Criticism, criticism (complementary)

Okay, and then this so-inspiring-extra-assignment (read more below). Fortunately I found a rather interesting article written by Susan Galloway and Stewart Dunlop (A critique of definitions of the cultural and creative industries in public policy).

Firstly they state that terminology currently used in creative industries policy lacks rigour and is frequently inconsistent and confusing. This naturally is true, but wouldn’t consistent and commonly accecpted terminology put the industries into a small box and kill the creativity in them? The authors also think that the terms “cultural industries” and “creative industries” are often used interchangeably. I must say that I don’t always see a big difference between them. A cultural industry can be a creative industry but all cultural industries are not creative industries. I’m not sure if all pop music is so creative but evidently they are some sort of cultural products (maybe not high culture but anyway). Galloway and Dunlop also criticize the thought that “everything is culture” even if US Government supports the definition. According to them creative industries are defined as:

those industries which have their origin in individual creativity, skill and talent and which have a potential for wealth and job creation through the generation and exploitation of intellectual property

Here I must agree with the authors: everything that creates jobs and wealth based on intellectual property cannot be creative. Think about different war techniques; this employs hundreds of thousands of people all over the world but at least I don’t consider it so creative. Even if it sounds a bit hypocritical, I would like to believe that the purpose and aim of the use of intellectual property affects the level of creativity. With this I don’t mean that anything evil or disgusting couldn’t be creative. 

Picture from indrashishghosh.com

Another good critique or assumption is that creative industries should be governmentally supported. The crucial question common to the entire cultural sector is democracy and freedom of expression. The role of cultural policy is to ensure this, creating the space for different types of cultural expression, including local, regional and national cultural identities. Somewhere, however, goes the limit. Even if something insulting or racist can be creative, it should not be supported in any way (or actually even considered as creative). This is ethical dilemma the authors discuss. Where goes the limit? What is acceptably creative and what is not? And who has the right to decide over it?

Galloway and Dunlop’s article is quite theoretical but at some places it awakes thought and critizises creative industries in a rather striking way. Especially the ethical questions are crucial but hard to give a all-encompassing answer about. The issue could actually be discussed in a own post!

Galloway and Dunlop's  article can be found from here

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

Today I don’t feel so creative, not at all. You know days when everything starts to collapse when something, really small goes wrong. Well, today is one of those days. Firstly, I missed my class in creative business today for the first time since I must stay in Helsinki. That’s maybe not so serious but if you miss a class, you have to do an extra assignment. In my opinion those extra assignments are as inspiring as yesterday’s cold spaghetti Bolognese. This time for example I’m must find an article related to the critique of the creative economy and discuss the key issues. How inspiring is that? I would so much more have liked to listen to Alf Rehn, especially when that man can talk (and his Power Point slides suck).

Enough of chitchatting and back to business. So, in the last posts the concept “creative economy” has been praised and valued almost without exceptions. Is creative economy as important, fine and nice as we assume? Since the concept is so half-baked it is hard to get everybody to agree about same things. One thing can be considered as creative a certain group whereas other does not see any creative in it. Rehn calls this syndrome for “Emperor´s new clothes”, you know the fairytale where the king is naked but nobody dares to admit it. Some goes with creativity and many creative industries. Not so many people dare to say that Anna Karenina is a piece of shit and that Picasso couldn’t paint (even if I’m sure that many think so).

Picture from leninimports.com

Another issue is who is it really that determines which industry or art form is more noble and more creative than the others? Previously artists, the real experts in the field, have been highest up in the hierarchy of creativity. The design shops ordinary people can visit are on the contrary less creative, almost mass manufacturing of creativity (Rehn calls this bulk creativity). The problem is also that if creativity is too hierarchical or classified, it loses it shine. Increased popularity (read bulk creativity) can lead to the fact that artist begin to ask if they are creative enough anymore? But it can’t just be that the only “real” creativity and art would be done behind curtains, in some sort of pain or solitude.

