%0 Journal Article
%T Reisikirjeldus eesti tantsust
%A David King
%J M£¿etagused. H¨¹perajakiri
%D 2011
%I Eesti Kirjandusmuuseum and Eesti Folkloori Instituut
%X PremiseThis essay is an elaboration of a paper read at the Imagining Bodies conference at Tallinn University in 2010, where the author considered differing meanings of the concept of productivity, and market force¡¯s impact on dance in Estonia. The premise was that a cultural tourist might be able to view and describe cultural production in Estonia in novel and possibly productive ways, because of his geographic and social displacement. After making notes while touring in Estonia, during autumn and winter of 2009/2010, on his observations of similarities and differences between how dance is created and funded in Estonia and California, the author gathered them into a travelogue and subjected them to a variety of cultural, economic and political critiques.ObservationsThe scale and direction of cultural production in Estonia and California are vastly different but capital market forces foreground similar resource allocations in dance production:Women provide the central core of the social infrastructure of the Estonian Dance and dance education. It is this self-subsidized labour pool, operating at discounted labour costs, that provides the social infrastructure that is the primary dance resource for the nextgeneration of Estonian dancers. The social good that dance produces is often defined as a positive externality, secondary to internal/cash transactions, operating outside of the capital economy and probably not included in measures of the gross domestic product of the nation. Externalizing the costs of dance education and production allows for ¡°free riding¡± by individuals and institutions that profit from the goods dance practices produce for the country without making personal investment. Dance is further subject to what William Baumol calls the ¡°productivity lag¡± in the performing arts wherein dance, because it requires a fixed number of labour hours toproduce and perform, seems cost more than the consumer goods that have become easier and quicker to produce since industrialization.Training citizens¡¯ bodies to be moved, and to move together, to dance and perform acts that create a common good, seems to be an externality ¨C outside the bounds of market forces, something that is obfuscated and not talked about. These definitions lead us to profligately expend the social capital it takes to create and maintain the organizational infrastructures that sustain communities.Conclusions The peoples of Estonia, from the sea-islands to the inland lakes, northern towns, and southern hills, are producing a rich and diverse cultural product. The culture of Estonia is
%K Collective Goods
%K Cultural Production
%K dance
%K Estonia
%K Externalities
%K Free Rider Problem
%K Infrastructure
%K Internalized costs
%K Koolitants
%K Market Forces
%K Productivity
%K Social Capital
%U http://www.folklore.ee/tagused/nr49/king.pdf