Graham Hitchen
January 2011
When the term ‘creative industries’ was coined at the end of the 1990s, it provided the opportunity to argue the economic case for a wide range of diverse-but-connected sectors.
But, with the change of administration the transformations in traditional sectoral boundaries and business models accelerated by technological change, it seems simplistic to keep using the term.
Despite recent calls for greater links between the Arts Council and the Technology Strategy Board (and notwithstanding the case which should be made for greater links between the arts and technology, pace Ed Vaizey’s recent speech on this theme) do we risk undermining the case for some parts of the creative industries by bundling them all together?
Although the definition which puts a focus on intellectual property or, as Will Hutton tends to put it, ‘acts of creative origination’, still stands, it could be considered unsuitable to bundle the various sub-sectors together into this overarching term, for instance linking the art and antiques market with content development for digital software.
A recent intervention in this space has been made by Justin O’Connor – who has recently moved to Queensland University of Technology, following his seminal work on the cultural economy at the Manchester Institute of Popular Culture in the North West. His essay ‘Arts and Creative Industries’ disaggregates what we have called the Creative Industries into Art, Media and Design – re-affirming a space for the cultural role of the arts, emphasising the economic value and technology-driven growth of ‘media’, and highlighting the importance of design as a cross-disciplinary process.
Whether or not one agrees with O’Connor’s definitions, understanding the different components of the ‘creative industries’ can help to demonstrate their value in a number of terrains – whether it is expounding the cultural value of the arts, or championing the role of digital media in driving growth across a number of other sectors.
And conversely, as is evidenced here, disaggregating the ‘creative’ sub-sectors will enable us to better understand the inter-disciplinary dimension of many of these sectors.
Take three inter-linked sub-sectors of digital animation, video games, and electronic publishing: these do have links and could and should be articulated as a coherent set of sub-sectors. These are highly innovative sectors which, in their own right, make an important contribution to innovation in the UK. They also have a significant impact on innovation across a range of other sectors – from ICT, to transport, to energy and health. We need to focus in on and exploit these synergies and opportunities.
The recent NESTA report on Creative Clusters emphasises this point, highlighting both the level of innovation within these sub-sectors, and the spill-over impact they have, fostering co-location with other sectors – in particular IT-related sectors and various knowledge-intensive business services – and helping to drive innovation in those sectors.
None of this need detract from our understanding of the interconnections between the arts and digital media. But, in the context of current debates regarding technology, innovation and growth, we need to be more nuanced in our approach.
Graham Hitchen runs the strategic business consultancy Directional Thinking and is a Research Fellow at The Smith Institute. He is a former Director of the London Development Agency’s Creative London
directionalthinking.net
