Generally speaking, cultural management is management, in the area of culture. However, it is a very broad definition, therefore, can be many different forms of cultural management. In this article the author wants to refer to the two most important forms of cultural management: the management of culture and culture management. These terms are sometimes confused with each other. The differences mainly take the way of understanding culture. We can understand culture as the total of the inherited ideas, beliefs, values, and knowledge, which constitute the shared bases of social action, the total range of activities and ideas of a group of people with shared traditions, which are transmitted and reinforced by members of the group, the artistic and social pursuits, expression, and tastes valued by a society or class, as in the arts, manners, dress, etc, the attitudes, feelings, values, and behaviour that characterize and inform society as a whole or any social group.
The author of this article proposes two types of culture (distinguished on the basis of previous arguments). The first is the intellectual culture (creative), the second is the integral culture (relational). Both together make up the common culture, understood in the broadest sense. The both of them could be developed by the proper cultural policy of the state.

The article is related to competences and tasks of culture animators and culture managers in the contemporary world. Despite the diversity of tasks and functions between them, there are also competencies needed by both. These competencies are essential in solving a number of similar problems encountered in their work. One of the main problems is the issue of „profit”, understood in a broad sense far beyond the purely mathematical operation, although referring to the economy as the art of rational management of resources in order to add them together. For both the culture animator and the culture manager, the main idea consists in the multiplication of social resources, social potential, investing in human capital through co-creation of cultural events and programs animating community. It is therefore necessary to redefine the concept of profit (in the context of activity of the culture manager and animator), i.e. the perception of profit in two dimensions – a social and an economic one (a social profit achieved by the efficient use of resources of each type, including financial and social capitals).
The ethics of the culture animator and the culture manager relate to many areas: creating educational offer, cultural events and animation activities programming, responsibility for the range of products and services, their safety (in the context of mass culture), building lasting relationships with customers based on trust, quality, and adequate promotion of the projects, programs, products and services, as well as diagnosing social needs. Contrary to what J. Gajda wrote, the objectives of the activity of culture manager and animator, are not set in opposition to each other. In both cases, the objectives cannot be achieved, if the means and methods have been in conflict with the principles of the Code of Ethics. Cultural managers and animators, should inspire the same way of the understanding culture and its role in human life, especially as „Paideia”. Only at a later step as a product, but a product of special value, not only attractively packaged.
An important issue is also the question of the evaluation of the social impact of the animator’s and manager’s work in the context of the spent funds. There is a lack of effective, objective and measurable indicators for monitoring and evaluating their work. Another problem is the reference to the principles of corporate social responsibility – in the absence of a uniform system of values. The paper was presented at the conference „The Managerial Trends in the Culture Animation”, 27th, May 2010.

The present paper is an attempt to present selected examples of museums in the Arab World. In the introduction I present shortly the history of collecting and museums in this region. Afterwards I try do describe some sorts of Arab museums. They are national museums: Egyptian Museum in Cairo, Bardo Museum in Tunis, Iraq Museum in Baghdad and National Museum in Damascus; two small museums in Sousse (Tunisia) – The Oil Tree Museum and the Dar as-Sid (Dar Essid) Museum; biographical Museum of the writer and painter Gibran Khalil Gibran in Bisharri (Lebanon), and three museums or galleries of contemporary art in Algiers (The Museum of Contemporary and Modern Art), Doha’s New Modern (Qatar) and Safar Khan Gallery in Cairo. I close my article with some reflections concerning the role of museums in contemporary Arab culture.

For more than two decades now the protection of cultural heritage has been gaining in importance, becoming a global phenomenon and an important part of development strategies of countries, regions and cities. In general, the idea of development under the banner of culture and cultural legacy, usually occurring with the participation and promotion of the tourism sector, constitutes a component of comprehensive planning policies of many decision-making centers in the world, among others, Ankara.
Turkey, which has an extremely rich and diverse cultural heritage, reflecting expressions of many cultures and civilizations, is a particularly interesting case study in this perspective. Currently, at least officially, the concept of heritage protection is interpreted by Turkish authorities as a process of revitalization and integration of entities with historical, cultural and architectural values with the economic, social and political potential as well as a matter of international diplomacy. However, the vision of benefits from new opportunities for use of cultural heritage both in large-scale development projects and foreign relations increasingly entails a number of negative effects. Failure of system implementation of legal protection of cultural resources, rapid population growth, uncontrolled urbanization, limited financial resources and different understanding or assessment of the historical and cultural environment make maintaining cultural heritage far more complex than in Europe. Similarly, taking advantage of the achievements of the Ottoman Empire to generate interest within the international community is removed from the process of building the culture and history of the whole society and recognizing its internal diversity.
The future will show whether the Justice and Development Party government is interested in marking out the way for policies to promote a real protection of cultural heritage, cultural polyphony and putting it in the framework of a  democratic vision. Or whether its priority remains the creation of a good image and reap short-term benefits from the use of the Anatolian legacy.

The author of the article has undertaken an attempt to present the history of one of the cultural associations which existed in Krakow at the turn of the 19th century. The Literary Union was founded by a group of writers and literary critics who were dissatisfied with the activity of the Artistic-Literary Circle which had operated in Krakow since 1881. The Union which had been formally registered in the Regional Lieutenancy towards the end of 1891, began its activity in February 1892. Among its ranks it grouped between 50 and 90 writers, literary and theatre critics, including professors of the Jagiellonian University. The successive presidents of the Union included: Józef Tretiak, Marian Zdziechowski and Kazimierz Bartoszewicz. The Union had its own premises in which weekly lectures devoted above all to important literary phenomena were held. The members appreciated partucularly the possibility of taking advantage of the well-stocked Union reading-room, which had subscribed to a few dozen Polish and foreign literary magazines. In the years 1896-1898, the Union published a biweekly entitled “Przegląd Literacki” /Literary Review/ (edited by Kazimierz Bartoszewicz), which however did not publish any program manifestos, nor literary polemics;  the biweekly published exclusively the reviews of books which appeared on the Polish book market. The Union had lost its entire raison d’etre the moment Stanisław Przybyszewski arrived in Krakow and became the editor of the “Życie” /Life/ magazine. It was precisely this magazine that became the main platform for the writers and poets realizing their modernist artistic program.

For centuries, the cultural heritage of many generations has not always been appreciated and the access to it was limited. Many cultural goods, especially those intangible ones, were lost forever. Today, we live in an age of digital revolution. Modern IT solutions not only make it possible to preserve the achievements of generations, but also enable their wide dissemination. This is creates an opportunity to save numerous places from oblivion as well as a chance for the virtual reconstruction of historic monuments. It also allows one to preserve written works, photographs, oral history, traditions, or music. These possibilities are more and more often used by museums, which are starting to digitize their collections in order to protect and increase the availability of cultural heritage resources. This phenomenon of ever-increasing presence of museums on the Internet is referred to as cybermuseology. However, in the context of the more and more dynamic development of digital cultural resources and the growing fascination thereof, the question arises as to whether one can use the IC technology to fully present the intangible heritage without losing its cultural content and whether it is possible to retain the traditions, customs, rituals, cultural practices and human experience in a digital form. The following paper will present both opportunities and threats which digitizing carries for the intangible cultural heritage resources. The author’s reflections will be complemented by the analysis of the selected projects concerning the creation of virtual resources of intangible culture in the educational, archiving and promotional aspect.