Who is it that owns ideas? Or creativity? If I come up with something really creative, I can’t patent my idea as I could patent a new medicine for example? Creativity is something collective that everybody owns together. Of course, a physical painting or theatre play can be owned by the creator but the thought (the real creativity) cannot. But here comes the paradox, if a creative idea or thought is copied from another artist, it is not anymore creative. It is only mass production of someone other’s creativity.

Picture from mindwerx.com

Since I’m not feeling so creative today, I think this is enough for this time. Maybe first time I didn’t exceed the word limit, so something good with my mood as well  :)

Rage vs. amicality

You have maybe heard before or at least you have a picture in your minds that artists would be difficult persons and hard to put into strict norms. I’m sure this is something they teach at art schools, part of education that you have to be so different and individualist. It would be a real nightmare, a suicide, to tell a real artist that she/he is normal and ordinary. Hey, there is nothing really exceptional with you; you are just like the others. Hahahahah, I would really like to do that. Because of some weird reason, artists have an assumption of that all ordinary and organized is boring and uncreative (which of course is not the case). So, what a nightmare it would be to lead and manage an artistic group, say an orchestra or theatre ensemble. Being of art director or general director of that group cannot be an easy task. It is really weird that many of the artists do not want to have anything to do with leadership and management. Surely because it is so organized and secular. Nothing creative with budgets, marketing and development discussions.  It almost seems that this ordinary stuff might kill the artist inside these persons if going to near. But fortunately there are exceptions; some prefer heroic leaderships and strong orders before softness and dislike of authority. And yes, there are excellent examples of strong, almost violent leadership in art organizations. Think about Andriy Zholdak’s Anna Karenina in Turku City Theatre. Aah. The main actress Krista Kosonen has complained that he was a terrible director. He was yelling, spitting and insulting the actors. Some of the artists were crying and had bruises when it was time to go home. But what was the result? An extraordinary, really visually interactive play challenging all participants from actors to public. And everybody loves Zholdak. 

Andriy Zholdak (picture from flckr.com)

 

Then to the other example, expert organizations. If artists are a challenging group, experts might be an even more challenging one. While there is a clear line between artists and managers, this line is absent between experts and managers. Only because experts are experts, even sometimes in fields which maybe are not their fields of expertise. Actors are satisfied and willing to leave certain management issues to persons who are more capable and less artistic, to take care of them. And managers let artists have their artistic nature. But with experts the case is different. There the designer’s and product manager’s visions might collide. Or programmer’s and product manager’s. Here the line between expertise and leadership is thin. Supporting should come before interfering and the expert organizations should be “powered to” or “powered with” not “powered over” at any occasions. Listening and dialogue is the key to success (which of course should not be forgotten in art organizations; dialogue is always key to success).

So, as if you did not already guess, we had a lecture about leadership in art and expert organizations today with Niina Koivunen. Not maybe the most interesting and stimulating lecture in my whole life, but okay, so to say. Okay, I must admit that I had woken up at 5 in Helsinki, just to participate in the lecture so maybe I wasn’t so alert. But back to the lecture. In the beginning Niina briefly talked about theory behind leadership in art organizations but soon moved on to more practical issues. She had done her doctoral studies about contradictory leadership discourses in symphony orchestras, so this was mainly the topic. Maybe one of the most interesting issues was the discussion about how art organizations can be lead through negative or positive; the outcome was that both ways can lead to artistically good outcomes. The second theme was leadership challenges in expert organizations and the comparison of art and expert organizations. There the outcome, dialogue, listening, co-management, was not so surprising.

Well, I think I don’t have so much more to say about the topic. Or then there is a lack of inspiration. So I’ll be back when the times are better. 

By the article I used in this article was Directing creativity: The art craft of creative leadership by Ibbotson & Darsø (2008) 

Who has the biggest ego in the house?

