Since being designated in 2001 as a natural World Heritage Site the Jurassic Coast managers have worked for it to be recognised as the Creative Coast. This thesis explores and challenges the entanglements of policy and practice in the process of the site becoming creative. Through archival research, interviewing and ethnographic methodologies this project has sought to develop a site-specific approach to creative arts policy. Research has integrated investigation of the embodied and quotidian geographies of decision-making with policy discourse analysis. Following formal and informal, public and private artistic practices, this research has traced how the Jurassic Coast is constructed by the creative activities of those who inhabit it. In this research, relationships between the arts, creativity and geological heritage become complicated due to a paradox inherent within the site’s policy. The geological heritage preserved through the Jurassic Coast’s designation is acknowledged to be under continual processes of change. In response, this research illustrates how creativity can be used as a tool to illuminate tensions between the need to preserve natural processes of erosion and retreat and the desire to provide access and promote engagement with the site. Furthermore, it is argued that using a site-specific and critical approach to everyday creativity allows geographers to understand how people engage with place in a multitude of ways. This is especially significant as the heritage value of this site lies in the ways in which different communities engage with it. It is through these day-to-day creative encounters that the Jurassic Coast is culturally constructed.

This thesis is an examination of policy-making and practice in design education in England from 1837-1992. It takes a longue durée approach to the history of the development of design education to provide a new narrative which shows a pattern of recurring debates concerning the purpose of design education and how it should be taught. Using the curricula of furniture design courses at three art schools to illustrate the way policy was put into practice, this thesis argues that historical context is key to understanding why debates regarding the way designers should be trained for industry have recurred since 1837. Based on a wide variety of primary source material the thesis contributes to historiography by extending the scope of previous histories of art and design education, and also, for the first time, focuses solely on the development of design education, whilst acknowledging its place in the wider development of art and design education. Following the introduction, chapter two of this thesis examines the events which led to the 1835-6 Select Committee and argues that many of the issues raised during the Committee influenced the teaching of design education through the remainder of the nineteenth century; this is further demonstrated through chapter three. Charting the development of design education into the twentieth century through chapters four, five and six, this thesis shows that changing historical contexts, such as the development of industrial methods or wider changes in higher education, have also had an impact on design education. In the light of changing historical contexts, policy makers for design education have continually questioned what design students should be taught and how they should be taught, which accounts, in part, for the recurring nature of debates in design education.

Interrogeant les rapports entre l'État et le champ artistique en France entre 1848 et 1920, ce travail de recherche en histoire de l'architecture repose sur le postulat que la trajectoire architecturale du Musée du Luxembourg fut l'un des lieux privilégiés de la construction d'une représentation négative de l'intervention de l'État dans les affaires artistiques. Ce musée, dont les collections sont aujourd'hui atomisées dans différentes institutions parisiennes et provinciales, devint, en 1818, le premier musée d'art contemporain, par la volonté du roi Louis XVIII. Dès l'origine, il fut considéré comme la pépinière du Louvre. Cette relation de symbiose entre les deux institutions, basée sur le principe des vases communicants, servit de référence à l'émergence de nouveaux paradigmes muséaux en Europe et en Amérique du Nord, jusqu'au premier tiers du XXe siècle. La principale mission du Musée du Luxembourg était d'affirmer la supériorité de l'art français face à celui des autres puissances européennes. Si sa représentativité artistique fut pour le moins partielle, son exemplarité architecturale, elle, demeura un idéal jamais atteint. L'analyse de fonds d'archives, de revues de presse et de documents parlementaires, permet de vérifier l'hypothèse de la construction progressive d'un