The creative sector and class of society

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

THE CREATIVE SECTOR AND CLASS OF SOCIETY

T. Kacerauskas

Creative sector consists of such areas as advertising, architecture, art, crafts, design, fashion, films, music, publishing, software, toys, television etc. The creative areas are described and grouped in different lists suggested both by government and by scholars. The workers in creative sector formate the creative class although the latter is a broader concept. Creative class covers economic and creative aspects. Here, we face the problems of definition and of demarcation. Scholars (R. Florida) identify the following features of the creative class: individuality, meritocracy, diversity and openness. Creative class can be defined only by comparing it with a less creative class but is is hardly possible in the context of creative society.

Keywords: creative sector, creative class, creative society, creative workers, creative environment, governmental list of CS, creative activity, creative lifestyle.

creative student education art

Introduction

Creativity concepts are ambivalent [1]. We have also a variety of creative sector lists defined by both scientists and governments. As regards creative sector theorists, Howkins is one of the few scholars who explicitly presents this list: in his book Creative Economy, he consistently examines various areas of the creative sector. The creative sector is also being studied by other scientists from the creative class [2], creative city [3-5], art [7, 8], economic relations [9-12], innovative economy [13], regional studies [14, 15], tourism studies [16], political economy [17], gender studies [18], pedagogy [19-23], media [24, 25], sport [26] and other perspectives. Below is a list of the creative sector of the UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport, which we will compare with the creative sector list presented by John Howkin [27].

Karl Marx [28], who opposed different classes, raised workers class greater or lesser creative role in society. For example, the class of workers is destined to recreate the social environment in a revolutionary way. Marx reflected the industrial society with all its contradictions and clashes. The post-industrial society, often called as the creative society, is no less contradictory, and the larger or smaller creative aspirations were held by all influential historical classes and creatures.

The main theorist of creative class is R. Florida [2]. Scholars develop this concept by appealing to economic growth [29], political studies [30], regional studies [31] etc.

Creative sector government list

What does the creative sector's list formed by the government mean? What does it mean that some countries have such lists and others do not? The mere presence of a list in the government shows some focus on the creative sector: in these countries they are not only supported but recognized as having an important role in the national economy. On the other hand, the list of the government shows some bureaucratic tricks: any classifier is already a sort of division into areas that are very difficult to overcome - it is the contr-creative principle. In the reality, the creative areas are not cut off from each other, moreover they remain creative in communicating with each other. In addition, the entire creative sector is a lively, bustling region where new areas are born and old ones die. The officially established list of the creative sector does not allow to pick up new areas that are not recorded in it and, conversely, unreasonably reanimates already dead areas. In addition, the interflowing of several areas raises the problem of how one or the other creative phenomenon belongs to them. Since the government list is followed by the money that finances one or another area of the creative sector, the existence of such a list has both advantages and disadvantages.

First we look at the list of the creative sector in the UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport [32]. This and other lists are shown in Table.

If we compare this list with previous one formed some years ago (see [33] in Table) we see the tendency to join the areas of creative sector.

All of these areas have their own sources of funding. Some of them have funding mechanisms in the state budget in order to be developed. In other words, they have a certain place in national cultural policy that varies from country to country. Because they form a single sector supervised by the same department (at least in UK), which redistributes part of the state budget, they are fighting each other, both in terms of focus and funding. Therefore, they can also be called competing areas.

Creative sector according to UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport [32, 33], and Howkins [27]

List of Howkins' creative sector

When we move to another (Howkins') list of creative sector, we see some adjustments. As shown in Table, Howkins examined each of these areas separately and thus presented his list, which is not the same as the DCMS list.

In addition, there are lists of other researchers [2, 9] that can be reconstructed from their field of research. Areas such as advertising, architecture, crafts, design, fashion, publishing, partly television and radio have their own subdivisions and coincide with the list of DCMS. Some areas are divided by Howkins, and some are connected, such as television and radio, into one area. Some areas of the creative sector are distinguished by focusing on the dynamics and high economic growth and potential of these areas. This is typical of computer games that the author examines as a completely separate and very fast growing area of the creative sector. In addition, as a separate area, the author identifies toys and games that are not directly related to rapidly developing technologies, especially digital media.