Today’s lecture was about conflicting identities in creative industries. A sentence that does not say anything. You know the type of lecturers that like to complicate a rather simple issue by utilization of difficult terminology. After the chat about Bourdieu’s theories and the compulsory boring stuff, I noticed that there actually is something interesting behind the topic.

So, this is basically the plot (a simplified version): You have one organization (here Opera), in your organization works different persons with different personalities. Your task is to manage the job environment and internal as well as external relationships between groups of persons with very big egos.  Not so simple task, I would say.

Imagine a bunch of artists – they are used to be in the spot light. They are individualistic and sometimes even narcissistic. Most certainly personalities collide and when doing something creative, artistic, everyone believes that their work input and presence is the most important one. Or as in the example Tanja Vilén took up during the lecture, artists, orchestra and choir fight about the star role whereas the technical department couldn’t care less; they are there in order to do their job. Administration is a bit lost case; they are arbitrating between these extremities without clearly having tools for it. It is a wonder if these childishly fighting “artist” can create anything of value.

Picture from sweden.se

But they can. Operas, theatres and ballets are the most “finest” form of art, at least according to quite many people in my vicinity.  Do the internal conflicts affect the creativity or the outcome of the work in any way? In my opinion, no. But the physical appearance or register affects how you are treated by other organization members and that affects the way you see yourself. In my opinion, one’s self-esteem and dignity affects the ability to perform – an actor not valuing himself cannot completely throw himself into the role and give everything, which naturally affects the whole performance. It is also a good question if business can be both artistic and economical? The Finnish National Opera is a non-profit company as many national theatres as well. This can be a bit contradicting. In my opinion, money has little to do with creativity. Of course every creative organization wants to attract customers and at least to some extent the repertoire is affected by consumers, in profit seeking organizations maybe a bit more than in governmentally sponsored organizations.

But is the issue so black and white. It popped into mind during the lecture when I was listening to Vilén that maybe these kinds of studies are a bit exaggerated.  Isn’t it so that every organization is hierarchical and have its own internal struggles or conflicts. The question is not only about creative industries with big egos. Think about hospitals. Or schools. The order of precedence is strict; everyone one knows own position and sometimes the position is marked with external symbols. In hospitals it is strictly regulated what is the color of the working clothes – the practical nurses have different colors’ cloaks than the nurses.

Finally, even if the topic “conflicting identities in creative industries” is interesting, it is maybe unnecessary to squeeze the concept into one box, the creative industry. Naturally, it can be discussed from that view point as well but it is important to bear in mind that sometimes it is good to think outside the box. Whatever that means.

Information from article Glynn, M. 2000. When Cymbals Become Symbols: Conflict over Organizational Identity Within a Symphony Orchestra. Organization science, 11(3), pp. 285-298

Uncreative creation

To begin with, a couple of words about the heading. Today's lecture could be summarized in one question: Can the output be creative if one’s work input is uncreative? One of the big, conceptual questions. Again.

So that you would understand what I am talking about, I think I’ll have to clarify my thoughts a bit. It is, however, not so weird that I am a bit messy. After today’s class with Dr. Nina Kivinen it is actually quite understandable that I behave this way. Nina was talking about printed media and the boundaries of creative work in it. The lecture was everything else but clear, almost creative, one could say – at least if you compare to ordinary lectures boring professors give to us. But no talk about that. I must keep to the relevant issues since we have a word limit (!) – how creative is that?

So, Nina discussed about the concepts “work”, “creative work” and “non-creative work”. How can you define these and what (invisible and visible) boundaries are there in between? Her actual research concentrates on the creative process of producing a print magazine. She has been examining the everyday life in a family owned teenage magazine and the most part of the lecture she described trivial but interesting observations she had done in the editorial. This might sound weird (and it is) but since the research is ongoing, it is impossible to say what the outcome will look like.

