Yesterday I uploaded two posts explaining the difference between the terms “creative economy” and the “art economy”. Understanding the difference between the two is important because we are talking about the way we view and measure a growing portion of the US economy. The sooner those of us that work and promote the creative economy come to an agreement on standardized definitions and ways of measuring this expanding sector the easier it will be to recruit young creatives and entrepreneurs into the movement.
I was admittedly growing frustrated in my search for a standardized definition of the creative economy in the US. I wondered how could it be that Europe and Asia were so far ahead of the US in the domain? Well one its due to our federal system. A lot of the best work is happening at the state level not at the national level. Every state is burrowing away with their own definition. Which second means researchers like me have to scan hundreds of websites to find and understand the strategies of states as opposed to digging through one or half a dozen federal websites.
This morning, by chance, a friend found a state creative economy report that addresses the issues I’ve discussed the past couple of days. Funnily enough the report is on CreativeEconomy.org! It’s hard to express the joy I had while reading this report. The Creative Economy: A New Definition , which was release by the New England Foundation for the Arts, makes a clear and concise case for redefining the creative sector in the US.
I have not yet read the full report but I did scan the document for the charts and tables delineating the creative sectors to be redefined. Happily I found the discussion in Part II of the report. The author’s equivalent to the European “creative industries” is referred to as a “cultural workforce.” They define this as “work that directly produces cultural goods, regardless of industry; or, work within an industry that makes cultural goods and/or services, regardless of actual work task.“ This workforce includes “occupations and industries that focus on the production and distribution of cultural goods, services and intellectual property.”
Yes! Now we are talking. Now we are looking at a broader definition of the creative sector that is more inclusive than just those “industries that create and distribute art.” The authors of the New England report refer to this cross section as “artistic occupations” and they also make the same point that I made yesterday. These occupations do belong to the cultural workforce but the cultural workforce is larger than just artistic occupations.
The top ten cultural workforce occupations in New England are designers, librarians, visual artists, architects, writers, editors, library assistants, advertising sales agents, musicians and PR specialists. The top ten artistic occupations in New England are architects, designers, visual artists, photographers, writers, actors, producers, dancers, musicians, announcers, entertainers and all artistic. Artistic occupations are an important subset of the cultural workforce but the creative economy depends on a much larger group of workers than just those working in the arts. I think its time other states start to follow the lead of the New England Foundation for the Arts.
Now that I’ve found this report and feel comfortable that good work is being done on reasonably defining the creative economy in the US, I can move onto something else. Like trying to get states and economists to agree on this defnition…
I think it’s worth adding to these definitions that just because a product may be labelled “art,” that it isn’t necessarily “creative!” Of course this brings up the issue of what is “art” which I think should be defined very broadly–but it’s worth pointing out that most people have a very personal definition of what they “like,” when it comes to visual art. Even some visual artists operate from this perspective. We need more public art projects that engage citizens in public dialogue about what is “art” in specific communities! We need to argue for a definition of art that is about process and not only product!
Isn’t it wonderful that we have organizations like The New England Foundation for the Arts that publish templates against which we can measure creativity? – and if necessary adapt and conform so that we can qualify as “creative’ and innovative. Maybe the government arts programs can offer “creativity certification- and charge a big fee for granting it to help fund the arts bureocracy that is “the creative economy”.
While you were reading the doctrines put out by The New England Foundations for the Arts, did you happen to read their user terms of agreement? A Must To Avoid since it claims unlimited rights for all time to whatever is published on “culture count”- also says the user must agree to never sue NEFA for anything what so ever, and then goes on to praise itself for it’s “good Samaritan Policy” protecting the users copy rights against “third parties (not NEFA-which would be contradictory because NEFA has already required the user to hand over their rights to NEFA). The Good Samaritan Policy only applies if NEFA happens to feel like protecting the users rights- otherwise, it’s your problem, but NEFA seems to think that throwing us a tidbit like this is extraordinary generosity on their part.
All of the taxpayer funded arts programs in New England are partners with NEFA. The Maine Arts Commission primarily serves tax-exempt organizations but the taxpayers get the privilege of funding the Maine Arts Commission.
I think government does not belong in the arts and that the self-proclaimed “creative economy” is both elitist and exploitive. I think that an excellent way to reduce the deficit would be to get rid of this program.