Computer games are extremely dynamic. They develop rapidly to conquer an increasingly large market and a wider audience (not just of children). Therefore, it is one of the fastest growing areas of the creative sector. Electronic publishing attributed to publishing also occupies an increasing place, but it takes away the place of traditional publishing. Traditional publishing has a strong position, although it loses 1-2% a year to electronic publishing. These two types of publishing often complement and duplicate each other while books and magazines usually have both traditional and electronic versions.

Howkins quite rightly distinguishes music, art and performing arts from other arts, because they are very different areas. There is no reason to think that performing arts are obsolete and that the theater is a “dying” area of the creative sector. Broadway's performing arts (musicals) generate no less money than Hollywood. In addition, performing arts have a reputation for “live music” and a “live action”, so appealing to an exclusive (hence, richer) audience. Similarly, considerable financial resources, including government grants, are generated by classical opera productions.

Howkins distinguishes a separate area of scientific researches and technology. On the one hand, the question arises of how creative scientific researches and technologies are, if we attribute them to the creative sector? On the other hand, the question arises as to how much scientific researches and technologies are economically reasoned and what part of the economy they generate?

Creating and developing new technologies is definitely a creative activity. In addition, technologies contribute to the development of other areas of the creative sector, such as computer games or software. The latter are inseparable from the development of information and digital technologies.

As a completely separate creative sector area, Howkins also mentions software. Software developers have created tremendous added value. Emerging technologies have created certain social order, appreciated the new software products that are being developed, and the developers of the latest technologies offer not only the latest product but also a new lifestyle for consumers. This has fundamentally changed the social priorities of society.

Films in the DCMS list are grouped together with video production and photography (later also with radio), while the latter is not on the Howkins' list. Film is a special area of the creative sector. It is very cumulative, encompassing many different areas: music, fashion, acting (performing arts), writing, directing. The success of all these aspects can guarantee the success of the film. The films are special in that it is a collective creation. Successful work in the film area can create many jobs, but film production is inseparable from distribution and from the market.

In short, the presence of creative sector's list in the government shows some focus on the creative sector since they are supported and recognized as having an important role in the national economy. Since the government list is followed by the money that finances one or another area of the creative sector, the existence of such a list has both advantages and disadvantages. We see the tendency to join the areas of creative sector. Beside government list, there are also lists of researchers who analyse the tendencies in creative sector and theorize creative class.

Creative class: Problems and definition difficulties

It seems that the workers in creative sector form the creative class. On the one hand, this discourse continues the Marxistic discourse of antagonistic or at least competitive social classes. On the other, the concept of creative society presupposes very different - post-industrial and neoliberal - approach that there is no more class as power holder in contemporary society.

According to Florida [2], creative class is the people who produce economic values through their creative activities. In other words, it is people creativity of which contribute to economic prosperity, to society and to the economic growth of the state. Thus, their creativity is twofold: on the one hand, their activity is creative, on the other, they create a certain national product, so they participate in economic life. Thus, according to this definition, creative class representatives create a twofold value - creative (in the narrow sense - artistic) and economic (in the narrow sense - purse).

The question is how the people who create but do not contribute to economic development are to be treated. Suppose a writer, for some reason (self-critical approach or failure to persuade publishers), does not publish his stories and novels, and after his death he (she) asks to burn them (the case of Franz Kafka). Another example is Vincent van Gogh, who had not sold any of his paintings being alive (except one for his brother). According to the above definition, these people do not belong to the creative class without being involved in economic life. Here we are approaching one of the problems in the context of the Florida issues - how to define the creative class?

Another problematic issue with this name is creative activity. What is creative activity? When it comes to creative activities, first and foremost, we mean those people who, according to the definition of Florida, would not get into the creative class. These are writers and painters. If they do not create any economic product and do not participate in the economic life of the state, then they are in no way a creative class. For example, they do not sell their creative product, which could be exchanged for other products with economic value, such as bicycle or bread. However, they can contribute to economic activity indirectly or after a certain period of time.