antagonisme, grâce à la mobilisation de différentes catégories d'acteurs appartenant ou non au champ artistique. Cette mobilisation s'effectue collectivement par le biais des journaux, au sein des sociétés artistiques, des sociétés de mécènes, de groupements de citoyens et de fédérations de commerçants, sous la forme de discours, de pétitions, d'enquêtes ou de campagnes de presse, ou bien individuellement, à l'initiative des artistes représentés au musée ou de journalistes influents. Toutefois, la remise en question la plus décisive du rôle de l'État provient des utilisateurs du musée eux-mêmes, souvent impuissants face à la pesanteur des rouages bureaucratiques, à la maigreur des budgets alloués aux musées nationaux, et à l'inadaptation des locaux avec lesquels ils doivent composer. La construction de cette représentation négative se structure autour de moments clés récurrents : vernissage d'un nouvel accrochage des collections, intégration des œuvres d'un legs ou d'une donation, dépôt et discussion d'un rapport sur le budget des Beaux-arts, Expositions universelles, incidents touchant les collections, rumeurs colportées par la presse. Néanmoins, les moments les plus critiques coïncident avec la remise en question de l'existence même du musée, avec la menace de son expulsion, ou avec l'officialisation et la mise en œuvre de projets de relogement, qu'il s'agisse du transfert du musée dans des bâtiments existants, d'extension de ses locaux, ou de leur reconstruction intégrale. Chacun de ces événements contribue à la cristallisation de thèmes et d'enjeux, qui vont polariser l'essentiel des critiques formulées à l'égard de l'action artistique publique. On peut ainsi dégager quatre thèmes récurrents dans les débats : l'absence d'exemplarité architecturale du musée, incompatible avec le rayonnement artistique de la France et de sa capitale ; l'impossibilité de mobiliser les fonds nécessaires à une résolution définitive de la question de l'exemplarité architecturale ; l'impossible consensus sur la question de localisation du musée dans l'hypothèse de son relogement ; le paradoxe entre la construction d'une expertise des conservateurs en matière de programmation architecturale et l'incapacité de l'État à leur donner les moyens de l'appliquer. En aucun cas, cependant, cette critique de l'action (ou de l'inaction) de l'État ne débouche, avant 1920, sur des projets de création de musées concurrents et indépendants ; la mobilisation du champ artistique est tournée vers une forme d'assistance à l'État, dans la résolution de la crise qui touche le Musée du Luxembourg / This dissertation in architectural history argues that the architectural trajectory of the Luxembourg Museum in Paris was one of the main reasons why the French public art policy was considered as unwarranted and illegitimate. The Luxembourg Museum, whose collections are now scattered in various Parisian and provincial institutions, became in 1818 the world's first museum of contemporary art, by the will of King Louis XVIII. From the beginning, its aim was to feed the Louvre with recent and national art. The symbiotic relationship between these two museums, which was based on the principle of communicating vessels, was a paradigm for new museums in Europe and North America, until the first third of the twentieth century. Although the main mission of the Luxembourg Museum was to assert the superiority of French art face to that of other European nations, it was long criticized not only because it did not reflect the diversity of artistic trends, but also because the conditions under which its collections were stored and exhibited were unworthy of Paris' attractiveness and influence. Through the analysis of primary sources, press reviews and parliamentary papers, we wanted to test the hypothesis that the mobilization of different categories of stakeholders within and outside the artistic field led to an increasing distrust of public art policy. Leading artists represented in the museum, influential journalists from daily and art newspapers, art and patrons societies, citizens and merchant associations, promoted mobilization against through speeches, petitions, surveys or media campaigns. Even the museum professionals themselves were powerless against complicated bureaucratic procedures, shoestring budgets for national museums, and unsuitable storage and exhibition spaces, and ended up questioning the role of the French state in art policy. The negative image of the role of the French state was shaped at key moments and recurring events: the re-hanging of the collection, the display of a new gift or bequest, discussions about the annual budget of the ministry of Fine-Arts, World Fairs, preventive conservation matters, and rumors. However, the most critical moments coincided with the