Some relevant facts and figures
 |
Bob & Roberta Smith discussing the value of the arts to the economy
at Creative Networks Event, Leeds College of Art, May 2015 |
As part of my
research for my “Professional Context” presentation, I’ve been looking at what
the “Creative industries” actually comprise and how much they give to the
economy.
Origins of the term “Creative Industries”
The term “Creative
Industries” actually comes from the government of Tony Blair. This government
identified these industries as important to the economy, and brought 13 sectors
together under the umbrella of “Creative Industries”. Digital technologies were
seen as a particularly important facet. The approach combined “new labour”
modernisation with some “old labour” cities. Blair wanted to find a concept in
which the UK could still be identified as a world leader in the UK’s
post-industrial age. However, some of the traditional Labour-held cities had
already moved culture to a central part of their economy once traditional
industries had declined. Sheffield and Manchester are examples of this
(interestingly, Leeds isn’t mentioned – but here we moved to a financial sector
economy). The concept of Creative Industries was exported to other countries
and is seen as a successful marketing exercise for the UK. (Flew, 2012, pp9-15)
USA
I chose to look at
the USA because their cultural capital is so large. America boomed post-war and
their culture now permeates the whole of Western culture, and possibly
(probably?) world culture. Think of American movies, music, fashion, food. Yet
in spite of this they have no national creative industries policy. Some funding
is available via the National Endowment for the Arts but the sector is strongly
reliant upon private philanthropy. Another factor is the strength and power of
the commercial entertainment sector (Flew, 2012, p 40). However, the NEA,
established by congress in 1956, does partner with the state and federal
agencies and the philanthropic sector to support and promote access to arts and
culture for all Americans (National Endowment for the Arts (1), n.d.). It
awards grants to organisations which meet its aims up to the value of tens of
thousands of dollars (National Endowment for the Arts (2), n.d.).
Despite no
national creative industries policy, Flew (2012, pp 40-41) identifies the
expansion of cultural activity in some American cities as the idea of arts and
entertainment quarters aimed at attracting creative practitioners to live and
work in the city. Flew quotes a text by Florida which influenced urban policy
and cultural planning to take up the idea of “creativity strategies”. This
meant that city planners began to actively seek to promote the “three T’s” of
technology, talent and tolerance to cause creative practitioners to work, live
and contribute to the economy of their city. Seattle, Austin and Boston are
amongst examples quoted of cities with strong, dynamic creative economies.
The US does have
an organisation that lobbies on behalf of the arts, “Americans for the Arts”.
Their aim is to lead and to bring together organisations and individuals who
promte and support the arts such that all and any Americans can access culture
and the arts. Any individual can join and their website is full of information
about how to lobby for the good of the Arts.
The US definition
of creative industries does not include the commercial entertainment sector
(Flew, 2012, p 39). However, the industry is still healthy. According the the
NEA,
(National
Endowment for the Arts (3), n.d.), in 2014 the creative industries sector was
worth $698bn (£459bn), equivalent to 4.3% GDP.
Italy
Italy is clearly
another country whose culture has had a profound effect on the world. Think
Italian couture, Roman Catholic church, Roman monuments, Renaissance artists.
Traditionally
there has been public funding for heritage, music, theatre and the like,
initially provided centrally, but more recently provided less centrally and
more via the regions and local authorities (Compendium, 2015, (1) & (2)).
However, with the pressure on public finances, the state has increasingly
turned to the private sector for help. This has resulted in sponsorship of
renovations by private companies. For example, the luxury leather goods
manufacturer Tod’s has given £20m for the restoration of the Colosseum. This
gives them the right to have their logo on the tickets for a period of time,
and to associate the Colosseum with their branding. This engagement with the
private sector has yielded funding for a variety of projects (Fendi are
sponsoring the Trevi Fountain restoration, for example), but also friction as
there is a view that Italy is simply selling its massive cultural heritage to
the highest bidder. A further complication is the active solicitation of
foreign sponsorship, e.g. “a preliminary agreement with Saudi Arabia to fund
the restoration of the Mausoleum of Augustus” (Faiola,2014).
