There have been a number of events in Dublin in recent months aimed at promoting discussion around the current crisis. One such event entitled ‘Promoting the Cultural & Creative Industries & Innovation in Dublin’ was hosted by Dublin City Council on the 19th of January. This involved a panel discussion, chaired by Declan McGonagle of NCAD, followed by comments and discussion from the floor. A number of things struck me about this meeting. The first was the degree to which those working within what might be loosely described as the ‘cultural arena’ don’t seem to see their area as being the answer to the current economic woes in the same way that those working within policy seem to. Here I am referring directly to the hype surrounding the ‘creative city’, as promoted by Richard Florida, which has emerged in recent years as a backbone of economic policy in Dublin. While there was a resounding agreement that this broad sector plays a role in the contemporary economy, many of those present almost seemed to shy away from the manner in which it is being portrayed as an indicator of broader economic potential. This points to what would appear to be a divide in what is currently being referred to as the creative or cultural industries. At the policy level, there is a cry out for ‘us’ to be more creative and innovative as a means of finding ways out of the current crisis. Here ideals of of innovation and creativity perceived similar to those involved in the artistic process are looked at for their potential to be used for the generation of new ideas and future employment within the ‘creative’ industries. What is not known, as indicated by recent ACRE reports, is the actual contribution made by this sector to the economy, and exactly how they may further contribute to it in the future. Meanwhile, this very focus on culture and creativity may be bringing us to a clash of values within the broader cultural arena. While, as discussed above, one aspect focuses on economic values, the other indicates a desire to look to ideas of culture in terms of its broader manifestation, and, moving beyond the boundaries of the ‘cultural arena’, to recognise the existence of different cultures at the local level in rural, urban and suburban contexts.
Landmark Park of the Future? U2 Tower Site, Dublin Docklands, 2007. Photo by Philip Lawton
During the seminar it also emerged that the potential for the re-use of unused or vacant buildings is being actively pursued with direct relevance to the creative industries within Dublin City Council. There are obvious positives of this in terms of the availability of cheaper land for these industries when they are viewed on their own merits, or in terms of how they might fit within the wider economy. However, there would also be positives to using Nama-bound properties to support a broad range of industries or the provision of affordable housing. Essentially, if efforts are to be made within local authorities to alter the way land is used it must be done in as broad a manner as possible. With this in mind, the current drafting of a new Dublin City Development Plan offers the possibility to significantly rethink our approach to land-use at the local level. Here it is possible to suggest that particular sites, or vacant/half-built buildings, are rezoned to suit new activities. Spaces that are blights within local areas could be rezoned in a manner that allows them to be utilised for a broad range of community activities (e.g., Aldo van Eyck’s playgrounds in post-war Amsterdam). While the rezoning may go against the base-premise of Nama, in as much as such land becomes economically devalued, it would be a symbol that the way in which we think about urban space is shifting away from the naturalised vision of development potential and the constant search for economic value. I don’t want to place boundaries on what may emerge from such a rethink, but simply point to the potential for local democratic processes to promote new potential outcomes. The negative impacts surrounding rezoning became evident throughout the boom years. We are now given the opportunity to use these powers for very different purposes, with far less risk. Through this, other forms of culture may emerge on its own terms.
Philip Lawton
edit: The use of the docklands image is evidently even more aspirational than the above in as much as any rezoning within the City Council’s Development Plan needs to be consistent with the Docklands Masterplan.
January 20, 2010 at 6:28 pm
The Arts Council did commission Indecon to carry out an Assessment of Economic Impact of the Arts in Ireland, while the Western Development Commission did a similar exercise for the BMW region Creative West.
So there is some economic data out there in terms of the financial and employment impacts of the arts and creative industries.
Of course a lot of people are involved in these fields specifically because they are unenthusiastic or critical of commerce itself – so it is hard to persuade them to conceptualise ‘the arts’ as ‘the creative industries’. And they may also well see the impact of commercialisation as serving to dilute the value of specific skills and abilities. Thus while the ‘creative industries’ are indeed an important economic sector, ‘mobilising’ or ‘developing’ them is not a simple or unproblematic task!
January 21, 2010 at 9:24 am
Thanks for that Perry. I am familiar with both the Arts Council and Creative West data. However, what is not clear, and perhaps I should have been clearer myself, is why notions associated with the ‘creative class’ have been picked up as the future of the regional economy (See link to Economic Development Action Plan above). While the creation of a ‘vibrant place’ and the ‘nurturing and attraction of creative people’ are seen as the key to the economy itself, work done by ACRE has indicated that people are attracted based on the ‘harder’ factors such as access to employment, costs of living and quality transportation.
I think it is probably two interconnected, yet separate issues. On the one hand we have the arts, which, as I said in my post, form a part of the broader economy (Sometimes reluctantly). On the other, terms such as ‘creativity’ have become the new buzzwords of the economy. All economies have to be creative in some ways. One of the issues may be that it is the one associated with the arts that is seen to be the answer, when it is a lot broader than that.
Philip
January 21, 2010 at 9:34 am
Sorry, Perry, my last sentence may not have made sense there. By ‘the one’ I am referring to the type of creativity which is associated with the arts, which for me seems to have become a buzzword. By saying all economies have to be creative, I am saying that they must create something, and must constantly rethink what it is they are creating.
Now that I think of it, there is a growing amount of resentment to the use of the image of artists as a means of promoting Florida’s notions of the creative class. Might be of interest:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,670600,00.html
http://www.signandsight.com/features/1961.html
January 21, 2010 at 9:54 am
Adding to Philip’s previous comment, one more link worth having a look at with respect to Florida backing off from his own creative class thesis. It’s a January 4th article in The American Prospect, ‘creatively’ entitled “The Ruse of the Creative Class”:
http://www.prospect.org:80//cs/articles?article=the_ruse_of_the_creative_class
I’m afraid there was no ‘money back guarantee’ clause in the contract for those cities who hired Richard Florida to advise them on urban development policy.
