European Reports re Creative Industries

9 views
Skip to first unread message

Ghislaine Boddington

unread,
May 6, 2011, 9:44:09 AM5/6/11
to acedigitaluncut
http://www.proinno-europe.eu/promotion-pro-inno-europe-results/newsroom/european-competitiveness-report-2010-innovation-and-creat

The European Commission has today (October 2010) published the
'European Competitiveness Report 2010'. Recovering from a severe
recession, the report identifies the main future determinants of EU
competitiveness on world markets. One of these determinants is the
creative industries sector, which is among the fastest growing sectors
in the EU creating new jobs, playing key roles in global value chains
and spurring innovation.

Accounting for 3.3% of total EU GDP and 3% of employment, creative
industries are one of the most dynamic sectors in Europe with a large
growth potential. Empirical evidence shows that creative industries
strengthen regional growth and that they are the most potentially
innovative of all EU sectors. This has made the EU one of the biggest
exporters of creative goods. Creative industries are not only
innovators themselves but they are also important drivers of
innovation developed in non-creative industries. Creative industries
also play a large role, as users of new technologies, in the
dissemination of innovations. According to the European
Competitiveness Report 2010 there is, however, no place for
complacency, action is needed to tackle the specific challenges this
sector is facing to unlock its full potential.

Producers of creative industries' goods and services are prone to
several market failures. Creative industries face considerable
uncertainty and volatility in demand, which makes it difficult for
them to attract finance. According to the European Competitiveness
Report this can be tackled with a smartly designed public procurement
programme. The prime problem is rather the lack of proper markets and
the lack of properly functioning price mechanisms. Next to national
policies, the EU can also contribute to the flourishing of creative
industries by supporting the mobility of creative Europeans, enforcing
the implementation of the Service Directive, establishing a true
single market for online content and services and by standardisation.
Due to the strong link between creative industries and regional
development, the Structural Funds could also serve as enablers for the
sector.

In conclusion, the European Competitiveness Report 2010 demonstrates
that creative industries have a recognized important and
transformative role in the EU's economy. It shows that creative
industries are the main drivers of innovation and encompass an even
bigger potential. To unlock this potential, the main barriers which
this sector is facing should be tackled through regional, national and
EU policies.

File Attachment: on the site - link at top
European_Digital_Competitiveness_report_2010.v1(Main_report).pdf
European_Digital_Competitiveness_report_2010.v2(ICT_Country_Profiles).pdf
European_Digital_Competitiveness_report_2010(STAFF_WORKING_DOCUMENT).pdf


Ghislaine Boddington

Rachel Baker

unread,
May 6, 2011, 12:30:35 PM5/6/11
to acedigi...@googlegroups.com, ruth....@furtherfield.org, mike....@fact.co.uk, taylor...@folly.co.uk, si...@viral.info, pau...@metamute.com, jamesw...@googlemail.com
Dear CODA panellists

Thanks for giving up your time to attend this meeting on the 14th. I
wanted to invite you to discuss in advance the arguments or questions you
wanted to bring to the table in relation to your given topic.
In addition, if you could prepare a concrete example to share at the
event, an artwork perhaps, illustrating your argument, that would be
great.

Simon and Ruth
You are talking about Interdisciplinarity and Simon is the lead
'correspondent'.

Pauline and James
You are talking about Criticality and Pauline is the lead 'correspondent'.

Mike and Taylor
You are precipitating the discussion on Innovation, the primary topic
under analysis. Taylor, would you be lead correspondent here?


I, for one, am interested in Drew's distinction between art and
innovation. If innovation happens outside of art practice, does this mean
digital innovation and investment is bound to occur primarily in the
entrepreneurial creative business terrain, not the publicly funded arts
sector?