Personally, the most interesting part of the lecture was the discussion about the very regulated and subconscious working habits. What makes an organization behave in a certain way? How does the hierarchy look like and who determines it? The employees at the magazine seemed not to notice anything weird. They had always eaten at the same time, had the same habits and sat on the same places. The big question is, however, how has this to do with creativity. Maybe it hasn’t but that is not the point here. The point is rather to show that creative work can be done in an uncreative way. I think many of you agree on the fact that publishing a journal is creative. You have to come up with new ideas, express yourself, take photos etc. All this creative blaa di blaa, you know. But according to Nina’s study, they behaved in a most uncreative way. The work was quite mechanistic, regulated (working hours) and habitualized. 

 

The third interesting thing was the discussion about boundaries. You know the concept socially and mentally separating us from something else. What makes us behave like that? Who sets up the boundaries and what would happen if we would break them? Would my work be more creative if I would in the classroom sit beside the teacher in front of the class? This would most certainly break the habits. People would be surprised and maybe even behave differently. The teacher at least would behave differently. Maybe this would lead to something new. Students would remember that lecture and it would stick out from the masses of hundreds of lectures. Maybe Nina’s magazine editorial should as well try this. One day they would come to work, change places, eat different time or listen to different music. Just to see what happens. Would the next magazine be better or worse than the previous one? 

Picture from thecreativelife.com

Of course I don’t have any clear answers. The above mentioned could function as a creativity test. Does creative way of working affect the creativity of the outcome? This would naturally work only for a while – every change and every attempt to creativity becomes ordinary if it is done every day.

So, over and out. Word limit exceeded already 20 words ago. Oops.

Creative city machine

Back to the discussion about the concept creative city. I started to think about different cities in the world. I have travelled quite on lot during my short life. And I have seen many cities. Nice ones, neutral ones and not so nice ones. But none of the cities have I hated. Why?  Well, it is maybe not so clear or self-evident but all the cities have had something interesting or nice in them. Not all of them have been pretty or full with activities or nice people. But they have deserved different meanings. I would not go to Playa del Ingles if I would want experience a historic city with an old culture. But it does not mean that the city could not be creative. It just has a different function. Actually, it would be almost uncreative if all cities in the world would be similar and equally creative. As the authors Luckman, Gibson and Lua point out in one of their articles about the city Darwin and its creativity, one must be realistic – what resources does a city have to be as creative as possible? So, if one does not have a lot of great industry, landscapes or fashionistas, the only solution is to come up with the best with own resources, in a creative way.

This makes sense. I start to understand the concept. It is not the material assets that count but rather the intellectual ones. I would at least like to live in a city which is original. Locally made is always better than ready imported solutions. Think if there would be a creative city factory. The once defined and invented concept of a creative city would be sold and produced all over the world. The mayor of a city could call and order one creative city. Fast delivery and guaranteed success, or? How creative would that actually be? A sort of creative city suicide, I would say. 

Creative city machine

Picture from ArtSlant LA

And the article I mentionned can be found from here

(Susan Luckman, Chris Gibson & Tess Lea (2009): Mosquitoes in the mix: How transferable is creative city thinking?)

From Hamburg, Sydney, Ottawa, Copenhagen to Atlanta

Back to business again after a relaxing weekend in Hamburg which was such a nice city. Or maybe nice is a too lame expression, creative could be more suitable. 

Creative or just a mess?

Previously in my blog I though that creative city would be a stupid expression. Actually, I still think it is, but at least it got a new meaning today at Alf Rehn's lecture.It is maybe not so easy to understand as creativity on personal or organizational level since a creative city always is a mixture of different cultures and interests.An expert in his field, author Charles Landry for example stated in one of his books (2008) that characteristics for a creative city include risk taking, widespread leadership, a sense of going somewhere and being strategically principled and tactically flexible. Should we believe him?  For example being a creative city does not mean that the city would have to come up with something new. Much of creativity deals with finding a balance between new and old ways of working and with determining when a change is needed. The most creative solutions are often combination of the old and new. I find this quite interesting and I must say that I agree with him. In Hamburg for example, there was one really good example of this: bike renting. It was done extremely easy and you could reach the whole city with your bike. Bike renting as such is of course not so creative but it can be seen as an example of a creative solution for decreasing the amount of traffic pollution in the city. The renting, or actually the loaning process was made as easy as possible with the help of the latest technology even if the idea itself was not so new. I felt so happy when riding my bike in the sunshine. Creativity almost poured out of me. Yep, yep. 

