Smart Culture Management: Theoretical Aspects

The aim of the research is the investigation of the essential theoretical aspects of smart culture management. The article formulates the theoretical construct of smart culture management by combining cultural management and management concepts, closely linking cultural management with the implementation of cultural policy and seeing the specifics of smart cultural management. Qualitative analysis was performed of theoretical sources of foreign countries and Lithuania. Also, a comparative analysis of different concepts was carried out, highlighting similarities and differences of concepts (in order to discern correlations between them). Five groups of cultural management concepts are distinguished: cultural management as specific mana­ gement in art and culture; cultural management as a phenomenon, process reflecting the formation and imple­ mentation of cultural policy; cultural management as an institution management; cultural management as a profession and academic discipline; cultural management as leadership­based management. Theoretical analysis of the phenomenon of smartness in cultural management allowed us to distinguish six dimensions of smartness: strategic, creative development, harmonization of interests in the cultural sector, empowered cultural sector parties, the harmony of intellectual and technological capital, the culture of shared value creation. Exploring the urban cultural field situation, using a model that reflects the 6 dimensions of smart culture management and 18 qualities of a smart social system, will highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the cultural field. By analyzing the weaknesses, the researchers will be able to make recommendations on how to improve the current situation. Improving the cultural field at the local level will significantly increase the quality of cultural services provided to the population. In future research, it is planned to apply the theoretical model of smart culture management to the analysis of situation analysis in the selected city. Analysis based on this theoretical model can also be performed at the state level, thus providing a comprehensive view of the cultural field situation.


Introduction
The national culture of the country is the foundation of the state. A country that seeks to preserve its national cultural identity gives a particular emphasis on smart cultural policy mana gement. Although the concept of smartness was introduced at the end of the last century, in the context of cultural management, this concept has come into use quite recently.
The actuality. Smart cultural management is a multidimensional phenomenon, first and foremost embracing the phenomenon of smartness, which is perceived as a fundamental qualitative value of a smart social system. According to Jucevičienė and Jucevičius (2014), "Smartness is the ability to adapt quickly and creatively to changing environmental conditions by making appropriate decisions and using them to achieve the end goal." Flexibility and the ability to adapt to market conditions in the face of constant change and globalization processes are of paramount importance to the ongoing cultural policy. The emergence of the concept of smartness in cultural management forces us to think about the uniqueness and novelty of policy making and implementation in this field. Smart cultural management is based on smart management, which is just beginning to take root. Smart governance, as the newest branch of the model of public governance, has emerged quite recently, but its application, though limited, can already be seen in the analysis of how cultural policy is shaped, managed and implemented by different levels of public administration and their subordinate cultural institutions. According to Gaulė (2014), "Smart Public Governance is a governance model characterized by stakeholder engagement and networking, whereby timely and complex information is made through appropriate rational decisions, structures and processes for their implementation, technologies and tools, and pooling and capacity building, and resources to create sustainable public value." Smart cultural management is also based on smart cultural policy management.
Smart cultural policy management is influenced by external and internal factors, which are understood as social, legal, economic and political factors. The influence of the international cultural space on national culture is particularly evident in the rapid globalization processes. Pauliukevičiūtė and Raipa (2009) also emphasize the influence of the international cultural space, stating: "The integration into the space of international organizations as the EU creates new challenges in the preservation of national cultural identity by trying to position the state as a country fostering open cultural dialogue and creative expression." European Union strategic papers and other strategic European level legislation highlight cultural policy guidelines that have a significant impact on the formulation of strategic documents at national and local level. These strategic pieces of legislation highlight the importance of preserving national identity in promoting and developing cultural ties between countries. The importance of named actions is seen as integral to smart cultural management.
Although the cultural policy is considered to be one of the branches of politics, the cultural phenomenon itself is a very complex and multi faceted process. In the field of culture, according to Pauliukevičiūtė and Raipa (2009), it is difficult to "select appropriate and most appropriate forms of administration, to identify the most important problems in the field and to set priorities." This approach to cultural policy management revealed by the authors suggests that smart cultural policy management is also a complex multidimensional process that is affected by various objective and subjective environmental factors. In the cultural field, as in other areas of policy making, there are different interest groups with different views and aspirations on the same issues of smart cultural management. Conflicts often arise between these interest groups. The reconciliation of the different views of interest groups by consensus is becoming a formulated cultural policy, where more and more manifestations of smart cultural management can be seen.
The problem of research. The phenomenon of culture is changing in the course of rapid globalization processes, sociological changes in society, and at the same time, the conceptual definitions of cultural management are changing. The conceptual definitions of cultural management presented by researchers are different and each of them gives new meanings, expanding the concept of cultural management. The diversity of cultural management concepts is the subject of much debate. These discussions inspired the researcher's problem of how to group concepts and create a systematic model of cultural management concepts and a model of intelligent cultural management.
The object of research is smart cultural management.
The goal of research is the investigation of the essential theoretical aspects of smart cultural management.
Investigation of the problem in the scientific literature. Research methods. Qualitative analysis of scientific literature and comparative analysis of different concepts.