Best
Rachel

Taylor Nuttall

unread,
May 7, 2011, 7:23:55 AM5/7/11
to acedigi...@googlegroups.com, acedigi...@googlegroups.com, ruth....@furtherfield.org, mike....@fact.co.uk, taylor...@folly.co.uk, si...@viral.info, pau...@metamute.com, jamesw...@googlemail.com
Hi Rachel

Thanks, yes to that.

Re:
"I, for one, am interested in Drew's distinction between art and innovation. If innovation happens outside of art practice, does this mean digital innovation and investment is bound to occur primarily in the entrepreneurial creative business terrain, not the publicly funded arts sector?"

Or we might also critically ask, if this is the case how might we then benefit via that investment?  Seems we are consistently cited as exemplar models, and when engaging with creative business terrain frequently look to us for thought leadership. But mechanisms to capitalise on this are sparse and difficult to manage.

Taylor

Taylor Nuttall (private e-mail)
digit...@gmail.com
@digitaylor

Mob. 07932692336

See also:
@ThorneyHow

Thorney How
Grasmere
Ambleside
Cumbria
LA22 9QW
Tel. 01539435597

also work contact:
CEO
Folly
@follydigitalart

Simon Biggs

unread,
May 7, 2011, 9:53:31 AM5/7/11
to acedigi...@googlegroups.com
Innovation is a buzzword popular with government and industry, since
Mandelson's time at BIS. It is often used in conjunction with words such as
creativity, novelty and intellectual property. Such a combination of terms
is usually found within a neo-liberal framework that seeks to
instrumentalise creative practice and many other aspects of human activity.
The aim is to generate excess value. I think we all understand this.

There has been a deliberate strategy of the past few governments to
instrumentalise culture. The process was evident in academia before it was
in the creative arts but with the latest cuts to ACE and ACE's subsequent
cuts to the creative arts, and the priorities revealed by their reasoning
and choices, the process is now clearly well advanced across the creative
arts. The ultimate outcome of this process will be the subsuming of the
creative arts into the creative industries. I think we have all read Adorno
on this. He would now be coughing up his cornflakes.

The question is how to deal with this agenda? 70's feminism often sought to
re-programme behaviour, using new language to avoid the baggage of the old
(eg: "wimmin" instead of "women"). Later feminists tried a different
approach, re-appropriating existing language and forms of behaviour (so we
got Madonna and then Lady Gaga). Perhaps, due to my age, my sympathies are
with the earlier tactics, even if they were less entertaining. The question
remains whether radical feminism failed or succeeded in its objectives,
whether in part or in full, and what lessons we can learn?

In respect of the neo-liberal appropriation of words we all use, like
creativity, community, society (eg: "big society"), in a very different
sense, I am not sure what the best strategy is. This is a debate that has to
be had but perhaps there need to be multiple strategies to counter the
instrumentalisation and commercialisation of what we do? Assuming one tactic
or another, due to ideological or other reasons, is as potentially
problematic as an instrumentalising agenda. Then again, does that risk an
unfocused strategy?

Sorry, I only seem to have questions rather than answers....

In the meantime I try to avoid words like innovation, novelty and such-like.
Not only because of how they have been appropriated but because I wonder if
they mean much even in their original sense (the word "original" is also
problematic). In the case of the term "novelty" it can be argued that
nothing is ever new, that everything is a function of something else and
novelty is only the apprehension of a temporary and illusory set of
relations as value - a bit of fluff.

I wrote something about this with James Leach some years ago, where we
considered the distinct role of "novelty" in the creative arts and the
social sciences. You can read it here:
http://www.littlepig.org.uk/texts/autopoeisis.htm

If you read the text you will note we seek to reclaim "creativity" as an
ontological process informing the making of social relations and beings.
This situates value not in innovation but in people and things ("things" in
the Heideggerean sense of processes of becoming). I think much of that
argument remains relevant.