questioning of the very existence of the museum, with the threat of its uprooting, or the formalization and implementation of resettlement, extension or reconstruction schemes. Each of these events crystallized themes and issues that polarized most of the criticisms aired at the public art policy. We identified four major topics in this debate: the shameful absence of a purpose-built museum of contemporary art in Paris; the Governement's inability to raise funds to finally resolve the architectural issue; the lack of consensus on the future museum's location issue; the contradiction between the recognition of the curators' skills in architectural design and the inability of their administration to give them the opportunity to apply them. The main paradox is that although the public art policy was more and more considered as inaccurate and illegitimate, most of the artistic field helped the Government to resolve the ‘Luxembourg issue' and build a monument worthy of the nation

Interrogeant les rapports entre l'État et le champ artistique en France entre 1848 et 1920, ce travail de recherche en histoire de l'architecture repose sur le postulat que la trajectoire architecturale du Musée du Luxembourg fut l'un des lieux privilégiés de la construction d'une représentation négative de l'intervention de l'État dans les affaires artistiques. Ce musée, dont les collections sont aujourd'hui atomisées dans différentes institutions parisiennes et provinciales, devint, en 1818, le premier musée d'art contemporain, par la volonté du roi Louis XVIII. Dès l'origine, il fut considéré comme la pépinière du Louvre. Cette relation de symbiose entre les deux institutions, basée sur le principe des vases communicants, servit de référence à l'émergence de nouveaux paradigmes muséaux en Europe et en Amérique du Nord, jusqu'au premier tiers du XXe siècle. La principale mission du Musée du Luxembourg était d'affirmer la supériorité de l'art français face à celui des autres puissances européennes. Si sa représentativité artistique fut pour le moins partielle, son exemplarité architecturale, elle, demeura un idéal jamais atteint. L'analyse de fonds d'archives, de revues de presse et de documents parlementaires, permet de vérifier l'hypothèse de la construction progressive d'un antagonisme, grâce à la mobilisation de différentes catégories d'acteurs appartenant ou non au champ artistique. Cette mobilisation s'effectue collectivement par le biais des journaux, au sein des sociétés artistiques, des sociétés de mécènes, de groupements de citoyens et de fédérations de commerçants, sous la forme de discours, de pétitions, d'enquêtes ou de campagnes de presse, ou bien individuellement, à l'initiative des artistes représentés au musée ou de journalistes influents. Toutefois, la remise en question la plus décisive du rôle de l'État provient des utilisateurs du musée eux-mêmes, souvent impuissants face à la pesanteur des rouages bureaucratiques, à la maigreur des budgets alloués aux musées nationaux, et à l'inadaptation des locaux avec lesquels ils doivent composer. La construction de cette représentation négative se structure autour de moments clés récurrents : vernissage d'un nouvel accrochage des collections, intégration des œuvres d'un legs ou d'une donation, dépôt et discussion d'un rapport sur le budget des Beaux-arts, Expositions universelles, incidents touchant les collections, rumeurs colportées par la presse. Néanmoins, les moments les plus critiques coïncident avec la remise en question de l'existence même du musée, avec la menace de son expulsion, ou avec l'officialisation et la mise en œuvre de projets de relogement, qu'il s'agisse du transfert du musée dans des bâtiments existants, d'extension de ses locaux, ou de leur reconstruction intégrale. Chacun de ces événements contribue à la cristallisation de thèmes et d'enjeux, qui vont polariser l'essentiel des critiques formulées à l'égard de l'action artistique publique. On peut ainsi dégager quatre thèmes récurrents dans les débats : l'absence d'exemplarité architecturale du musée, incompatible avec le rayonnement artistique de la France et de sa capitale ; l'impossibilité de mobiliser les fonds nécessaires à une résolution définitive de la question de l'exemplarité architecturale ; l'impossible consensus sur la question de localisation du musée dans l'hypothèse de son relogement ; le paradoxe entre la construction d'une expertise des conservateurs en matière de programmation architecturale et l'incapacité de l'État à leur donner les moyens de l'appliquer. En aucun cas, cependant, cette critique de l'action (ou de l'inaction) de l'État ne débouche, avant 1920, sur des projets de création de musées concurrents et indépendants ; la mobilisation du champ artistique est tournée vers une forme d'assistance à