Theoretical framework Cultural management concepts
This article seeks to highlight the cultural position, according to Vaitkevičiūtė (2001), as "a specific social system that describes the level of development of society and guarantees the creation, use and transmission of material and spiritual values." The cultural sphere, as one of the spheres of public life, is perceived as a kind of social system, which is an integral part of the civic community, an integral part of the society, which shows the level of development of society as a smart social system.
In order to solve the problems of today's governance processes, a governance model is needed that would help states and their selfgovernment to operate efficiently and quickly, to adapt to rapidly changing environmental conditions, to facilitate integrated decisions involving stakeholders in the decisionmaking process. Most problems require the active involvement of the social partners, based on cooperation between government and business organizations, and public involvement (Tollefson, Zito, and Gale, 2012). Therefore, according to Gaulė (2014) "<...> the system of public administration must become a smart system. <...> A smart management system ensures timely and efficient resolution of complex problems in conditions of high complexity, uncertainty and instability".
The phenomena and concepts of cultural management and cultural policy maintain close links. As Žaidytė (2007) puts it, "when trying to define cultural management, it often involves the interpretation of phenomena at its practical level, which can be abstracted to the universal definition of cultural management." Based on the approach presented by this author to cultural management, the practical level of this branch of management emerges, which forms the basis of cultural policy guidelines and principles of action when solving cultural problems. The author emphasizes that abstraction of the multifaceted nature of the cultural board purifies the definition of cultural management. According to Kuizinienė (2011), there is a noticeable change in the definition of culture and changes in links with other areas of functioning of society. These changes among scholars have sparked debate about the specifics of the content and purpose of a cultural phenomenon. It is important to emphasize that the countries of the Eastern European region have become convinced and enthusiastic about introducing cultural industries into the country's culture. According to Kuizinienė (2011), the rapid and sometimes imprudent introduction of industries in the field of culture poses a serious risk of losing "strong positions in professional culture" even though opening up "new competitive prospects". It can be argued that the approach presented by the author towards the irresponsible implementation of creative industries encourages cultural politicians to think about preserving the role of the national culture without losing national identity.
Pauliukevičiūtė and Jucevičius (2017) classify cultural management concepts according to differences in interpretations of cultural policy into the following target groups: concepts emphasizing socalled "cultural planning"; concepts emphasizing "arts policy"; concepts emphasizing "creative cities".
It is appropriate to briefly review these three groups of management concepts and their peculiarities. A group of concepts emphasizing so called "cultural planning" highlights the importance of longterm development from a perspective of cultural policymaking traditions, national and regional cultural potential and uniqueness, and community expectations (Pauliukevičiūtė and Raipa, 2009). The group of concepts emphasizing "art policy", emphasizing the longterm perspective, emphasizes the various fields of art and aims to ensure the best possible conditions for the creation, preservation and promotion of art. This group focuses on educating smart citizens, current and future art fans and buyers. The third group of concepts emphasizing "creative cities" highlights local governance in a longterm perspective focusing on the cultural uniqueness of cities. It is important to note that the authors emphasize the development of the cultural uniqueness of the city viewed from an economic perspective, i.e. this development must contribute to the economic development of the city (Pauliukevičiūtė and Raipa, 2014).
When applying cultural management to a smart social system and the national level of government, great importance is attached to the cultural policy model prevailing in the country. On the basis of the ideas expressed by various authors about cultural policy, it can be stated that the cultural policy of a country must be perceived as a long term, systematic and constantly improving process. Cultural management is perceived as a process by which managers initiate, develop and control cultural processes in the field of culture. The planning, organization and implementation of various cultural programs and projects are involved in the implementation of these actions. Cultural management is becoming a catalyst for opening up new dimensions of the potential of the arts.