So the creative class name has two important things: economic and creative aspects. According to Florida, if at least one piece is missing, creative class criteria are not met.

We can discuss about the creative class only if we separate some other less creative or non-creative classes from it. Thus, we can speak about creative class by defining other classes of society, such as the service class, the working class and the rural class, as Florida defines them. There are other issues relevant in the context of our subject matter. On what basis do we deny the right of these classes to creativity inseparable from human activity in general? What is the role of identification with the creative class in defining the creative worker? Whether also non- creative individuals can prosper in creative environment? Whether less creative (non-creative) classes can only be defined only in a negative way (as a lack of creativity)?

Features of the creative class

Florida [2] identifies the following features of the creative class: individuality, meritocracy, diversity and openness. Individuality means that the creative class consists of individuals whose creative activity is individual. There is not only the idea that creativity needs loneliness and exclusion: every creative worker sees the world in its own way. There is also the idea that any work is unique and original. True, it should not be too original, because it will be misunderstood - originality is earned in the society step by step. However, in terms of creative sector, i.e. of those creative activities that have the greatest economic potential we face rather mass-product of creativity and collective creativity (for example, film). How to combine individuality and this collectivism?

The question is, what does unite the creative class. Florida [2] admits that many creators do not understand they belong to a creative class. For example, bankers, financiers, and surgeons assigned by Florida to the creative class are a weak link in this regard. They are not conscious enough to be identified with the creative class without understanding that they have a sense of belonging. However, they are somehow involved in forming creative capital that is purportedly contrary to social capital. However, here, in terms of the unity of the creative class, it is not so much a creative as a social capital that is supposed to be a sense of commonality supported by certain institutions, rather than of difference and individuality. Self assignment to the creative class is a part of the creative worker's identity, as self attribution to one or another nation or religion.

The creative class is characterized by both cultural integrity and cultural diversity. On the one hand, they are educated at the universities, as a result, they are people with a wide range of interests and pursuits. On the other, they are specialized professionals who hardly find a common language. Although the idea of specialization is raised in antiquity, it is essentially a heritage of an industrial society dictated by the factory conveyor principle, which is inseparable from the knowledge dosing in the factory: by knowing only a narrow area, the employee will not only work more efficiently, and thus create more added value for the employer. As a result, he (she) is easier to replace with another easy-to-train worker.

Florida [Ibid.] formulates creative class goals as follows: 1) Attracting investment to creative activities that stimulate economic growth; 2) Overcoming class divisions; 3) Expanding new social relationships in the face of growing diversity and social fragmentation.

Comparing the creative class with other classes mentioned by Florida [Ibid.], such as the class of workers, service, and rural people, we see that the latters do not have such ambitious goals as a creative class that seeks to unite society through creative communication. On the one hand, the creative class is different, separate from the other classes, and on the other, it is like a mediator of society that connects different classes and ensures smooth links between different classes. According to Florida, communities and regions must constantly develop creativity. When asked why they need to do this, the answer is simple: it is effective in economic terms. During the economic crisis, the creative sector is experiencing a somewhat greater decline, although it provides a slightly higher economic growth under conditions of economic growth.

Creative class structure

Florida compares the creative class to other groups in society: service, work and rural classes. As far as the first is active, the latter are reactive, as the first is proactive and the latter are passive, as the first is innovative, the latter are traditional, as the first radical and the latter are conservative. The creative class closest to its goals, the nature of the work and the way of life - the service class, the furthest - the rural class. Therefore, the contradiction of the creative class to purify its identity is best done with the rural class, and the separation from the service class is the most problematic.

Speaking of the creative class, Florida mentions two concentric circles: a super active core and the creative professionals. Broadly speaking about creative activity and creative class, he distinguishes more and less creative people. In a sense, the latter serve the first and mediate in front of other classes. On the one hand, these mediators conclude an economic contract with the creative workers, in exchange for their creative production, to be placed on the free market, offering more or less stable remuneration and at least minimal social guarantees. Their task is communication and management: to present the creative worker as widely as possible and to sell his work more expensive. On the other hand, because of the principle “nobody knows” [9] characteristic to super-active core, the mediators take part in the risk of failing to sell creative production. In order to protect himself from unnecessary risk, the creative worker must be evaluated as much as possible: the more expensive the work, the greater the amount of money left to the manager, although the agreed percentage of remuneration does not change. Finally, this manager and communicator protects the rest of society from the rebellion of the creative worker, explaining the artist's excesses to the public as the price of his creativity, and the public's miserliness as being not ready to meet a new genius.