l'État, dans la résolution de la crise qui touche le Musée du Luxembourg / This dissertation in architectural history argues that the architectural trajectory of the Luxembourg Museum in Paris was one of the main reasons why the French public art policy was considered as unwarranted and illegitimate. The Luxembourg Museum, whose collections are now scattered in various Parisian and provincial institutions, became in 1818 the world's first museum of contemporary art, by the will of King Louis XVIII. From the beginning, its aim was to feed the Louvre with recent and national art. The symbiotic relationship between these two museums, which was based on the principle of communicating vessels, was a paradigm for new museums in Europe and North America, until the first third of the twentieth century. Although the main mission of the Luxembourg Museum was to assert the superiority of French art face to that of other European nations, it was long criticized not only because it did not reflect the diversity of artistic trends, but also because the conditions under which its collections were stored and exhibited were unworthy of Paris' attractiveness and influence. Through the analysis of primary sources, press reviews and parliamentary papers, we wanted to test the hypothesis that the mobilization of different categories of stakeholders within and outside the artistic field led to an increasing distrust of public art policy. Leading artists represented in the museum, influential journalists from daily and art newspapers, art and patrons societies, citizens and merchant associations, promoted mobilization against through speeches, petitions, surveys or media campaigns. Even the museum professionals themselves were powerless against complicated bureaucratic procedures, shoestring budgets for national museums, and unsuitable storage and exhibition spaces, and ended up questioning the role of the French state in art policy. The negative image of the role of the French state was shaped at key moments and recurring events: the re-hanging of the collection, the display of a new gift or bequest, discussions about the annual budget of the ministry of Fine-Arts, World Fairs, preventive conservation matters, and rumors. However, the most critical moments coincided with the questioning of the very existence of the museum, with the threat of its uprooting, or the formalization and implementation of resettlement, extension or reconstruction schemes. Each of these events crystallized themes and issues that polarized most of the criticisms aired at the public art policy. We identified four major topics in this debate: the shameful absence of a purpose-built museum of contemporary art in Paris; the Governement's inability to raise funds to finally resolve the architectural issue; the lack of consensus on the future museum's location issue; the contradiction between the recognition of the curators' skills in architectural design and the inability of their administration to give them the opportunity to apply them. The main paradox is that although the public art policy was more and more considered as inaccurate and illegitimate, most of the artistic field helped the Government to resolve the ‘Luxembourg issue' and build a monument worthy of the nation

The purpose of this bachelor thesis was to illuminate and analyze the working conditions of visual artists in the Swedish region of Värmland. As a profession which is known to have many problems concerning income and the fact that most artist are unable to get by on their art sales alone it becomes interesting to look closer on cultural policy’s affecting the artists, where the problems lie and what possible help they can get. I have used previous research and different sources to map out the working conditions in Sweden and Värmland alike and also interviewed five different visual artists in Värmland to get a general view of the working conditions in the country as a whole and their perception of the situation and special circumstances in Värmland. I have also used discourse analysis to compare the source material with the answers of my respondents to see which discourses that exists, that have hegemony, and to see how this subject is talked about. The results of this study showed how political decisions may force artists to become self-employed entrepreneurs even though many artists do not self-identify as such or even have any interest in profitable gain. The study also shows among other things that most artists have another occupation on the side but that there are some aids to help the artists with income. The situation in Värmland appears to both good and bad for artists, it seems easier for them to get exposure, but the artists complain about the regions lack of interest and contributions to the visual arts.