Rauhe and Demmer (2004)
Cultural management is a phenomenon that reflects the interdependence of culture and economy, modern management functions that ensure economic, organizational, communicative prerequisites for culture and art. Cultural management enables the development of artistic expression.

Richter (2004)
Cultural management as a phenomenon, process reflecting the formation and implementation of cultural policy Cultural management is "the cultural policy of a government, whether directly or indirectly involved in the promotion and management of programs of cultural organizations operating in specific geographical areas with unique financial and administrative mechanisms."

Moon (2011)
Cultural management is the "representation of historicalcultural management practices." Shapiro (2004) Cultural Management is "the subject of social sciences and humanities, the management of culture, encompassing different approaches to governance, based on the social sciences, and encompassing different approaches to the study of the phenomenon and the subject of culture." Schmitt (2011) Cultural management as institutional management "Cultural management involves the process of formulating and implementing a state strategy in the field of culture, with a greater focus on the successful implementation of an existing sectoral strategic development document."

Pauliukevičiūtė and Jucevičius
(2017) "Competent cultural management is the art of realistically anticipating and realizing meaningful opportunities through the organization and meaningful development of a cultural institution or cultural project." Pauliukevičiūtė andRaipa (2009) "Cultural management implies the professional behavior of the cultural sector, the societal aspect of the activity, the benefits to society, and the practical leadership of cultural sector organizations."

Devereaux (2009)
Cultural Management is certain management actions that help to realistically anticipate and realize meaningful opportunities when organizing a cultural institution or cultural project, thereby ensuring their successful development.

Bendixen (2008)
Cultural management as a profession and academic discipline "Cultural management is a complex interdisciplinary field consisting of precision, communication, social sciences, cultural studies, and arts.

Kuizinienė
(2011) It is desirable that cultural management should be understood as an academic discipline or a global profession, the existence of which is based on the management of the arts and does not merely reflect "soft" politics but is a wideranging field of research and practice.
Cuyler (2014) cultural management as leadership based management Cultural management is a combination of competences and abilities, perceived as the ability to manage urban cultural policies through image marketing and through urban marketing, the knowledge of how to strategically use political and economic interests.

Dragiševič Šešic (2008)
Cultural management is a phenomenon reflecting unique leadership in the field of culture, the necessity of which is confirmed by academic studies of cultural management, various curricula, perceived as a combination of strategic and managerial competences that implies knowledge of the cultural sector.

