Prospect Magazine: Every time you watch a television advert, go to a museum, play a computer game, or swipe right on a potential suitor, you’re indulging in the outputs of the so-called “creative industries.” Unless you can remember the time when a “smart” phone was one that simply had a snazzy cover, you would have grown up during the birth of the creative industries.
5 comments:
I find it fascinating seeing this article right after reading an article, not on the blog about how the new generation of American labor is fighting to see a change in the work-life balance/structure of how work is done. Though this article isn’t about work-life balance, it is about sectorization, which seemed to be an idea to help people with a work-life balance. This article is quite timely. It was interesting reading about how the United Kingdom's creative industries are reacting to the world today and thinking about it compared to America. The idea of unifying the creative industries into one that I don’t know if I could see happening in America. We barely can get half the states to not be right to work states so I don’t think this unification would go down well. I would think that unifying in the UK would have the opposite effects - seemingly allowing for collective bargaining and such group efforts, so it is a little disheartening reading this article. It is also interesting seeing how our even though, she is across the pond, Britain is having the same problem as America that wealthy corporations aren't giving the taxes the necessarily should be charged.
This article points out a trend that I have noticed developing in the creative industry but did not really have the words to describe. The 1997 'birth' of the creative industry is a really interesting concept. Creatives have been around as long as humanity, and people have made money off creativity for about as long a time. The idea that creativity was not an industry or a revenue stream is absurd! Further, the idea that all creatives, from advertising executives to ceramic potters and everyone in between, all belong to a single industry a equally absurd, but I can buy the idea insofar as bankers and politicians have a pretty solid track record for misunderstanding the arts and how they influence society. As the author writes, "the collectivisation of these industries into a “sector” has done virtually nothing to increase collective bargaining power for workers, or done justice to their ethical beliefs." It stands to reason that an industry 'created' by people who tend not to understand the arts also fails to serve the people it is named after.
It is strange to read about something that I am feeling the pressure of as a student entering the artistic community, but this article really does a great job of putting into words a lot of the mentalities that I have been struggling to get past since I started with theater. Something I noticed in my college search was that after seeing a few colleges I started thinking more about my career and how easily I would be able to find a solid career with a degree from different institutions rather than what the creative environment or process were like. It is really unhealthy for artists to be functioning in this kind of environment and I think it probably reduces the quality of the work because there is so much pressure to tread the line between taste and innovation. The issue is that even though our society has come a long way in its appreciation of the arts from outside the industry, it is not valued enough for large amounts of money to be given to artists to use freely.
I found this article very informative because previously I hadn’t really known much about the UK and their organization of their artistic fields. It certainly seems as though some things are off in their current system which makes people believe that it is damaging the artistic integrity of the work they are doing. In some ways it is positive that the arts sector is so highly valued but I think they are seeing some results of making the system too commercialized. I think that figuring out a balance in creating a high value for art in society is a difficult thing to accomplish. Art itself has some unqualifiable aspects to it which is responsible for making it the inspirational and important thing it is but unfortunately trying to transfer that to a commercial setting is not something that goes without error. In the equation it feels as if one side is always going to be unhappy with the outcome and it is horrible for anyone to feel as if their art is being de-valued in some way. It also seems here that some of the larger benefits of commercialization like unions are being reaped due to the method of all encompassing title that has been imposed upon the industry. With that being said it looks as if parts of the industry are fighting back and I am hopeful this will continue to benefit them and help to find a balance between art and industry.
It is interesting to view creative industries as something that have only really existed for the past 20 years, but it clarifies to me the reasoning behind the creation of a lot of laws to help protect people’s artistic integrity and creations. I know that the set up is a little different from the United Kingdom to the United States, so it is interesting to see the differences in that structure, but there is still a relation between both industries because they have such an impact on the climate of the world around us. It is important to think about style and scope when being a creative, but it is equally important to create the work that you feel connected to and most passionate about. We so often devalue creative work in society because it is around us in everything we do, but that is also why we need to change the view on creativity so it can be seen as the powerhouse that it truly is.
Post a Comment