The Italian
creative industries sector figures for 2011 show it adding €95bn to the
economy, about 6% of GDP (Forum D’Avignon and Tera Consultants (2014); Italian
National Institute of Statistics (2012)), but I don’t have a further breakdown
of this. However, it seems healthy in its own right.
UK
The UK has also
given its culture to the world: the British Empire, Beatlemania, Britpop….
Centralised
funding comes from the Department for Culture, Media and Sports via Arts
Council England (for England, at least). ACE’s mission is “Great Art and
Culture for everyone” (Arts Council England (1), n.d.); they support
organisations that facilitate public access to arts and culture of different
genres – music, art, theatre, museums etc. The latest funding round shows a
significant cut : for 2012-15, ACE distributed £1.4bn of public money and £1bn of
National Lottery money. For 2015-18, the figures are £1.1bn of public money and
£700m National Lottery (Arts Council England (2), n.d.).
To quote Dr. Ben
Walmsley of the University of Leeds, “Art fundraising is in an exciting state
of flux. Are we ready for change?” (Walmsley, 2015). Whether we are ready or
not seems irrelevant as change is what is happening. Walmsley goes on to say that arts organisations
need to “stop appearing to be needy” and to become embedded in their
communities. In other words, they need to get business savvy PDQ. In fact, ACE
has inaugurated the “Arts Fundraising and Philanthropy” programme to “transform
funding” (Arts Fundraising and Philanthropy (n.d.)) and to “develop
an enterprising culture in which income generation is placed at the heart of an
arts organisation’s business model and ethos” (ibid).
All this said, the
UK creative industries sector is still doing well, generating £76.9bn of value
equivalent to 5%GDP. I was quite surprised to find out that 46% of this is from
software and games – a sector that didn’t really exist 30 or 40 years ago - and
only about 7% from music, arts and culture – which is where I would position
myself. (The Creative Industries (n.d.))
Leeds
Leeds has given
some culture to the world – textiles, Hepworth, Moore, the Kaiser Chiefs (??) –
and is bidding to become Cultural Capital of Europe in 2023. But the funding
situation reflects that of ACE. In 2012-15 Leeds City Council had a funding pot
of around £3m per year for the arts. By 2017-18 that will have been cut to around
£2.5m per year (Yorkshire Evening Post, 2014). Most of the funding is
distributed to arts organisations (Leeds City Council (n.d.)), to allow
citizens to access the arts and culture. However, through further investigation
I realised they also fund “Leeds Inspired”, which I’d hitherto only known by
its website, and they do small grants of £100 - £1000 to individuals to support
artistic activities, such as exhibitions. However, you do have to have a track
record of delivery. (Leeds Inspired (n.d.))
Discussion
This has been
quite a time-consuming but interesting investigation. There is a welcome theme
of organisations that support the arts in all the places above, showing that
even in these times of financial constraint, at least some importance is still
attached to the arts. I do think, though, that the situation in Italy – turning
to the private sector – is going to be reflected across the piece. The Arts
Fundraising and Philanthropy initiative is, I suppose, a necessary evil in
England, to ensure that the arts can remain vibrant across the country. I think
we will see more and more of this as the Conservative government squeeze public
services further. As the “creative industries” was a Labour invention, it will
be interesting to see if the Conservatives actively decide to undermine these
sectors.
The creative
industries seem to be holding their own, even growing in the UK. This, again,
is welcome news as it implies the sectors are maturing and established. I was a
little concerned to see how much the UK sector relies on the Software sector. I’m
not sure if the proverbial man on the street would quote software as part of
the creative sector. I wonder if its inclusion in the figures obscures the fact
that the “traditional” arts sectors are perhaps not doing as well as they
might.
Anyway, on the
basis that I am unlikely to be applying for funding abroad any time soon, it
was interesting to find out about the Leeds Inspired small grant scheme and it
does give me a glimmer of hope. I used to write and critique business cases in
a previous life so that “transferable skill” may well come in useful again. I
think my next steps need to be to continue my networking strategy, to step it
up in fact, and to start to get some creative work done. Then I can see where I
fit into the Leeds scene. Aligning
myself with one of the established organisations here, say perhaps volunteering
for East Street Arts or similar, would seem to be my best bet to get experience
which could help me get funding. I need to develop these ideas into more
concrete plans as I progress with the course.