Varela (2013)
Source: adapted from Pauliukevičiūtė and Jucevičius (2017) Table 1 analyzes the diversity of cultural management concepts. Each of the concepts presented added some new aspects to the concept in the field of cultural management. Table 1 chooses to group cultural management concepts based on the differentiation of Pauliukevičiūtė and Jucevičius (2017) into five groups: 1) cultural management as specific management in the field of art and culture; 2) cultural management as a phenomenon, process reflecting the formation and implementation of cultural policy; 3) cultural management as institutional management; 4) cultural management as a profession and academic discipline; 5) cultural management as leadershipbased management.
The first group of cultural management concepts is distinguished by a criterion that is designated as specific management in the field of culture and art. The functioning of cultural management is based on planning, organizing, directing and controlling activities. Emphasizing the distinction of criterion, the uniqueness of cultural and artistic management is conditioned by Rauhe's (2004) approach to cultural management: "cultural management becomes a catalyst that opens up new dimensions of artistic potential development." In other words, cultural management opens up new, wider opportunities for the development of the arts. The author emphasizes that in order to facilitate the development of culture and arts, "the planning, organization and implementation of various cultural programs and projects are involved." Richter (2004) highlights another aspect of cultural management by stating that "cultural management is an economic interdependence." From the author's point of view, it can be argued that unique, cultural and artistic management sets high standards that underlie the close interconnections between culture and the economy. In the field of art based on the principles of cultural management, artists are encouraged to create and promote their artistic and cultural production in their country and abroad.
The second group of cultural management concepts is distinguished by the criterion, which is designated as a phenomenon, process, reflecting the formulation and implementation of cultural policy. This group of cultural management concepts emphasizes management approaches and processes in the cultural field at the state, governmental level. According to Moon (2001), cultural management can be understood as "the cultural policy of a government of a country, its direct or indirect involvement in the promotion and administration of cultural organizations." The purposeful setting of governmentlevel cultural policy guidelines, the preparation of the nationallevel program, flexibly taking into account the country's cultural sector's current developments and development opportunities, shape the successful development of culture as a smart culture. According to Shapiro (2004), "representing culturalhistorical management practices" is equally important for cultural development in the country. This author highlights a very important component of cultural management, emphasizing that the historical basis of cultural sector management plays a very important role in the country's cultural development. Equally important is the historical consistency of governance that forms a coherent, systematic policy in the field. Schmitt (2011) emphasizes another important feature of this group of cultural management concepts, emphasizing that the scientific and research side, which significantly contributes to the solution of the problems of the cultural sector and the implementation of innovations, is crucial for cultural management.
The third group of cultural management concepts focuses on institutional management. According to Bendixen (2008), the management of cultural institutions is "certain management actions that help to realistically anticipate and realize meaningful opportunities in the organization of a cultural institution." Cultural management is an integral part of the successful development of institutions in the cultural sector. Devereaux (2009) emphasizes that cultural management is "management by implicating professional behavior in the cultural sector" and "practical leadership in cultural sector organizations." The author also emphasizes the importance of practical leadership, based on management principles for cultural sector institutions. Only a wellmanaged, consistent operating policy can allow the institution to adapt flexibly to the cultural sector exposed to market conditions. Pauliukevičiūtė and Jucevičius (2017) highlight the importance of strategic planning in cultural management by stating that "cultural management involves the processes of forming and implementing the state strategy in the field of culture." From a strategic point of view, cultural management highlights the importance of this process, from the formulation of strategic policies, the preparation of a document to the implementation of the policies outlined in this document. Pauliukevičiūtė and Raipa (2009) add another feature to the concept of cultural management as institution management, which is called "management is the art of realistically anticipating and implementing meaningful opportunities in organizing a cultural institution." This author highlights the peculiarity of cultural management in predicting certain opportunities in the cultural sector and, after identifying them, looking for ways to implement them.
The fourth group of cultural management concepts emphasizes the prism of cultural management as a professional, academic discipline. Kuizinienė (2011) states that "cultural management is a complex interdisciplinary field consisting of fundamental, communication, social sciences, cultural studies, arts." The author's approach to cultural management is unique in that it highlights the multidisciplinary nature in the field of cultural management. The presented approach concludes that cultural management is a confluence of certain sciences, which operates in the exact fields of science, communication, social or other sciences. Cuyler (2014) emphasizes: "it is desirable that cultural management should be understood as an academic discipline or a global profession." This author introduces the concept of the global profession into the concept of cultural management and concludes that cultural management is multidimensional in professional terms, consisting of several professional disciplines and covering a wide range of contexts. The fifth group of cultural management concepts highlights the characteristics of cultural management based on leadership. Varela (2013) sees cultural management as a unique reflection of cultural leadership. Cultural leadership is understood as a set of competences acquired by an individual or institution, which helps not only to deepen the knowledge of the cultural sector but also to adapt to the constantly evolving field of cultural institutions. Leadershipbased cultural institution development contributes to cultural institutions becoming part of the smart culture field. DragiševičŠešic (2008) highlights the field of cultural management urban marketing, which manifests itself in the field of culture through its ability to present its cultural historical uniqueness as an advantage in the development of the city. With the potential of the city's cultural uniqueness, it is possible to see the attractiveness of the city as having a distinct identity. Figure 1 illustrates the groups of cultural management concepts in question by combining them into a unified system. Five areas of cultural management that are complementary are highlighted. From the five groups of cultural management concepts presented, the specific branches emerging highlight the fundamental differences. The field of smart culture management is depicted in the diagram as a whole, encompassing all branches of cultural management and their theoretical approaches. In order to develop a model of smart culture management, each component of this model must work in harmony with the other components. Pauliukevičiūtė and Jucevičius (2017) provid ed the following definition of intelligent culture management: "Intelligent cultural management at the state level can be understood as a system of management actions that enable the socialcultural sector system to operate efficiently and productively in a highly complex dynamic environment, leveraging the internal and environmental intellectual capital and other resources of this system, and being able to turn challenges into realities." These authors emphasize that smartness in the cultural sector manifests itself in the ability of cultural policy makers and practitioners to act in a systematic, coherent and adaptable manner in a constantly changing environment. It is emphasized that operating in a dynamic environment, applying the most appropriate methods for cultural management, is based on the smart and efficient use of intellectual capital and other resources.

