The global pandemic has seen fresh arguments being made for the importance of arts and culture in our everyday lives. This is because – the argument goes the arts and culture help us find ways to connect to each other, overcome the feeling of isolation, reflect on our ways of life and look for hope in the time of crisis. However, it is also true that their production, distribution and consumption are currently facing unprecedented challenges though new innovations and creative experiments do occur. For many people and organisations in the cultural sector, the impacts of Covid-19 are devastating, with events cancelled, work commissions drying up, and current and substantial future income lost. Some governments have introduced emergency measures such as income support, loans and job retention schemes for a certain period, hinting that “the state is being brought back”. Yet, these measures hardly suffice given the scale of the disruption. For example, a Creative Industries Federation survey of 2,000 cultural and creative organisations and freelancers in the UK reveals that “1 in 7 creative organisations believe they can last only until the end of April on existing financial reserves. Only half think their reserves will last beyond June” (Caroline Norbury on behalf of 500+ creative figures, 2020). The state’s active response is necessary as cultural markets have stopped working; and the same time, a rethinking of cultural policy is called for to develop a more sustainable – and democratic and locally oriented – cultural ecology and infrastructure (Hewison, 2020). Meanwhile, it is remarkable that the pandemic has accelerated the trend of digitalisation, which is very likely to continue. We need careful deliberation on how the nature of cultural production and consumption might be reshaped and how the nexus between online and offline cultural spaces might be redefined. Is online provision an extension (or replacement) of offline cultural offering, and how do audiences move across these domains? During the lockdown period, many of us have come across new forms of arts and culture by digital means. How will this affect our cultural tastes and consumption habits? Digital divides within the cultural sector as well as among audiences are another issue that the pandemic has put under the spotlight as geographical inequalities in the reliability and diffusion of the digital infrastructure have become more apparent, and successful digital strategies (e.g., Berliner Phiharmoniker’s digital concert hall) require long-term capital investment, which only the larger and better resourced cultural institutions can afford. The observation of Covid-19’s impact on the arts and culture, and the responses from the sector itself and cultural policy, urges us to freshly examine the roles of the market and the state, the sustainability of cultural careers, the sociality underpinning our cultural life both offline and online, digital cultural infrastructure, state control and privacy. Cultural Trends aspires to serve as a welcoming space where these and other emerging issues are explored and debated. We are hoping to devote a special issue (Winter 2020) to discussing the ramifications of the global health emergency and responses from various cultural stakeholders. This issue starts with O’Hagan, Murphy and Barton’s research article “Do state funding, geographic location, and networks matter?” which examines the ecologies of creative careers. Focusing on the experience of prominent workers in the Irish film, TV drama and theatre sectors, the article points out the importance of school plays and other types of

中文翻译：

---

社论

全球大流行已经见证了人们对艺术和文化在我们日常生活中的重要性的新争论。这是因为 - 论点是艺术和文化帮助我们找到相互联系的方法，克服孤立感，反思我们的生活方式并在危机时期寻找希望。然而，尽管确实出现了新的创新和创造性实验，但它们的生产、分销和消费目前也面临着前所未有的挑战。对于文化部门的许多人和组织来说，Covid-19 的影响是毁灭性的，活动被取消，工作佣金枯竭，当前和未来的大量收入损失。一些政府在一定时期内推出了收入支持、贷款和工作保留计划等紧急措施，暗示“国家正在恢复”。然而，考虑到破坏的规模，这些措施还远远不够。例如，创意产业联合会对英国 2,000 家文化创意组织和自由职业者进行的一项调查显示，“七分之一的创意组织认为，凭借现有的财务储备，它们只能持续到 4 月底。只有一半的人认为他们的储备会持续到 6 月之后”（卡罗琳诺伯里代表 500 多名创意人物，2020 年）。由于文化市场已经停止运作，国家的积极应对是必要的；同时，需要重新思考文化政策，以发展更可持续、更民主和面向当地的文化生态和基础设施（Hewison，2020 年）。同时，值得注意的是，大流行加速了数字化趋势，这很可能会继续下去。我们需要仔细考虑如何重塑文化生产和消费的性质，以及如何重新定义线上和线下文化空间之间的联系。线上供应是线下文化供应的延伸（或替代），受众如何跨越这些领域？在封锁期间，我们中的许多人通过数字方式接触到了新的艺术和文化形式。这将如何影响我们的文化品味和消费习惯？随着数字基础设施可靠性和传播的地域不平等变得更加明显，以及成功的数字战略（例如，Berliner Phiharmoniker 的数字音乐厅）需要长期资本投资，只有规模更大、资源更好的文化机构才能负担得起。对 Covid-19 对艺术和文化影响的观察，以及行业本身和文化政策的反应，促使我们重新审视市场和国家的作用、文化事业的可持续性、支撑我们文化生活的社会性离线和在线、数字文化基础设施、国家控制和隐私。文化趋势渴望成为一个受欢迎的空间，探索和辩论这些和其他新兴问题。我们希望用一期特刊（2020 年冬季）来讨论全球突发卫生事件的影响以及各种文化利益相关者的反应。这个问题从奥哈根开始，墨菲和巴顿的研究文章“国家资金、地理位置和网络重要吗？” 它考察了创造性职业的生态。文章聚焦爱尔兰电影、电视剧和戏剧领域杰出工作者的经验，指出学校戏剧和其他类型的戏剧的重要性。