The late Victorian and Edwardian period saw ritual become increasingly important in political life. Towns and cities were involved in conscious efforts to construct and project attractive images of themselves. These images were intended to encourage a sense of civic patriotism. Ceremonies, honorific titles, public events and civic architecture were essays in the invention of tradition. However, historians have applied the concept of the invention of tradition unevenly. Previous research has dwelt on the construction of images. Perceptions of official images and responses to them have been overlooked. This thesis employs a model which recognises images as processes with foundaitons in human relationships. It evaluates images in terms of intentionality, power, context and participation. The participative dimension is of particular importance, because images aimed to instil a sense of civic patriotism which would encourage citizens to make emotional and financial investments in their communities. Liverpool attained the status of a city in 1880. The civic ideology of the city was dominated by images of commerce and by notions of Imperial duty and public service which celebrated commercial virtues. Many aspects of urban life were shaped by civic image. This study does not confine itself to public events and pageantry, instead it explores such spheres as municipal art policy, Liverpool's public health record, the attempts to extend the city boundaries, civic hagiography, the foundation of the University, women and the ideal of citizenship and the influence of football on civic identity to demonstrate the importance of images in the city's social, political and institutional history. The purpose of the thesis is three-fold: to suggest that civic image opens new perspectives on Liverpudlian history, to discover why there were more conscious attempts to construct civic image and to restore participation to the study of civic image by unravelling the connections between image and patriotism.

欲探尋中共和知識份子的關係，必先回顧其歷史發展。早在1940年代，中共已藉由「整風運動」，發展出一套「馴服」和「利用」知識份子的辦法。1949年中共建立新政權，更將此邏輯推及全國，對於當代中國知識份子而言，無疑是一巨大變化與挑戰。 　　胡風，作為一位與中共關係密切的作家、知識份子，其政治立場向來親共，乃被中共視為「同路人」。儘管如此，胡風仍有諸多意見，未能與中共全然契合。1954年，胡風向中共中央遞交「萬言書」，直陳中共文藝政策的缺失。1955年，毛澤東欽定「胡風反革命集團」一案，胡風和友人多遭逮捕、審查，並牽連甚廣。胡風一派因言獲罪，堪稱中共建政以來首宗「文字獄」，亦為重大政治冤獄。 　　本研究以胡風事件為主軸，圍繞胡風其人進行個案研究。第一章為導論，簡述本文研究動機，以及當代以來中國知識份子的思想變化。第貳章、第叁章為胡風之個人歷史，描述胡風求學、出洋、創作、涉入政治的人生歷程，作為討論胡風事件的背景介紹。第肆章為主文，詳述胡風事件的原委，進一步探討胡風事件的成因，分析中共黨政高層（特別是毛澤東）所扮演之關鍵決策角色，藉此釐清其政治責任。第伍章結論，為筆者的研究心得和展望。透過胡風事件的探究，筆者針對毛澤東的個人權威、中共與知識份子的特殊關係，以及中共政治文化提出檢討。 / To realize the relationship between the CCP and the intellectuals, we should review the historical development. Early in the 1940s, the CCP has already progressed the method of “using” the intellectuals. In 1949, the new regime was built by the CCP. Furthermore, they spread this strategy to whole mainland. Obviously, it was a big change and challenge to the contemporary Chinese intellectuals. Hu Feng, as an intellectual and a “comrade”, whose political position had been closed to the CCP. However, Hu Feng still had some opinions which differ from the CCP. In 1954, Hu Feng submitted his proposal which criticizing the CCP’s literature and art policy. In 1955, Mao ZeDong judged this case as “Hu Feng counterrevolutionary group”. After that, Hu Feng and his companions were arrested and investigated by the government. The Hu Feng Incident seemed to be such a literary persecution and injustice case. 　　This research mainly focuses on the Hu Feng Incident. Firstly, Chapter 1 is the “Introduction”, which introduces the reasons of this research and the changing thought of modern Chinese intellectuals. Secondly, the focus of Chapter 2 is the life course and career pattern of Hu Feng. Chapter3 is the narration of the big change to the intellectuals on 1949. Chapter 4, which includes the main idea of this research, not only analyzes the causes of the Hu Feng Incident, but also seeks the crucial role of Mao. In Conclusion, Chapter 5 summarized the reflection and the vision upon this research. The writer reviews Mao’s personal authority and the political culture of the CCP. Finally, the special relationship between the CCP and the Chinese intellectuals will still be a major issue, that will need further study on it.