Best

Simon


Simon Biggs
si...@littlepig.org.uk
http://www.littlepig.org.uk/

s.b...@eca.ac.uk
http://www.elmcip.net/
http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/


marc garrett

unread,
May 7, 2011, 11:57:55 AM5/7/11
to acedigi...@googlegroups.com
Hi all,

I have always had problems with the word 'innovation'. For me, it
promotes and falls into the trappings of various forms of
pseudo-cultural leadership. It invents and puts into action 'gurus' with
a liberal face, whilst at the same time it masks their inner desires to
fit into a socially engineered framework, which despises the very 'real'
freedom that imagination truly (can) give. There exists a type of
language around innovation, forming a loosely formulated cultural
interface, linked to a code of practice based around class and
privilege. The class of the 'genius' and the position and privilege for
those who abide with, and invest in such mutually assured process of
myth-making.

Sticking to the reference of myth-making, or rather mythology of
innovation; it is useful to study the psychology around its contemporary
relations, regarding how 'innovation' has been appropriated, marketed
and used in the past and present. The term itself, is a product, a
signifier demanding a kind of social respect according to defined values
proposed by an elite; who tend to judge what is innovative or not. For
example, if you chose to say you were not innovative, this would mean
that your status as a creative individual is lower in value than those
who readily propose that they are. This may seem obvious, but it
highlights how we are trapped within language structures; lacking the
nuance or essence to empower our social situations and needs. We (of
course) have to mutate to be accepted by the powers that be, at any
given circumstance or occasion. Thus, our language is not our own, or
rather we have no voice unless we talk the same language as our
community or 'our rulers' - we perhaps, tend to try out both options and
more...

Innovation sits on the same side of the coin as romanticism, but a
meta-notch up. It is a form of romanticism, but asks us to be more
competitive with each other, whether this be in manufacturing, business,
services, technology, as well as extending to other sectors such as art
or design, and similar industries. The competitive side of innovation
asks us to push our explorations forward, at the edge where no 'man' has
been before, but at the same time you must maintain and respect specific
rules, standards and protocols. These standards are important, because
they define who actually gains from your product, invention or social
project. Allowing innovation to take place means, that your endeavor(s)
have certain responsibilities, and this reflects the ambitions of those
sourcing or funding it in the first place. The main problem with this is
that the framework or environments we all (officially) exist in, are
based around industrial growth and not actual social change from a grass
roots or ethically aware perspective. Innovation then becomes just
another excuse for social engineering, not necessarily individual
projects alone, but when we see the larger picture and consider who
really benefits from such initiations, we can see that it all builds a
bigger wall dividing us and others from each other than, bringing us
together constructively.

Some believe that innovation to means the same for themselves, as it
does for those who rule industry, government and certain institutions.
That's the catch, inspiration is an ambiguous emotion and attached to
it, sits romance, pulling at our inner desires and sensibilities. Yet,
in practice it is only particular forms of accepted activities of
innovation allowed to develop, and they are
tightly controlled. This is where values are based on product, hegemony
and the illusion of social inclusion, with the added mix of the
sensationalist instigation of media networks to define your status and
worth for the larger (consumer) community, but this structure only
serves the privileged and accepted norm, and not the grounded
life-changers out there.

So, what tends to happen is that, even though there are groups who are
obviously innovative in respect of their own circumstance, they will not
be readily accepted into the 'parent', framework of socially acceptable
'innovation', because, ironically - they are too innovative. Various
forms of (actual) innovation will not fit the agenda of what is deemed
to be innovation by those who require more politically instrumental and
easily controlled projects. The idea and term 'innovation' - is tightly
owned by various industries and corporations proposing themselves to
understand and own the 'cultural' copyright of what the word really means.

Access and privileges to galvanize certain forms of creative innovation
are limited, and (real) nourishment is sliced out of the mix. Usually,
the only ones aloud to practice this special form of culturalized
galvanization, are those who are deemed a guru or a genius, which is
usually defined through protocols lacking the perspective(s) and inner
depth to appreciate others - other than as maneuverable objects, within
systems of convenient symbols linked to their status, standing or
assumed class appropriateness.

