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