The Hamburg's understanding of creativity (photo from Hamburg.de)

Creativity depends much on the surrounding circumstance and the context which of course in natural. The above mentioned bike hiring would probably not be so creative in Alaska, where the roads are slippery almost the year round. 


Much of this creativity talk is still for me too self-evident and does not bring so much new to the table. Maybe not many of you would be surprised if I (or any author or lecturer) would say that open-mindedness and capacity to listen would be the most important conditions for creativity. You don't have to be an expert to realize that. But this is as well a bit contradictory. For example the school system is criticized to be too systematical and pragmatic institutions with only a small space left for creativity. But what is the purpose of school? To educate sophisticated and rational human beings. Teaching the French revolution cannot be so creative, or?. But what about establishing a new subject in schools called creativity? It could be a class without a structure. A class where everybody could present their most silliest and craziest ideas. At least I would have needed in school something like that. My innovation and creativity was always pressed down as concentration difficulties or joke making. Everything had to be so organized and systematical, and creativity was accepted only on handicraft lessons. Not to wonder why I ended up studying economics. 


Why should we even be interested about the concept creative city? Why is it even relevant? A nice answer would be: because in creative cities people are more happy and there it is nicer to live. Well, maybe the case is not so black and white. Basically all city and infrastructure planning have as purpose to create a creative city. It has economical, social and psychological value. Creativity enhances tourism and even the economical life when companies rather have locations in cities with "a creativity image". This is logical. Think about surfing or skating brands such as Roxy or WESC. Their brand image corresponds maybe better to the image that creative cities such as Sydney or LA have. 


I must say that I am still a bit confused with this concept. I understand the meaning of a creative city in theory but I still have difficulties to understand why not all cities could be creative. At least in their own way. If creativity is almost impossible to define it can practically be almost everything. Wouldn't it then be logical to say that every city is creative. The only difference is how you define creativity. Or, is it so?


I think I must discuss this topic more tomorrow after some creative dreams :)

You can read the literature used for writing this here (Charles Landry (2008) Creative City: a toolkit for innovators) and  here ( Susan Luckman, Chris Gibson & Tess Lea (2009): Mosquitoes in the mix: How transferable is creative city thinking?

Fashionistas - to be or not to be?

Ah, again a post of my favorite topic – fashion. Today’s lecture was about fashion and fashion industry as an economic business. As a curiosity, I can tell you that I learnt that fashion comes from the Latin word "modus", which means manner or manière. Actually I did already know that. But somehow I had forgotten it. People tend to do so. Some goes with fashion. A throwaway business. How many of us remember DKNY’s fall collection from 2006? Can such a waste culture be art or an art industry?

I don’t know how many times I have mentioned but fashion is a creative business. Is it then art? Maybe not always. But I have actually never thought about that there are many different levels of creativity. Or fashion. One designer can focus on creative freedom and think that it is not important to make money. Expressionism and handicraft thinking go before capitalism and mass production. When the focus is on designer collections, the image of the company is important. There exists a will to grow but the problem is lack of knowledge how to do it. Most advanced category is naturally the strong brand thinking. These designers are going abroad and think more or less commercially. But can you say that one group would be more “noble” than the other one? Probably not, at least if you talk about Finnish labels such as IVANA Helsinki, Annikki Karvinen, Luhta or Suominen. In Finland the fashion market is quite small and you really can’t talk about haute couture here. 