Delphine.
January 20, 2010 at 8:01 pm
This works everywhere! “Don’t make waves,” and “Don’t rock the boat,” yet, no one has ever seen a boat going anywhere that was not making waves and rocking from side to side, making the placid water choppy. For new start-ups and jobs we need to continue welcoming the wave-making pebble-droppers or secure the peace of the pond. Governing elite tell us the interests of the pond, the community, are more important than are the interests of the individual, the pebble-dropping wave makers. Pebble-droppers made America what it is today, giving form and shape to our American Evolution. Pebble droppers made us prosperous and only they can keep us prosperous. Without pebble droppers, America will have no prosperity, no growth, no entrepreneurs, no small business and no new jobs. Government managers cannot control pebble droppers, only prevent their disturbing behavior. See Save Pebble Droppers & Prosperity on Amazon.com and claysamerica.com
January 22, 2010 at 12:22 am
I think that the concept of ‘creativity’ is the one that needs to be unpacked and critiqued. As I remember Florida’s original Creative Class book (its a few years since I read it), his definition of a ‘creative’ worker’ was very broad, and ranged from research scientists to newsreaders, possibly with accountants in there too. It certainly extended way beyond practitioners of the arts, or even those such as architects and industrial designers who would be seen by many as cognate. In many ways it almost distilled down to the better paid part of the service industries. It is worth remembering that Ireland turned out to be at the top of the ‘creative class’ league table.
It is an interesting question as to why the ‘creative cities’ idea has been picked up enthusiastically by those involved in regional (re)development. An obvious answer might be that those doing the promoting are themselves members of this sector, and also have lifestyle and consumption patterns that are reflective of the tenets of Florida’s and other similar work. They are likely to be non-members of the traditional property-owning petty bourgeoisie, so have little interest in entrenched methods of income-generation (such as landlordism, property development, farm business, &c). They are also likely to be employed or funded by the public sector, or in some way dependent on it (eg as consultants, researchers &c). Perhaps the thesis resonates with particular educational backgrounds in a way that more mundane issues of electrical supply capacity, demographic potential and other enabling factors of economic development do not. Perhaps it was just fashion, in the way that Bertie liked to be seen (literally or metaphorically) clutching his copy of Bowling Alone?
One can see that if you are living in a dying rustbelt community in Michigan (or a dying fishing port in Donegal) that any development strategy that might give you an edge might be worth pursuing – in the 60s it was ‘advance factories’, in the 90s it was ‘incubation units’. Now its broadband, twitter and farmers markets.
As Philip points out above, ‘creativity’ can mean a lot of things. But which of these many interpretations can be demonstrably linked to economic growth and development, and how? This is perhaps one of the key questions for post nama Ireland.
January 26, 2010 at 10:26 am
I wanted to expand on Phillip’s comments and to some of his respondents, particularly in relation to the relationship between the Creative City and Class and the arts, culture and ‘creative sector’.
For me, one of the interesting aspects of the Creative City and Class debate is the reluctance to engage and apparent lack of awareness of this discourse at arts practitioner and policy level. There are obviously a number of reasons why this might be, however I would like to posit the following reasons for the inherent scepticism as indicated in these posts: 1) relatively unconvincing figures to date as to the contribution of the cultural and creative industries to economies, a key cornerstone of Creative City ideas, (the Arts Council and Western Development Commission report concern direct rather than long-term and indirect economic impacts as some EU studies have offered), exaggerated figures benefit no one and only bring a sector into disrepute, leading to 2) the fear of backlash towards the creative sector if the fruits of their creative output don’t economically materialise as Creative City thinkers would suggest, 3) a distrust at the emphasis on the ‘secondary’ or even tertiary benefits accruing from culture which may lead to a lack of understanding at government level with ‘downstream’ consequences for the sector and potentially society (i.e. championing their economic rather than their ‘primary’ or ‘intrinsic’ role), 4) the fear of a potential funding war between cultural agencies which fund the subsidised sector (where arguably the market fails) and Creative City type agencies promising greater economic returns (see the recent debate over Creative Scotland) and finally, 5) the feeling that in conflating the sector with the catch all title of the ‘Creative Industries’ (about which there is much written), there is a lack of understanding of what this actually means and consequently the major differences, economic and otherwise of its sub sectors (i.e. the individual artist versus the salaried graphic designer or advertising executive) which are necessary for an understanding of how to apply appropriate supports. Finally, we must also acknowledge that despite the potential fear of competing funding situations, where the arts and culture sector do engage in this debate it is often in an entirely instrumental way in terms of using the Creative City argument for their own financial benefit.
Ultimately I don’t know for sure what the exact reasons are for this relative lack of engagement, it could be as simple as the Creative City discourse having ‘stolen the thunder’ of the arts and culture sector. I suspect it may be a combination of some or all of the above reasons. What I am sure of is that anyone who knows Florida’s work will understand that the artist is relatively absent from his discourse and acts more as a signifier rather than an economic, social or urban actor in his or her own right.
Tara Byrne
GradCAM PHD Researcher
April 17, 2010 at 3:46 pm
Interesting article. Hopefully this will gain more prominence in future debate.
I think a hands-off strategy would be best: hand any buildings over to the arts sector bodies and let them run themselves, with a government body in the background as landlords, with the customary maintenance responsibilities.