III. Gratuidad, desigualdad y derechos
4. Dimensiones descuidadas de la democratización
Culture and creativity are vital to our national life. We have long seen the value which creative people bring to our lives, through the employment of their skill and the exercise of their imagination. Their activities enrich us all, bringing us pleasure and broadening our horizons. But there is another reason for creativity, and a reason for cherishing it: the whole creative sector is a growing part of the economy (Chris Smith, Creative Industries Mapping Document: DCMS 1998).
Unlike centuries ago, when the field of aesthetics and philosophy studied aesthetic meanings and concepts of creativity, in the modern world these have become
commercial and industrial concepts. Many countries have established national projects to become ‘creative’, such as the Creative Britain project in 1998, and Creative America in 2000. What significance do the ‘creative industries’ have for nations? How has the
concept of creativity now developed so significantly that it has become a national project? My findings address these questions later in the thesis. The data chapters (particularly Chapters 6, 8, and 10) will demonstrate how effectively the potential for successful creative industry has shifted Korean animators’ and people’s appreciation of the cultural values of animation and what the consequences of such changes are. They also show how the Korean government emphasises the importance of creative industry and supports the Korean animation industry, as well as the problems caused by such a sudden emphasis on the animation industry. To understand the case of the Korean animation industry, it is first necessary to review other nations’ experiences.
As material consumption increases with improved standards of living, the consumption of cultural products, such as films, theatres and gallery exhibitions, (accumulating signs, texts and images in Lash’s and Urry’s explanation, 1994) has also increased. This has made the creative industry more significant, forming a new
economic sector (Lash and Urry, 1994; O’Connor in Johansson and Sernhede, 2002).
According to a project report - Creative Industries in the Modern City (Belova, E et. Al, 2002), which focuses on encouraging enterprise and creativity in St. Petersburg --
‘creative industries’ is ‘the term used to describe entrepreneurial activity in which economic value is linked to cultural content’ (6). In The Creative Industries in the East Midlands (2003) by COMEDIA, ‘creative industries’ are defined by the UK government 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.
The UK government considers the following industries as components of the ‘creative industries’: advertising, architecture, the art and antiques market, crafts, design, designer fashion, film and video, interactive leisure software, music, the performing arts, publishing, software and computer services, television and radio (COMEDIA, 2003). The above definitions and categories of creative industries indicate there is a certain relationship between individual creativity and entrepreneurship, and cultural content and economic value. The statement, ‘Creativity is America's Greatest Renewable Energy Source’, shows the importance placed on the economic value of creativity
(
see web database). ‘Energy source’ indicates the substantial national income that creative industries earn for America. The organisation for Creative America reports that in 1999, the creative industries made $960 billion and, including the ‘core copyright industries’, $479.4 billion in revenue was generated in 2003.A similar impression can also be found in the case of the Creative Britain project.
The Creative Industries Mapping Documents was published by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) (see web database), which provides the figures of the growth in the creative economy sector between 1998 and 2001. According to their report, the sector took 7.9 percent of the UK’s GDP in 2000 and between 1997 and 2000, an average annual growth of 9 percent was achieved while the entire economy growth reached only 2.8 percent. These figures reveal the significant role played by the creative industries in the nation in terms of national income and the consequent cultural position in the global world. Likewise, a study on creative industries was conducted in Hong Kong and showed that the creative industries contributed over $46 billion to the local economy in 2001, securing 3.8 percent of the GDP. According to the report, the growth of the creative industries encouraged increasing job placement and, despite the
economic downturn, the creative economy sector employed 11 percent of the population
between 1996 and 2002 (see web database). According to the 2001 Establishment and Enterprise Census reported by Mitsuhiro Yoshimoto (2003), the creative industries in Japan contained 176,000 establishments and 1.878 million employees, which was 2.8 percent and 3.2 percent of the total for all industries. Also according to the 1999 Survey on Service Industries, ‘￥35.35 trillion in revenue was made, comprising 17.5 percent of the total for all service industries’. He continues by quoting the noticeable growth figure of the creative industries, growing by 88.5 percent since 1989. This was almost 20 percent more than the service industries. Looking at these cases, it is possible to understand why the creative industries have been referred to as an ‘endless energy source’. From this economic perspective, the meaning of creativity can be understood in different ways from those discussed in Section 4.2. Creativity becomes a cultural
element that enables a nation to have power not only in culture but also in the economy.
Gina Wisker, in her conference paper :urturing and Harnessing Creativity: Lessons from the Humanities for Innovation and Enterprise, gives three important reasons why creativity is vital to our future society in terms of personal, business and, in particular, economy. She remarks:
Economically it is invaluable as the source of new ideas and forms, solution to problems. Creative outputs contribute to national and personal financial security. The arts and humanities – the home base of creativity –
themselves generate a great deal of jobs and gross national product (2004).