Fashion has a collective nature. Everyone has always an opinion what is nice, what is ugly. Fashion has grown up from being a small, special handicraft field only the rich could afford to a huge mass production industry influencing our everyday life, on all society levels. There is probably not a single person in the whole world who would not have heard of Louis Vuitton. Still, by having sky high prices these brands are something only a minority of the world’s population can afford. But there is always piracy to fulfill the manic desire people have to be part of this extraordinary. I think a speaker at the fashion event in Copenhagen on 14^th of August 2010, said quite well: Ladies and gentlemen! Welcome to the World’s Greatest Catwalk” (Melchior 2011). What he meant was not only the physical length of the catwalk but also the quotidian nature of fashion: every man women, child and aunt can be part of it. You do not need to be rich, beautiful or special to be part of fashion. Or as an author, Marie Riegels Melchior it puts in her article about Danish fashion industry (2011): there is a clear change from “class fashion” to “consumer fashion”. It would be a so noble and nice idea to state that the fashion shows’ purpose would be to entertain and present great pieces of art. Unfortunately, the purpose is mainly to attract the attention of local and international retailers and consumers. I don’t say that something couldn’t be artistic and commercialized at the same time, but at least the original idea of fashion as a handicraft has here gone quite far.

The other course topic today was lifestyle entrepreneurship and in my opinion, these two topics are, at least to some extent interrelated. In both cases we are buying image and cultural value rather than a product’s functionality. If I would want a good bag to carry my books in I would buy an ordinary backpack, not a designer bag from Mulberry. And when I’m buying Nike’s runners, I’m doing it because I want to be part of the “Nike society”, where everybody is fit, healthy and tanned. Naturally, I don’t assume that Nike’s shoes would immediately make me fit. But the human mind is tricky – you want to belong somewhere. You are what you buy.

Finally, I only need to say that fashion changes and people fall in love. Once again. And after a while they become bored, angry and annoyed. Just to fall in love with the next collection. Love in this case is in your eyes but at least it is always similar. Somehow it is safe to know that. 

At the moment, I have fallen in love with Acne's spring 2012 collection. Let's see for how long. Am I as chic and bohemian as the models? Maybe not. But I wouldn’t say no for one orange pencil skirt and a green parka. 

You can read Marie Riegels Melchior’s article Catwalking the Nation: Challenges and Possibilities in the Case of Danish Fashion Industry (2011) here

Pictures from style.com

I would still want to discuss a bit a issue I briefly mentioned already earlier: art and creative industry as a subjective experience. This has much to do with the fact that it is more or less impossible to define the meaning and content of the term "creative economy" and "creative industries". If you look at a pile of trash, most of us sees nothing of value in it whereas for example eco-artists it is a great opportunity. to produce something creative. The same goes for basically everything even a bit creative. Everyone on this planet has an own, aesthetic eye.

What do you see?

Even if I found the subject very interesting, I must admit that sometimes I have difficulties to see the real point behind it. Of course, learning to think creative would be an ideal case for a coming marketing specialist. But if creative thinking is basically all thinking, who is then thinking creatively? You can see the paradox. But I'm doing my best. World's next big creative thinker award, here I came!


p.s. "Creative city" is maybe the  most stupid thing I have ever heard. How can a city be creative?

Is this really creative?

I started to think, my blog is about creativity, creative business and creative economy. Why is the layout so booring and NOT CREATIVE? I would have thousand of ideas but I must admit something: I am really poor with technical things. I would really need help with the HTML-codes. Anybody?

Am I creative? Are you creative?

When I enrolled the course”Creative business and creative economy I had little, if any, ideas about what the content would be. What is creative business and what has the word creativity to do with issues dealing with economy and business.

In my opinion, it is impossible to exactly define the concept. According to the Creative Economy Report 2010 (link) creativity is defined as the process by which ideas are “generated, connected and transformed into things that are of value”. Well, most certainly this is the case. But isn’t this a bit vague. What are these things of value? Literature and researchers define these “things” as pieces of art – theoretically it can be almost everything. Films, books, music, paintings, newspapers, fashion, you name it. There is, however, a certain doubt about whether sports, software or say, pornography, is a creative industry. But what distinguishes these industries from the more “noble” ones. In my opinion, nothing. It is the modern society and the “cultural norms” (as they say, I think such a thing does not even exist) which have set up the boundaries for “fine art”. Think about Burlesque. Why is it art? But a striptease show is not. Someone could say that it is the intentions; the striptease dancer is not doing it for the performance but rather for the money. I would dare to say that so are the most Burlesque dancers as well doing, for living. You make money by doing something that it entertaining the public, if it is art is in that case secondary. Creativity is an artifice set up by the human mind.