Dimensions and quality of smart cultural management
Having reviewed the peculiarities of cultural management concept clusters, which are perceived as an integral part of smart cultural management, it is appropriate to examine the dimensions of smart cultural management that broaden and highlight the importance of the smart construct in cultural management. Pauliukevičiūtė and Jucevičius (2017) highlight six dimensions of cultural management smartness: 1) strategic, 2) creative development, 3) agreed interests in the cultural sector, 4) empowered cultural sector parties, 5) harmony of intellectual and technological capital, 6) the culture of shared value creation.
The authors highlight the correlations between the dimensions of smartness in cultural management and those of the smart social system. Each dimension of smart culture management has certain qualities of a smart social system. According to Pauliukevičiūtė and Jucevičius (2017), a smart social system can be perceived as "able to find unique solutions important for its development, which would help to evaluate processes and tendencies in its external environment, to use internal and external resources in the best way to meet the needs of system stakeholders." The first dimension of intelligent cultural management highlighted by the authors is strategicity. This dimension is based on the three qua lities of a smart social system: insight, knowledge, learning. According to Pauliukevičiūtė and Juce vičius (2016), "Strategic expression occurs when atypical, successful processes or solutions that initiate and create longterm processes of change are seen in cultural management processes; it is not a continuous cyclic function of strategic analysis, strategy formulation and implementation by the state, but the exercise of this function as a result of a greater adaptation to and response to changes in the external environment, a strategic change in cultural management." The strategic dimension in cultural management is highlighted by authors as an ongoing process, involving all stages of strategy development, implementation that responds to the public's needs, and, of course, special attention to strategy flexibility, adaptability to everchanging external environment factors are inevitable and dynamic in perspective.
The second dimension of intelligent cultural management, which is highlighted by Pauliukevičiūtė and Jucevičius (2017), is creative development. They also distinguish between the three qualities of the social system that underlie the creativity dimension: dynamism, innovation, awareness. According to Baltrėnas, Baltrėnaitė and Kačerauskas (2015), the concept of creative development emphasizes the possibility of developing creativity. The joint approach of these three authors to the development of creativity confirms that creativity is, in a sense, a continuous path of development, which develops the ability to open up new opportunities for the development and improvement of activities. Vaičiūnienė and Mažeikienė (2014) state that "All ever formed groups of people or communities united by different interests originate from people's creations and creativity, sharing of information and knowledge, various physical forms of expression of feelings and emotions, verbal and symbolic works. Even the smallest innovations have always led to a change in social life." Based on the authors' view of the influence of creativity on the development of society, it can be argued that the creativity dimension is a very broadspectrum dimension with a significant impact on change. This change should be seen as an endeavor to constantly innovate, to introduce innovations that would contribute to the improvement of public welfare. This dimension is aptly summed up by Pauliukevičiūtė and Jucevičius's (2018) concept of creative development: "Creative development is a process which tolerates diversity, mediating successful relations between cultural sector actors, creating added cultural and social value in the sector itself." The third dimension of smart culture mana gement, highlighted by Pauliukevičiūtė and Jucevičius (2017), is the harmonization of interests in the cultural sector. These authors distinguish between these qualities of the social system, which are perceived as an integral part of this dimension: insight, coherence, networking. Bučinskas, Raipa and Pauliukevičiūtė (2010) argue that "reconciliation of interests is perceived as a multidimensional process that involves many challenges that are not always foreseeable ex ante." Within the cultural sphere of activity, there are quite a large number of representatives of different levels of institutions, individuals, whose interests differ from many perspectives. This dimension is crucial in that it encourages the reconciliation of the views and opinions of different interest groups in order to reach a common consensus, in order to create the possibility of working together to achieve common goals. Insightful balancing of interests is characterized by the ability to look ahead, anticipate potential problems, incompatibilities, react in a timely manner and resolve issues that may arise, in order to avoid the potential for consensusbuilding problems in the future.
The fourth dimension of smart culture management, highlighted by Pauliukevičiūtė and Jucevičius (2017), is the empowered cultural sector actors. This dimension of smart culture management is based on the following qualities of the social system: learning, networking, digitalization. This dimension brings to life another skill of smart culture management -to enable cultural institutions to systematically, successfully operate and continuously develop their activities in the future, thus seeking to become members of the network of smart cultural organizations. According to Pauliukevičiūtė and Jucevičius (2017), "If a system fails to continuously learn and increase its collective knowledge, its success can only be limited in time, and achieving quality of smartness can be difficult." With this approach to continuous learning of the organization, the authors only reaffirm the idea that the organization needs to continually improve in order to survive in market conditions under different external and internal environmental factors. The approach presented by the authors towards a learning organization highlights its advantage over other organizations that do not focus on continuous improvement or employee development. Summarizing the authors' views on the professionalization of cultural sector actors, it can be argued that the development of a smart cultural sector can only be achieved through excellence.
The fifth dimension of intelligent cultural management, highlighted by Pauliukevičiūtė and Jucevičius (2017), is the harmony of intellectual and technological capital. This dimension is based on the following three qualities of the social system: cohesiveness, digitalisation, knowledge. According to OʼBrien (2014), it can be stated that the successful application of cultural management in an organization is a prerequisite -special attention must be paid to the qualitative, goaloriented utilization of technological and intellectual capital. The coherence of these two capitals within an organization encompasses the organization's ability to purposefully combine intellectual capital, also known as knowledge, with technical capital. According to Pauliukevičiūtė and Jucevičius (2017), "The diversity of intellectual capital needs to be effectively linked, developed and utilized, and new and effective management and organizational principles and methods are needed to integrate and empower all types of physical and intellectual resources for quality of life." Analyzing the coherence of intellectual and technological capital, these authors actualize the application of new, effective managerial and organizational principles in order to realize the harmony of these components. It is important to emphasize that organizations need to go a long, consistent way to achieve a high level of development of the institution and be prepared to create an interaction between intellectual and technological capital in order to achieve consistency between the named components. The combination of intellectual and technological capital is used to achieve quality, which in the narrow sense includes the high performance of an institution, organization, and in a broad sense combines, as Pauliukevičiūtė and Jucevičius (2017) put it, "goals for quality of life." In the cultural sector, the combination of technological and intellectual capital is a rapidly evolving and promising area.
The sixth dimension of smart culture management, identified by Pauliukevičiūtė and Jucevičius (2016), is called the culture of shared value creation. This dimension is characterized by the following qualities of a smart social system: innovation, dynamism, sustainability. According to Bruneckienė (2014), generating value is perceived as "combining… competitiveness with urban development." Smart competitiveness in the field of intercultural institutions promotes institution building processes. It is important to emphasize that the dimension of generating value as an integral part of smart culture management is closely related to the dimensions of smart public governance and their qualities are presented in Figure 2.
The sixth dimension of smart culture management is the result of the operation of a governance system based on the model of smart public governance. According to Bruneckienė (2014), institutions are interested in improvement and development, "focus on the creation of common value and make as few incorrectly approved and implemented decisions as possible." The author pays particular attention to the consistent, systematic development of the organization and decreases the percentage of harmful decision making. According to Pauliukevičiūtė and Jucevičius (2017), the culture of shared value creation is "a fundamentally transformed concept of social responsibility." This approach presented by the authors implies that the culture of common value creation in the public sector is a form of institutions, nongovernmental organizations. One of the fundamental foundations of a smart culture is the responsibility to preserve and promote the national cultural heritage of the country (broadly understood as national identity). It is also important to emphasize that the phenomenon of generating value is a relatively new phenomenon in the public sector, but an increasingly widespread that can be found in cultural institutions based on the principles of smart culture management.