Chris Smith seems to share Wisker’s positive attitude towards the economic value of the creative industries, and he also appears to show his strong belief about the power of creativity and its impact on the nation. In Creative Britain, Smith suggests
that creativity and the creative industries not only influence the national economy but also highlight the interrelationship between community and individuals, developing from a ‘Me’ generation to an ‘Us’ generation (1998: 16). One of Smith’s central
arguments is that without culture and creative activities there can be ‘no society and no sense of shared identity or worth’ (ibid.: 16). The creative industries become a medium to bridge people and the nation. Smith remarks that the encouragement of creative industries does not focus on what they call high culture or authentic art but through various forms of culture, including popular culture. He rejects the idea that culture is something different from entertainment. For that reason, one of the examples Smith offers is Tony Blair sharing his glass of wine with Noel Gallagher (a singer from the
‘Britpop’ band, Oasis) and also appreciating a theatrical performance, ‘King Lear’ by Richard Eyre (ibid.: 3-7). Popular culture and its products can be accessible and
‘ordinary consumer goods’ unlike art/high culture, which is relatively exclusive
(Abbing, 2002: 43). Hence, this accessible culture will help people communicate, unify and share their cultural commonness. Also, Smith clears up some of the worrying assumptions concerning whether governmental involvement in the creative industries may disturb creativity by ‘bureaucratizing their creative freedom’:
I would argue, with passion, that it does not. Government cannot itself forge the creative impulse. What it can do is try to nurture it, encourage it, aid its expression, help it achieve maximum impact, and assist society at large in the understanding and appreciation of what is created. These are all things that a government not only can do but must do (ibid.: 1).
In fact, since the Creative Britain project was launched, so-called ‘creative quarters’ have been established in Birmingham, Newcastle, Liverpool, Sheffield and
Belfast (Banks et al., 2000; Oakley, 2004). As these creative quarters encourage the local creative sectors, what the government seems to provide is an economic base.
Education and support in organizing events for artists will nurture their creative
activities and consequently, it will create more work and thus reduce unemployment. In this regard, Wisker (2004) discusses ‘how creativity is nurtured and harnessed’.
Despite such a seeming panacea-like role of creativity in the national economy with encouraging help from the government, doubts have been raised about its political influences. In Cultural Economy (du Gay and Pryke, 2002), Angela McRobbie writes about the structure of the UK’s creative industries, which she describes in terms of
‘Hollywoodization’ and national policy (p. 109).By Hollywoodization, McRobbie means the tendency of people’s participation in the media and popular culture that work extremely long hours with low [or no] payment. Here, she borrows Beck’s idea –
‘Brazilianization’ – on the increase of part-time occupation (ibid.: 105). She points out the problem of income insecurity generated by such a structure:
Cultural practices are seen primarily and immediately in terms of
commercial opportunities; this eliminates the space, time and rationale for an independent or alternative sector. But this prominence doesn’t eliminate the irregular and insecure livings being made in these creative fields;
instead it intensifies them (98).
According to McRobbie, such national policies to improve the creative industries are simply to decrease the unemployment situation in numeric figures. Because of this, she speaks about ‘made-up jobs’ (McRobbie, 2002: 111). She adds that due to the newly changed regulation on unemployment benefit, participants in the creative industries
whose jobs are not stable cannot stay unemployed but must look for in-between-jobs.
However, because of their ‘labour of love’ and ‘passion’ for their own creative work, they seem to enjoy the creative activities and remain in the industry even when no payment is available at times (ibid.: 109-111).
One other criticism is of the over-emphasis on the economic value of the creative industries. It is important to recognise the shift of the meanings and importance of creativity in the national economy, but many argue cultural value and economic value should also be evenly matched. Kate Oakely argues that the current UK game industry cannot be supported by tax breaks like the film industry as it is regarded as less of a
‘need’ for the nation – games do not have the same cultural case (2004: 74). The widely acknowledged idea that the economic value of a product in the creative industries is dependent upon its ‘cultural value’ (quoted from Banks et al., 2000) lies in an indefinable position (ibid.: 75).
A further problem is what is being said and discussed is not fully documented or proven by empirical research, and hence the core of research on creative industries has become to find out ‘how [the industry] actually works’ (Banks et al., 2000: 453; Oakley, 2004: 71). Oakley suggests that rather than statistics gathered on creative industries, long term research on ‘how the creative industries might help foster a sense of social inclusion’ (ibid.: 71) needs to be carried out. Similar problems are also found from Korean creative industry, which I now turn to.