Is this a creative industry?

....Or is this a creative industry?

Fun and maybe a bit surprising is also why there is such as need to push creative business into a box and by violence set boundaries for it. Why does everything have to be so scientific? Creativity loses its glory when researchers and scientists are so hardly trying to explain and categorize the phenomenon. How creative is it really to say that “this is creative business”? A bit paradoxical is however that it is exactly what I am here trying to do. We participate in courses and workshops where we learn how to be creative. This of course is extremely stupid since every human being is creative. The question is only how to use that creative, or rather how to dare to use that creativity.

Think about Apple’s Steve Jobs. Or IKEA’s Ivan Kamprad. Or any other person leading an innovative business company. Why are they so creative? The answer is that they are not more or less creative than I am or you are. They just dared to take the step and give a silly idea a try. The problem is that we are raised and educated to think and act in an expected way. It is easier and more safe to study and work just as everybody else. You get your job, salary and house. But it is not so creative. The one’s who take the risk (and manage to take it over the difficulties) is often considered as a creative person. But the truth is that they are not blessed with extra creativity, they only dare to use it.

Different than who?

I talked earlier about classification of creative industries. Of course it is the art economy can be said to be part of cultural economy which then again is part of a larger entity, the creative economy. But in the end, this classification does not benefit anyone. I have certain difficulties to really see what I would do with this information and how does it help me to think in a more creative way. Even if I am not a fan of these different classifications (e.g. UK DCMS model, symbolic texts model, concentric circles model, see Creative Economy Report 2010, link below), I can agree with certain thoughts Professor Alf Rehn shared with us on his last lecture (and this is not only because he is Alf Rehn and you are supposed to agree with him). Mr. Rehn talked about creativity as discourse, mythology and ideology. The creativity discourse creates a limited form of thinking about the world. Naturally, you shouldn’t think and act as the rest of the people do – unless you don’t agree with them. But I this is easier said than done. Your world, your work and your home is ruled in a certain way and in your everyday life you don’t have time to think outside the box. That was a good example. Did you get it? Thinking outside the box is one of the expressions uncreative people use (ask Alf if you don’t believe it). Naturally, I’m in a hurry writing this text since I have a lot of other things to do. So, I’m guilty of creativity as discourse since I’m not creative enough to come up with a new and more innovative expression instead. Same goes with the creative mythology. Many of you would agree if I would say that Google and Apple are excellent examples of creative companies. But how creative is it really to say so. In fact, it would even be more creative to say that my aunt’s lingerie store is a more creative company than Apple.

So finally comes the question what have I learnt and do I still see creative business and creative economy the same way? And the answer is clear: no I don’t. It is not that I would have learned a new definition or explanation for the concept but rather understood that it cannot be managed, nevertheless learnt. Every person is creative and creativity is almost everything people perform, if they are not following a strict manual for that task. It is a waste of time to classify and discuss which industries are creative and which are not. The simple (but not easy) answer is: all of them. 

References: 

Creative Economy Report 2010: http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ditctab20103_en.pdf

The Cultural and Creative Industries: http://kulturekonomi.se/uploads/cp_litrev4.pdf

From Economy to Ecology: a Policy Framework for Creative labour:  http://www.cultureandcommunities.ca/downloads/From-economy-to-ecology.pdf

Inspiration and true words

I love to find and listen to interesting new people. I mean that sometimes I don't even have to interested in the topic if the speaker is good. Key word is enthusiasm. It is a pleasure to listen to a person who is dedicated and passionate about the subject. Times goes by and you just sit there and listen. You know the feeling?


Well, this happened to me also online. I found a blog Bastiaan van de Werks Creative Business blog. Even if I only read the text, I was fascinated. I could almost hear his enthusiastic voice. And this the issue was interesting as well. And it was exactly dealing with same issues as this blog. He shared with his readers seven the most valuable tips for creating a brand.


The first tip was to get briefed. Well, this should not be so difficult. You should investigate your surroundings, the product/thing, the context etc. In fact, this sounds quite self-evident in my ears. Of course you have to be aware of what is offered. But good to be reminded. And creativity? Maybe not so relevant here, just keep your eyes open and brains tuned in.


Next tip was to get the right team. This sounds already a bit more challenging. Who is really capable to brainstorm and come up with new ideas. In my ears, right team is here the key to success. Together people can perform more. But only if the person chemistry works. As van de Werk points out, it is neither good to have too many participants. His rule of thumb is to limit the group to three to five people. Not more.

Picture from Tien Unscripted

Tip number three is get prepared meaning that since brainstorming is a chaotic process it would be good to have some kind of plan to follow. But hello, is this really necessary? Probably not. Of course everyone should know why and what is brainstormed but that's about it. Following a exact plan would be too easy. Can you be both creative and organised at the same time? I would be glad to be that but I has not happened me yet. If you are a professional maybe the case is different.


His next tip was get inspired. What would brainstorming be without inspiration? But inspiration doesn't come by forcing. van de Werk lists three ingredients for getting inspired. A great location, plenty of stimuli and external input are his ideas. I agree with his list but would want to add one little thing - if the inspiration does not come, go outside and change place. Sometimes this helps. Moving the meeting to a cafe or restaurant can ventilate ideas.


With this tips you should end up with an excellent and strong brand. Maybe easier said than done. But if the inspiration does not come today, try again tomorrow. Creativity cannot be forced.


Lastly, here is a link to van de Werk's blog for those of you who are interested: http://vandewerk.nl/brand-name-hurricane-part-1/

If I was you, I would be much happier

For those of you who didn't know, fashion is my passion. And it has much to do with creativity. Indeed.

Without Alexander Wang's amazing creativity these clothes would never have been created. And I could sleep my nights better without thinking how I could be able to give my contribution to the world economy and collect the money for such a gorgeous piece of clothing. AAH.

Pictures: style.com

The morning

To be creative can be rather demanding a morning in September when it is raining and the weather is rather chilly. 

While zipping my morning tea, I, however,  found an interesting blog written by Sean Low, the Founder and President of The Business of Being Creative LLC and got an inspiration. You can find the link to his blog here below. In his latest post he wrote about emotional connection; in business, as well as in real life people are interested in their feelings and relationships with the ones they love. When doing business it would of course be an advantage to be able to emotionally touch the clients. In my opinion this is, however, a bit sanctimonious: multinational companies do not have time or interest to care about separate customers. If I'm not buying that car, somebody else will do it. In micro companies, the situation can be rather different. When choosing a hairdresser, 

Sean Low encourages in the end to stop pretending and just be yourself and of course I agree with this. But the question is where goes the limit and how far are people willing to go. The high educated, well-to-do Wallstreetian can quit a job in a company in which values he does not believe in but what about the poor Nigerian girl selling illusions to tourists? 

Natutrally this is a bit exaggerated. On personal level the goal is of course to be yourself. But in business much is about how to build up illusions and images of something better which is affecting our feelings. Rationally it is not possible to motivate why I should buy a two thousand Euros designer bag but emotionally I feel attraction to the images these brands have created. 

Picture from WeHeartIt

In the end I believe that much of the talent behind effective and creative business has to do how to pretend to be unpretending. How to create a image of something genuine? 

Here is Sean Low's blog

http://www.thebusinessofbeingcreative.com/

So, this is the beginning! First text in this blog and Blog layout still under work. More coming soon!