In the past artists were supported and directed by patrons. Today it is clients and arts boards that dictate an artist’s output. During the Renaissance, pupils were taught by masters to whom they were apprenticed; now students learn by taking a selection of the myriad vocational courses run by thousands of institutions worldwide.
And as we dive into the deep blue sea of the 21st century, talk of the arts is being replaced with discussion about the creative industries. Pivotal to this discussion are initiatives like Creative Clusters – the new UK-based programme for “people working in the creative economy.”
Creative Clusters sets up conferences and events designed to connect those working in the creative industries. For those unfamiliar with UK Prime Minister Tony Blair’s drive towards formally recognising the creativity economy or Richard Florida’s books about the creative class, ‘creative industries’ is a catchall that refers to categories of work that produce ‘cultural products’ whilst successfully aiming to be profitable. The profitability of the creative industries is central to understanding the concept.
Critics of this controversial movement argue that there is no doubt that cities with tolerance and affordable housing in mind would be of benefit to residents, and this is the case whether they are part of the creative industries or not. However, the attention paid to the likes of Florida seems flattering given the inappropriate emphasis placed on the significance of the creative economy. Is there no room for industries that are creative but which are not profitable they ask. Will they have no place at the Creative Clusters table unless they can get their act together?
In a 2005 creativeclass.org interview, Florida states that the richest people in England are: “Paul McCartney, Elton John, and Mick Jagger.” However this declaration has found to not be true.
The suggestion that the new creative industries jargon could in fact be a dumbing down of artistic principles and the death of the notion of art for art’s sake (in the future the only viable art will be profitable art), has been heatedly debated. And yet the drive to provide more vocational university education and the merging of creative industries with other industries still looks to raise revenue as it provides students with better life chances.
In the end it seems that what governments, universities and businesses have all realised is that creativity can help sales. Harnessing these creative minds could secure a future of growth and increased shareholder dividends. The danger may lie however in the ability of these Creative Clusters to not necessarily hook up the next Picasso or Henry Moore with a patron, but more in their efforts to find the next great advertising creative. And then of course, the danger then lies in the harnessing of this creative power purely for profit.
In the wake of the Cultural Revolution in China, artists were confined to working for the state or face imprisonment. In western economies, will these Creative Clusters compartmentalise artists into those who contribute their skills to designing and selling products at market, or those who follow a more traditional path?
Indeed it could be argued that this battle between the corporate workplace and the creative community has been a long time coming.
