The Internet has become the essential media for daily work of cultural management professionals. Its richness of contents and the fast evolution of technologies do even exceed the capacity of adaptation and decision of the professionals due to the wide range of possibilities that the Internet offers. It is in this new context where technologies and cultures get mixed up as cultural institutions cannot play the same roles as they did in the analogic world. Not only the classical functions of conservation, research, commission or exhibition have to be valued, but also in the role of broadcasting, doors to communication 2.0 should be opened, getting into the social networks, not only sharing but also listening what the users have to say. This new step has to be managed by institutions that are able to understand and add the new philosophy 2.0 in their corporative and communication culture. It is not longer one-way communication as the role of the users is essential. The author will analyse the strategies and models of some institutions that have incorporated digital practices and culture in their organizations and communication and therefore, the way they connect with their different audiences (Creators/artists, users and other organizations.) have changed.
Top1. Introduction
It is obvious that we have entered into a new Internet stage, in which not only it is necessary to have a web site with information about the institution, the author, the works, related events and basically all the information that a leaflet may have, but also in the new Internet generation, what it is called 2.0, the user is the king. The information that the institution has to communicate is important but it is more important the opinion of the users, of the experts in that field, of creators or artists and even the opinion of similar institutions or researchers. A specialist in virtual communities said that his most relevant tests workshop is the reaction of his clients on social networks as they are who will help us to improve.
The term “Web 2.0” was coined in January 1999 by Darcy DiNucci, a consultant on information architecture. In her article, “Fragmented Future”, DiNucci writes:
The Web we know now, which loads into a browser window in essentially static screenfuls, is only an embryo of the Web to come. The first glimmerings of Web 2.0 are beginning to appear, and we are just starting to see how that embryo might develop. The Web will be understood not as screenfuls of text and graphics but as a transport mechanism, the ether through which interactivity happens. It will [...] appear on your computer screen, [...] on your TV set [...] your car dashboard [...] your cell phone [...] hand-held game machines [...] maybe even your microwave oven.
Angelina Russo writes in her blog: Social Media and Cultural Communication: “The underlying principle are that cultural and commercial organisations are now no longer just using the same tools (marketing, exhibition, events) etc. they’re occupying the same spaces (Facebook, YouTube) etc.”
It is a plural communication that felicitates a communication space in which all the actors participate. It is also timeless and without a particular physical space. We can take part in it from any place of the world, comment on the artwork of the day of the New York Metropolitan Museum, we can also have a debate with the last photographer that is exposing in a Brasilian gallery or give ideas for the new book of a prestigious French writer.
The doors are open to everyone, the Digital Culture 2.0 allows listening, sharing and extending the influence level. This can be done through a blog and its comments, through a social network or through videos or photos shared by the visitors or exhibitors, or through comments on an Internet forum.
New Technologies and their influence in our social evolution has exceed the concept of “publishing space” or window, showing more and more linked and relational strategies, which are reflected in the Web 2.0 and in the current and discussed data web site or Semantic Web 3.0. There is a need of information that releases these new tools and provides knowledge that can be applied to the current reality. This chapter tries to give an answer to this need offering a prospect of the current situation with brief comments of future for cultural managers.
1.1. Objectives
The main objective of this chapter is to describe the condition of the general art about the cultural management 2.0 analysing where we came from and where we lend to. To do so, we will carry out an analysis of the most relevant cultural institutions dealing nowadays with social network communications and the observed trends.
Likewise, this chapter aims to summarise the best practices or advice for cultural managers and their communication on the Internet through new tools.
2. Culture 2.0: Collective Culture
Cultural management refers to an advanced version of broadcasting and communication of cultural management in what is called Web 2.0. This is only a new generation of web sites based on communities of users and a special range of services. These services are the sale of products, clubs, forums, encyclopedia, common topics, etc. and they can be defined according to some formats, such as social networks, blogs, wikis, the syndication or folksonomies. This is a term linked to other contexts that take it as their own and therefore produces “Type 2.0” developments. The most relevant point is that they encourage collaboration and exchange of information between users. As Angela McFarlene pointed out “Information and communication technologies have to be seen as a group of skills and competences, a group of tools to do what we always do but in an easier way, better and more economical and with a revolutionary impact.” The big change is not technological but change of attitude.
According to Jubany,