Method
Cultural management is a relatively new type of management that has been started to study not long ago by scientists. It is associated with public policy sciences, public management practice, and research in the field of culture. Cultural management is also associated with innovative and still evolving arts management. The emergence of cultural management as a form of management has been driven by the constant changes and challenges taking place in the field of culture, which are greatly influenced by the rapid processes of globalization. With the development of cultural management, the signs of intelligence become apparent after a certain period of time, the emergence of which is stimulated by the increasingly popular model of public administration and the transformation of cities into smart cities. Due to these reasons the qualitative analysis of theoretical scientific sources of foreign countries and Lithuania was performed. Also, a comparative analysis of different concepts was carried out, highlighting similarities and differences of concepts (in order to discern correlations between them). The analysis of scientific literature has highlighted similarities and differences between different scholarly approaches to smart cultural management.
According to Toleikiene (2018), the selection and analysis of scientific sources is "an analytical and systematic procedure, the essence of which is to reason, comprehend, evaluate and interpret what is written in documents, highlighting the essence of analyzed information, presenting it by topics, categories, cases, etc." Figure 2 summarizes the six dimensions of the smart culture management in question, combining them into a single system. Within each dimension, three essential qualities are highlighted that best describe the dimension and highlight the fundamental differences compared to the other dimensions. In addition, as the analysis of theoretical sources has shown, the qualities of the same name express different content in different dimensions, defining different aspects of the dimensions. The field of smart culture management is depicted in the diagram of Figure 2 as a whole, encompassing all branches of cultural management and their theoretical approaches.

