on being provoked, or… on not neglecting the business (whilst also, not making it the bottom line)
I’ve been busy, and/or sick since the first forum hosted by Thinking through the City: Incubating Creativity…
but the rich mix of conversation sparked by presentations, continuing over wine and food as the evening progressed: the – often conflicting – ideas, attitudes, desires, and opinions about what conditions ‘creativity’ requires (what it even constitutes – in relation to both ‘art’ and business) and consequently the – again at times conflicting – plans hatched for the ‘incubation of creativity’ within a local matrix, has continued to play on my mind.
Up the top, in terms of my own response, is the absolute provocation I feel reading Gavin Artz’s post following the forum. He titled the post “on being provocative” but went on to suggest his key focal points were not provocative at all, merely common sense… ie: that business and ‘creative practioners’ really want the same thing, and that this same thing amounts to new value in the form of wealth creation. Aaaaaah (my heart sinks a little right here) once again, as seems typical of late (across all sectors and, increasingly – sadly, for me… progressively, in Gavin’s terms – in every little crevice of daily life) the bottom line for success is how much money will be made.
I admit, it is extremely hard to make an acceptable living out of art practice over any length of time (in itself, it requires both creativity and business-sense) and I do believe new models are necessary to sustain and encourage a rich creative social fabric (some of Gavin’s ideas and some of the ideas expressed at the forum: business mentorships, and virtual teams of art/business collaborators have real merit and offer marked possibility for both individual artists, business interests and the general cultural good)… but I have a real problem with pitching wealth creation as a goal in and of itself. I also have a problem with the notion (he brackets the fact that in expressing himself this way he is indeed being provocative)… that council provision of gallery and/or studio spaces would constitute the ‘artificial creation’ of ‘sheltered workshops’, a ‘moribund’ idea he suggests, whose ‘time has passed’.
As time passes (and specifically given current conditions of global economic instability) an overly strong focus on the imperative value of economic wealth implicitly under-values the subtle, often intangible personal and social experiences that make a life feel ‘worth’while, regardless of their commercial benefit. It strikes me that ‘shelter’ from the need to ‘succeed’ commercially, whether artificially created, or naturally occurring (through the individual or collective desire for ‘other’ values… for places where risk and the possibility of failure are given space) is of high value.
Lisa Harms
You raise an interesting point Lisa. At the 3rd World Conference of Untied Cites and Local Government held in Mexico there was a strong endorsement of culture as the fourth pillar of sustainable development . The conference advocated that the role of local government was to work towards a healthy, safe, tolerant and creative society, rather than a merely financial prosperous one. Certainly there is a tension in striking a balance between these values.
October 1, 2011 at 7:23 am
Hello Lisa,
I agree, creative practitioners have a significant intrinsic value from a cultural, aesthetic, philosophical, psychological and creative perspective; I feel this is the heart of what makes us human. I also think that it is this very capacity and perspective that makes the work of creative practitioners so valuable in a commercial context. For me the creative and business worlds do not place mutely exclusive value on activities – they actually value the same things, but both usually don’t seem to realise. Therefore for creative practitioners to have value to business they need to remain creative in their own terms. A true, deep economic value can only be derived from allowing creative practitioners to fulfil the intrinsic motivation that has always been their rationale.
With regard to support, I don’t see merely distributing/communicating works in galleries as the high point of creative endeavour; the research and creative processes, embedded as a part of society, is where the most significant value occurs. This too is where the most valuable economic impact can happen, but this requires both the artworld and business world to think differently about the value of creative practice. I think creative practitioners should lead, change and drive business process – I am asking for change and leadership, not capitulation to what already exists. Creative practitioners need to maintain what they do, but understand that people see different value in what they create. This doesn’t mean they should panda to what a commercial world seems to value, but be able to express the deep value of their work to others. This may require partnering with people who can achieve this, but creative practitioners will always remain a poorly paid if they are unable to bridge these worlds.
I also believe business creates real value for society (the economy is important) and while there is varying degree of significance in that value, the benefits we derive from new thought is mainly distributed to citizens via commercial processes. This role that the commercial plays in society means that a refusal to engage in it cuts the arts off from one of the most significant avenues of influence, while at the same time letting the commercial world of the hook with regard to greater cultural and social relevance and responsibility. With this in mind I didn’t feel I had to be provocative in the forum because I got the impression that the artists present wanted to move beyond (while being a part of) the artworld, to a more significant impact on society and understood that they could influence, shape and benefit from the commercial world and to ask for help in attaining the opportunities that will afford creative practitioners a more significant place in society while still being shown on gallery walls or being performed on the stage.
With particular reference to artists I have been thinking about this question lately – Why should artists pursue the artworld so doggedly when they can have the whole world?
Gavin Artz
October 2, 2011 at 12:17 pm
Pingback: on not neglecting the business « thinkingthroughthecity