Innovation is an effective social tool, dividing us further from each
other. It is more about 'galvanization', which also fits well with early
scientific experiments in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century. "Art is
not a free autonomous activity of a super-endowed individual,
"influenced" by previous artists and more vaguely and superficially by
"social forces," but rather ... occurs in a social situation, is an
integral element of social structure, and is mediated and determined by
specific and definable social institutions, be they art academies,
systems of patronage, mythologies of the divine creator and artist as
he-man or social outcast." Linda Nochlin.

We unfortunately, all play a part in acting out (imposed or assimilated)
roles, archetypal and mannerist representations of ourselves, not
adequate in reflecting more intuitive values and nuanced possibilities.
The frameworks which empower officially defined notions of innovation,
are masculine and systemic. Innovation is: culturalized galvanism.
Innovation - a contemporary metaphor, representing the giving of
fire/power to the (accepted) Olympian, winner or genius - to carry the
Promethean torch for others to admire from below. Innovation is: social
engineering, a conscious appropriation and intervention on another's
liberty; on those who lack the power to change the conditions chosen for
them by external means, where everyday experience, beliefs and
structures are mutated by a stronger wave of determination. The hegemony
of the day wins the argument due to its ownership and structures in
place, leaving others out to observe the stories and ideas as viewers
and not, as co-investigators, creators, explorers or co-creators.


1. Linda Nochlin, "Why Are There No Great Women Artists?" Women in
Sexist Society. Studies in Power and Powerlessness, ed. Vivian Gornick
and Barbara Moran, New York, 1971, 480-510; reprinted in a special issue
of Art News, January, 1971, as "Why Have There Been No Great Women
Artists?" and in the important early collection of essays, -Art and
Sexual Politics, ed. Thomas B. Hess, Elizabeth C. Baker, New York,
London, 1971.

Wishing all well.

marc

www.furtherfield.org

Simon Poulter

unread,
May 12, 2011, 4:35:52 AM5/12/11
to acedigitaluncut, ruth....@furtherfield.org, Stephen Fortune
In advance of the CODA meeting, some notes:

• This debate has been stimulated by the new NPO portfolio decisions initiated by Arts Council England. There were winners, losers and some who stood still. The meeting on 14th May is not going to be a huge attack on ACE, it is an opportunity to drive the debate into a more valuable area for all those interested in digital creativity. People from ACE will attend and join in with the debate. 

• Overall, there are 600 people out there worldwide who signed the CODA letter [www.coda2coda.net], so it would be parochial to focus on funding but illuminating to celebrate the investment so far that has made the UK a leader in this area. 

• It is apparent that two areas of concern overwhelmingly came through in the online debate. The value of a textured and varied ecology of practice and organisations. (A reasonable assertion proposed by some in this debate is that ACE balanced the portfolio away from artist led in regard to digital.) The fact that this came from grassroots interactions and start up mentalities, often engaged in social or political ways of thinking. Secondly, the innovation word has been challenged head on. The debate will home in on 'ecology of practice' and the meaning of 'innovation'.

• Also of significance is the concern that digital is being invested in from a culture of platforming 'content'. ACE has appeared to laud the hook up with the BBC around digital distribution but did the media arts/digital sector fail to make the case for investment in pure creative practice, artist professional development and alternative means/modes of production? This has been proposed by several respected people sitting within ACE and in the funded sector.

• There is everything to play for as the UK economy will itself be rebalanced. A wider view is that the Creative Industries in the UK are one of the most buoyant parts of the economy, but unlike the scientific sector failed to argue for increased investment. Several commentators in this debate have raised the importance of making an argument to government and not ACE to review the investment procedure in creativity (and of course digital is at the core of this). Does this suggest a concern at ACE's ability to drive digital creativity at this level? Another question for the debate.