Results and discussion
A variety of cultural management concepts is revealed, comparative analysis of concepts is performed, distinguishing similarities and differences. According to the analysis, the concepts of cultural management are divided into five groups according to their specifics: cultural management as a specific management in the field of art and culture; cultural management as a phenomenon and process reflecting the formation and implementation of cultural policy; cultural management as management of institutions; cultural management as a profession and academic discipline; cultural management as leadershipbased management. By correlating with each other, these groups of concepts form a unified whole of cultural field management. A variety of management concepts has enabled further search and refinement of the dimensions of smart cultural management. A theoretical model of smart cultural management has been developed, which consists of six essential dimensions: strategic, creative development, balanced of interests in the cultural sector, empowered cultural sector parties, the harmony of intellectual and technological capital, the culture of shared value creation and 8 different smart social system's qualities: knowledge, digitization, coherence, insight, learning, dynamism, innovation, and networking. Each of the dimensions is assigned three qualities of the smart social system. The qualities of the intelligent social system are repeated in different dimensions, but in each dimension they acquire different meanings specific to a particular dimension.
Differences and peculiarities of cultural management concepts enabled us to distinguish 5 essential dimensions. Each of the singled out dimensions acquires its own meanings, reflecting different specificity of cultural management. Each of the analyzed specifics (dimensions) of cultural management is closely correlated with other dimensions. All these dimensions work in complementarity, thus ensuring the systematic and successful management of the cultural field. If at least one of the dimensions loses its harmonious and sustainable functioning, the overall management of culture becomes problematic, gaps arise, if deficiencies are not remedied quickly, they become entrenched problems in the cultural sector. The dimensions singled out in the model of smart cultural management cover all management functions. The qualities of the smart social system, which are an integral part of the smart community, become an integral part of these dimensions in the smart social system. Each of the 8 qualities of the smart social system acquires an increasingly different meaning, expressing the importance of the introduction and improvement of digital technologies, the importance of lifelong learning for improvement. These qualities also reflect the importance of harmonious, networked interaction in the field of culture. The qualities of insight and dynamism, which are inseparable in the rapidly changing processes of change, occupy a very important place in the quality system of the smart social system.
According to the author, cultural management has come a long way in development and improvement. These aspects of development can be easily seen in Table 1. There is a lack of a coherent and systematic approach to some links in cultural governance. There is a lack of human resources in the field of culture, which has a negative impact on the development and popularization of culture in Lithuania. After Lithuania regained its independence, the chosen Scandinavian type of cultural management model significantly improved the situation of cultural management, when a significant part of the services provided by the state cultural sector was shared with the private cultural sector. This ensures the availability of a higher level of cultural services and a wider diversity for the population.

Conclusion
The cultural management construct is formulated by combining cultural and management concepts, closely linking cultural management with the implementation of cultural policy and seeing the specifics of cultural management. Given the complexity of the cultural sector and the new requirements for cultural management, the application of the concept of smartness in management solutions opens up many new opportunities.
Cultural management concepts have a wide variety. Each of these concepts adds some new aspects to the concept in the field of cultural management. Five fundamental groups of cultural management concepts can be distinguished: cultural management as specific management in the field of art and culture; cultural management as a phenomenon, process reflecting the formation and implementation of cultural policy; cultural management as an institution management; cultural management as a profession and academic discipline; cultural management as leadershipbased management.
Theoretical analysis of the phenomenon of smartness in cultural management according to Pauliukevičiūtė and Jucevičius's (2017) theoretical model allowed us to distinguish six dimensions of smartness: strategic, creative development, common interests in the cultural sector, empowered cultural sector parties, the harmony of intellectual and technological capital, and culture of shared value creation. Each of the six dimensions is a new scientific concept, but all dimensions are interrelated, complementary, and highlight the correlations of the intelligent dimensions of cultural governance with the qualities of the intelligent social system. Each dimension of smart culture management is assigned three qualities of a smart social system.