It's the (Creative) Economy, Stupid
Frederika Whitehead reports from a debate on the government's new strategy document Creative Britain: New Talents for a New Economy
'I get it now. I get it now. I understand it. I didn't understand for all those years.' This was Estelle Morris speaking in a debate on the future of the creative industries following the publication of the DCMS's new strategy document for the creative industries. She was re-enacting the Damascene moment of her own conversion to the side of the creative industries. She also described the 'awakening' effect of her time at the DCMS, a time in which she met people she had 'never naturally mixed with before', people who were 'rebels' and 'outsiders', people who 'take risks', 'push the boundaries' and 'make us think unacceptable things that 10-20 years later might become mainstream, but you know, they push us a bit too far and too many of them waste money on things that never actually come to anything'. Morris believes that her awakening mirrors that of the party as a whole: 'I think it is a moment of huge change. It is a moment of realisation that there is something out there worth supporting.' She sympathised briefly with the frustrations of all those in the creative industries who might think that New Labour was a bit 'late to the party' and pleaded with them to 'treasure' this 'moment' for what it is. 'The case I want to make to you is that the very fact that we have a government now that values the creative industries and says so, and produces a green paper, and puts £70.1m into the sector, says something different than has ever been said before.' The money will pay for 5,000 apprenticeships within the sector and the new World Creative Business Conference 'which we hope will become the Davos for the creative industries'.
The reason for the party's conversion - according to Morris - 'really is quite simple. It is the expansion. It is the sheer numbers of people who now work in that sector: jobs, employment, income for families. That is something that is unanswerable. The amount of money that the creative industries now bring to the GDP, £60bn a year - 7.3% of our total wealth - and the sector has been doubling in relationship to any other sector, growing at twice the rate of any other sector. Politicians understand that language.'
She reminded the audience of Harold Wilson's speeches about the white heat of technology, cited the industrial revolution, the IT revolution, the digital revolution and globalisation before finally proclaiming this the era of 'the Creative Revolution'. Twenty-first century revolutions last ten years, apparently, which is slightly worrying given that we are already five years into this one.
Morris went on to argue that there was something else that attracted New Labour to back the 'Creative Revolution'. That something was the recognition that the creative industries may be able to teach the public sector something about risk-taking and innovation. This was 'the switching on of the light in the darkness for government ... Government has spent a decade trying to get people to take risks, trying to get the public sector to innovate and to change. It finds it incredibly difficult. It looks to the creative sector and it is all happening. They take risks, they are not nervous about it, and if it doesn't work they start again, they innovate.'
Morris ended her speech with three questions for the panel. 'Will the structure in the paper - with all its committees - actually damage creativity? Will the accountability mechanisms jeopardise risk-taking? That's what you hear in the public sector, that people won't take risks because of the accountability mechanisms. And, will mainstreaming discourage some people from wanting to work in the sector?'
The panellists then spoke in turn before opening up to the floor. First up was Tom Campbell, from the London Development Agency. 'Given my situation at the LDA it is actually slightly easier for me to look back with confidence rather than look ahead.' Campbell went on to argue that we would soon come to look back on the past 8-10 years as 'a golden age' in terms of support for the creative industries.
Ian Livingstone from Eidos, the video gaming company, was largely critical of the paper, arguing that it did not do nearly enough to help the gaming industry which is after all worth almost one-third of the creative industries' total economic contribution per annum. There are 13 subsectors in the creative industries, together they contribute £60bn to GDP, but the gaming industry alone contributes £18bn per annum. He did not think the government was doing enough to assist the gaming industry to combat its negative image in the press; or that it was offering enough incentives for businesses to locate to or stay in the UK in comparison with the handouts offered by foreign governments. He alluded to gross cynicism on the part of some educational establishments, stating that out of the 84 courses in the UK that claimed to train students for the games industry only four are fit for purpose, and the remaining 80 are too general to be of use.
The contribution from Terry Illiot, director of the Film Business Academy at Cass Business School, was brief and to the point. He asserted that life in the creative industries was a 'lot, lot better now' than it was when he went to art school in 1968, but criticised the document saying that it lacked theoretical underpinning. Without an underlying theory of creativity on which to ground itself, he warned, the many ideas and schemes in the paper would founder, and the industry would suffer many unintended consequences as a result.
Suzanna Taverne, a consultant specialising in strategic development and organisational change, questioned the whole concept of the creative industries, citing their breadth and disparity as evidence that poor thinking had led to arbitrary distinctions. Instead of the 13 subset model that the government is currently using, she suggested that would be better to think of them as three distinct groups. And that these three groups needed to be understood for their differences rather than their similarities.
Her three groups are: big businesses, craft businesses and the subsidised arts. The big businesses - broadcasting, publishing, software design - create the overwhelming bulk of the much bandied about £60bn GDP contribution. They have a lot in common with other big businesses and should be treated as such. Craft businesses - architecture, design houses, high fashion - are businesses that by their nature will not grow very big, and because of this, she argued, the 5,000 apprenticeships that make up a crucial part of the document's offerings and will absorb a large chunk of the £70.1m spend were irrelevant to these industries.
Colin Tweedy, head of Arts & Business, asked the panel if they thought that arts organisations should be encouraged to morph into creative industries or run creative industry divisions - he cited the example of the Royal Opera House owning a DVD company. He himself saw this as a real opportunity for lessening Arts Council dependency and wondered if the panel agreed. Morris was in favour of the suggestion: she said that in order to allow more people to come into Arts Council funding, there have to be exit strategies from funding, and that this in turn would free up more money to fund small organisations. Taverne thought that arts organisations should be encouraged to diversify their interests but that this would never be an exit strategy from funding and the Arts Council should watch out in case it became state subsidy for loss-making commercial ventures.
Overall the response to the strategy document has been lukewarm. Illiot's point about the lack of a theoretical underpinning was spot on. The word that best describes the document is 'patchy': it has some very good ideas; many people praised the sections on improving art education in schools; the world conference idea has potential; but it's a crying shame that the government doesn't really seem to appreciate the value of higher education.
Debate on the Future of the Creative Industries was held at London College of Communication on June 2. 'Creative Britain: New Talents for a New Economy' can be downloaded from the DCMS website.
This report was originally published in July/August 2008/ Issue 318, p47.
Go back to the debate about art education