• The meeting will be an opportunity to ask questions and get involved, but in particular the speakers will address these key issues.



Event: Digital Innovation
Where: FutureEverything, Manchester
Venue: Conference Room 2, situated in Four Piccadilly Place
Time: 12 noon – 2pm, Saturday 14th May, 2011
URLs: www.coda2coda.net
http://groups.google.com/group/acedigitaluncut?pli=1



Taylor Nuttall

unread,
May 12, 2011, 5:08:24 AM5/12/11
to acedigi...@googlegroups.com
Thanks Simon

Am at GoonND11 6th National Digital Conference subtitled 'Building a digital nation.'

Martha Lane Fox talks about an opportune time with broad cross sector interest and need to show how UK Is leading on Digital.

Jeremy Hunt cites continued growth of creative industries and importance of internet as next trade route. Also announced plans for 90% access to superfast broadband by 2015.

However, Arts sector is hardly represented here (knowle media centre incorporated into a connected Bristol stand) and nil evidence / evaluation of arts contribution to digital.

We need a voice here!

Taylor

Taylor Nuttall

unread,
May 12, 2011, 5:37:14 AM5/12/11
to acedigi...@googlegroups.com
By the way also of interest.

Pauline van Mourik Broekman

unread,
May 13, 2011, 6:14:53 PM5/13/11
to acedigi...@googlegroups.com
I heard an interesting anecdote recently. Namely that Ed Vaizey, on the
other hand, is totally and utterly fed up with the economistic arguments
that many in the arts community have regarded it as the only safe option
to make to defend themselves and win government funds.

Does everyone read these Creative Industries documents and actually
attribute any kind of genuine valence to these percentage figures of GDP -
rather than just looking at the cities they live in and seeing what's
happening to them and the people in them? Yes, there's employment created,
and yes innovation is happening (and we'll find out tomorrow what that
is), but of whom, and at what cost? Where does that turn up in these
hollow stats? I just find it totally perplexing - and then it gets
exported all around the world as an ideal; an iron-clad engine and
incontestible logbook for growth and prosperity...

It is great that artists we might know and look to for inspiration are
getting noticed in other countries and by other people and communities,
but I think we should watch for a serious and increasingly glaring
contradiction in the tacit embrace of the internationalism - and
communalism - networks offer us, and the nationalism these discourses of
leadership and competitiveness are built on.

Apart from all the many more serious things it is, isn't it also seriously
retro?

Looking forward to tomorrow.

Pauline.


--

Pauline van Mourik Broekman
Director
Mute Publishing
46 Lexington Street
London
W1F 0LP

W: http://www.metamute.org
W: http://www.openmute.org
E: pau...@metamute.org

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

Don't miss our...

Critical history of global networked culture:
PROUD TO BE FLESH: http://www.metamute.org/ptbf

Reader on political art in creative cities:
NO ROOM TO MOVE: http://www.metamute.org/nrtm

Whole nine yards:
MUTE ARCHIVE, 1994-2008: http://www.metamute.org/archive

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*


Matt Adams

unread,
May 16, 2011, 5:38:31 AM5/16/11
to acedigitaluncut
Hi Pauline

Here's a really good critique of the the economics driven argument for
the arts from John Kay writing in the FT:

http://www.johnkay.com/2010/08/11/a-good-economist-knows-the-true-value-of-the-arts

Best wishes

Matt

On May 13, 11:14 pm, "Pauline van Mourik Broekman"
> E: paul...@metamute.org

kwatson

unread,
Jan 30, 2012, 11:19:23 AM1/30/12
to acedigi...@googlegroups.com
Hi, Rachel,

Have you received an invite for Kinetica? If not would you like to come? Opening in on Wednesday 8th Feb
If so let me have your address, and I'll get it in the post.

regards
keith


Regards
Keith Watson
kwa...@romanesque.co.uk
+44 (0) 7802 74 84 84
skype: kw1330


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages