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.