Super-active core is the most creative group with biggest role in the creative class: IT specialists and mathematicians; architects and engineers; scientists of natural and social sciences; artists, designers, entertainment and sports organizers; teachers and librarians. This list is both too wide and too narrow. The list is too broad, because super-active creative workers include engineers, mathematicians, scientists, entertainment and sport organizers, educators and librarians who are not considered as creative workers (artists) in the narrow sense. True, all of them are influential members of society changing their face, i. e. making it more or less creative.

Here, we see a prallel between this list and the lists of creative sector. However, the suggested by Florida list of creative workers is too narrow. Firstly, it does not include the scientists of humanities: their work is not only as creative as of social scientists, but they are always at the forefront of social change (social engineering). Secondly, there are also no representatives of technological sciences, although they initiate new public technologies that are inseparable from media development. Thirdly, there are no workers of museums and galleries here, although they, like librarians, not only protect the values of art, but also form the taste of creative class. Fourth, there are no interpreters, although they present (communicate) creative ideas, developed in other languages and in other cultures. Fifth, there are no publishers, although they organize more significant things than entertainment and sports. This list of “disappeared” creative workers could be continued by appealing to the list of creative sector (see Table).

As mentioned, creative professionals are creative workers around the super active core in several meanings. On the one hand, they are the professionals who serve the creative workers. Their professionalism is associated with their role: the creative product with an economic value has been spread by the specialists of management and business, its creation and distribution need financial support, the health of exhausted creative workers is restored by doctors assisted by technical medical personnel, and copyrights are protected by lawyers. However, these professionals also have their own creative potential: one can talk about creative aspects in both management (market must be created), financial sector (creative solutions for investment), medicine (creative solutions using new methods of treatment) and law (creative legislation). In addition, one can talk about their active role in shaping the creative class, although it is smaller than the role of the super active core. Creative professionals are also the most abundant consumers of the super-active core's creative product. It is its clientele, not only by forming a diverse group of cinema, theater, gallery visitors, but also by speading its ideas.

So the creative class is very varied and has many different fields. Therefore, in order to distinguish (identify) it, we have to compare with other classes, of which the closest neighbor is a service class, with which the creative class competes not only by its size but also by its influence on society. However, in the post-industrial society, the creative class is not equal to the size of the service class, although we have seen that the latter, by serving the creative workers, is attributable to the creative professionals. As mentioned above, Florida considers the service class to be lower in terms of incomes, prestige, and impact on society.

By attributing managers, lawyers, doctors, businessmen and financiers to the service class, this would greatly enlarge and the creative class would decline. Although the size of the class does not directly influence its impact on society, the statement about the great impact of the creative class not only on government decisions, but also on the society as a whole, becomes questionable.

Conclusions

The creative sector plays an important role both in the development of culture and in the development of the national economy. Its lists show the attention of the state or the scholars to developing the economy and culture in general. Comparison of different lists shows not only the condition of creative sector after culture interflows with the economy in a mediated post-industrial society, but also the trends of social development. The concept of creative class implies problems both in the identity and boundaries of this class and in the impact in a democratic society although it is not the most abundant class. The division of the creative class into subgroups does not solve the mentioned problems since any division is dangerous to the integrity of the social entity. Although the creative class is the core of creative sector, its uncertainty stems from its nature while creativity transfuses every activity.

References

1. Adomaityte, G., Zilinskaite, V., Sedereviciute-Paciauskiene, Z., Valantinaite, I. & Navickiene, V. (2018) Shift of creativity concepts: From mysticism to modern approach. Filosofija Sociologija. 29(3). pp. 203-210.

2. Florida, R.L. (2002) The rise of the creative class: and how it's transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. New York: Basic Books.