulted the 12/07/2011Le Galès, Patrick. “Le retour des villes européennes : sociétés urbaines, mondialisation, gouvernement et gouvernance”, Presse de Sciences Po. Paris, 2003Le Galès, Patrick. “Le retour des villes européennes : sociétés urbaines, mondialisation, gouvernement et gouvernance”. Paris, 2003Lefebvre, Henri. “La production de lʼespace”. 4th ed. Economica. Paris, 2000Morin, Edgar. ”Introduction à la pensée complexe”. EME Editions Sociales Françaises (ESF). Paris, 1990Porter, Michael. “L’avantage concurrentiel”. Dunod. Paris, 2003Poussou, Jean-Pierre. « Un grand pays industriel : la France d’autrefois », in M Lévy-Leboyer (dir.), Histoire de la France industrielle, Larousse. Paris, 1996Proulx, Marc-Urbain, and D Tremblay.. “Marketing territorial et positionnement mondial.” Géographie, économie, société 8 (2): 239-256. Paris, 2006Raffestin, Claude. “Pour une géographie du pouvoir”. Litec, June 1. Paris, 1980Retaille. “Dictionnaire de la géographie”. Belin. Paris, 2003Ropivia, Marc-Louis. “Manuel dʼépistémologie de la géographie : Ecocide et déterminisme anthropique”. LʼHarmattan. Paris, 2007Seni, Nora. ”İstanbul'da özel kültür politikaları ve kentsel alan”. Bilgi University and turkish Ministry of Culture. Istanbul, 2011Taveaux-Grandpierre, Karine.. “De la transformation de la presse en industrie culturelle par la diffusion.” Communication et langages 130 (1): 86-99. Paris, 2001Throsby, C. D, and C. D. Throsby. “Economics and culture”. Cambridge University Press. 2001Töre Özkan, Evrim. ”İstanbul Film Endüstrisi”, Bilgi University and turkish Ministry of Culture. Istanbul, 2010Tremblay, R., and D.-G. Tremblay. “La classe créative selon Richard Florida : Un paradigme urbain plausible ?” PU Rennes. Rennes, 2010Venturi, Robert. “Learning from Las Vegas”, MIT Press. Cambridge , 1977Yûcesoy, Eda (Dir). ”Yerseçim ve Gelişim Dinamikleri”, Bilgi University and turkish Ministry of Culture. Istanbul, 2011[1] A critical analysis of Richard Florida’s thesis: R. Tremblay and D.-G. Tremblay, “La classe créative selon Richard Florida: Un paradigme urbain plausible”, 2010[2] See § 2.1 above[3] For a more complete analysis see: Daviet Sylvie. « Economie et culture: regards croisés de la géographie », in Géographie, Economie, Société, 2006[4] Poussou, Jean-Pierre. « Un grand pays industriel : la France d’autrefois », in M Lévy-Leboyer (dir.), 1996, Histoire de la France industrielle, Larousse, 550 p. (p 24), 1996[5] Boyer, Robert. “Théorie de la régulation : L’Etat des savoirs”. La Découverte, 2002[6] Harvey, David. « Géographie et capital ». Syllepse, 2010[7] Claval, Paul. “Essai sur l’évolution de la géographie humaine”. Paris, Annales Litteraires de l’Univ de Besancon, 1976[8] Benko, Georges. « La géographie économique : un siècle d’histoire », Annales de géographie, 2008[9] Barnes, Trevor, « L’évolution des styles: de l’analyse spatiale des années 1960 à la culture du lieu des années 2000 dans la géographie économique anglo-américaine », in Géographie et cultures, n° 49, Paris, L’Harmattan, pp 43-58, 2004[10] Gourou, Pierre. « Les paysans du delta tonkinois: étude de géographie humaine », 1955[11] Porter, Michael. “L’avantage concurrentiel”. Dunod, 2003.[12] See also : Berg, LVD, Erik Braun, W van Winden, LV den Berg, and WV Winden. « Growth Clusters in European Metropolitan Cities: A Comparative Analysis of Cluster Dynamics in the Cities of Amsterdam, Eindhoven, Helsinki, Leipzig, Lyons, Manchester, Munich, Rotterdam and Vienna ». Ashgate Publishing Limited. 2001[13] Florida, Richard. “The Rise of the Creative Class”. Basic Books, 2003[14] Daviet, Sylvie. “Trente ans de géographie industrielle dans les Annales de géographie (1970-1999).” Annales de géographie 641 (1): 73. 2005[15] cf: Hypergeo: http://www.hypergeo.eu/spip.php?article337[16] Ferrier, Jean-Paul. “Prolégomènes au discours géographique suivis de discours géographique sur la région Provence - Alpes - Côte d’Azur”. State thesis, 1981[17] Di Méo, Guy. “Géographie sociale et territoire”, Nathan, 1998[18] Giraut, François. « Conceptualiser le Territoire », in Dossier Construire les territoires, Historiens et géographes n°403, 2008[19] Seni, Nora. « İstanbul'da özel kültür politikaları ve kentsel alan ». Bilgi University and turkish Ministry of Culture, 2011[20] Asu Aksoy, Zeynep Enlil, “Kültür Ekonomisi Envanteri İstanbul 2010”, 2010[21] The use of “creativity” leads often to economical interpretations, while “cultural” relies more the idea of governance. For a critical approach and a distinction of those notions see: David Throsby, “From cultural to creative industries”, Economics and Culture, Melbourne: Cambridge University, 2001[22] Le Galès, Patrick. “Le retour des villes européennes : sociétés urbaines, mondialisation, gouvernement et gouvernance”, 2003[23] Hesmondhalgh, David and Pratt, Andy. “Cultural industries and cultural policy”. International journal of cultural policy, 11 (1). pp. 1-14. 2005[24] Cf the website of the OMIC (Observatory of the Mutations of Cultural Industries) : http://www.observatoire-omic.org/[25] Adorno, Théodor W. ”Prismes Critique de la culture et société”. Payot, 1974[26] in Bouquillion, Philippe ; Combès, Yolande, (Collectif). « Les industries de la culture et de la communication en mutation ». L’Harmattan, 2007[27] Moeglin disapproves the “functioning model” approach considering it too specific, creating an exception for any actor studied and so forbidding any larger theoretical construction.[28] Auriac, Franck, and Brunet, Roger. “Espaces, Jeux et Enjeux”. Fayard &#38; Fondation Diderot, 1986[29] Allen Scott, “Creative cities: conceptual issues and policy questions”. University of California, 2005[30] Morin, Edgar. « Introduction à la pensée complexe ». EME Editions Sociales Françaises (ESF), 1990[31] See: http://istanbulkulturenvanteri.gov.tr/[32] (Ibid.)[33] See: http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/[34] (Dir) Yûcesoy, Eda. « Yerseçim ve Gelişim Dinamikleri », Bilgi University and turkish Ministry of Culture, 2011[35] Bourdieu, Pierre. “La distinction”, Editions de Minuit, 1979[36]See also: Töre Özkan, Evrim. « İstanbul Film Endüstrisi”, Bilgi University and turkish Ministry of Culture, 2010[37] See: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/index.cfm?TargetUrl=DSP_PUB_WELC[38] Aksoy, Asu; Enlil, Zeynep. “Kültür Ekonomisi Envanteri İstanbul 2010”, Bilgi University and turkish Ministry of Culture, 2010[39] Venturi, Robert. “Learning from Las Vegas”, MIT Press, 1977&#160;