Specifi cs of cultural and leisure activities organization in urban local environment
- Annotation
- Authors
- List of references
Cultural and leisure activities are considered as a resource for the formation and development of a new
urban environment, ensuring intensive socio-economic and cultural development of the city. Cultural and leisure
space becomes a platform for the development of socio-cultural identity, the realization of the creative potential
of the local community in the local territory. It is important to realize that a participative culture lies at the heart
of the organization of cultural and leisure activities in local space forming and developing a new urban cultural
environment. At the same time, cultural and leisure space becomes an art platform for holding multi-format
events, ensuring intensive socio-economic and cultural development of the city, assisting in the creation of cultural
innovations, developing a socio-cultural identity by realizing the creative potential of the local community in the
local territory. The author focuses on the need to develop a new model of the organization of cultural and leisure
activities with this target audience, based on the principles of participative culture, co-creative interaction of the
organizers, integration of cultural and leisure, marketing and Internet technologies.
- Меркульева Александра Владимировна
- 1. On national goals and strategic objectives fordevelopment of Russian Federation until 2024: presidentialdecree № 204, 7 may, 2018. URL: http: // kremlin.ru (accessed:2019–04–19) (in Russ.). 2. Flier A. Ya. Culture as space and time of socialexistence. Kul’tura kul’tur. 2016. № 3. URL: http: // cult-cult.ru(accessed: 2019–04–19) (in Russ.). 3. Zharkov A. D. Theory and technology of cultural andleisure activities. Moscow: Moscow State Univ. of Culture andArts, 2007. 480 (in Russ.). 4. Litvintseva G. Y. Leisure culturology: training manual.Saint Petersburg: Kul’tInformPress, 2018. 268 (in Russ.). 5. Vagin V. V. Urban sociology: training manual formunicipal managers / Moscow Public Science Foundation.2000. URL: https: // refdb.ru (accessed: 2019–04–19) (in Russ.). 6. Kuzin K. B. Functioning of local communities inmegalopolis. URL: http: // mgsu.ru (accessed: 2019–04–19)(in Russ.). 7. Park R. City as social laboratory. Sotsiologicheskoeobozrenie. 2002. 2 (3), 3–12. URL: https: // sociologica. hse.ru(accessed: 2019–04–19) (in Russ.). 8. Lebedeva E. V. «Third place» as basis for urbancommunities formation / Belarusian State University. 2015.URL: http: // elib. bsu. by (accessed: 2019–04–19) (in Russ.). 9. Warner W.; Nikolaev V. G. (transl.) Living and dead.Moscow: Universitetskaya kniga, 2000. 671 (in Russ.). 10. Durkheim E. On division of social labor. Moscow:Nauka, 1991. 576 (in Russ.). 11. Zhelnina A. A. Creativity in city: reinterpretation ofpublic space. Journal of sociology and social anthropology.2015. 18 (2) (78), 45–59 (in Russ.). 12. Taylor S., Littleton K. Contemporary identities ofcreativity and creative work. Farnham: Ashgate, 2012. 166 (inRuss.). 13. Kotlyachkova M. Mike Lydon on tactical urbanismand urban replanning. Partizaning: guerrilla urban planners.2012. URL: http: // partizaning. org (accessed: 2019–04–19)(in Russ.). 14. Arts4city. urban online applications, 2015. URL:https: // arts4cityru. wordpress.com (accessed: 2019–04–19)(in Russ.).
