Creativity: from discourse to doctrine?

International Journal of Cultural Policy, 2010

2009

The study of communication has not concentrated much of its global research effort on the way messages are created. Most often there has been a set of commonsense assumptions used about the notion of creativity itself and how this applies to media practice. However, there has been considerable research undertaken in other disciplines focused on gaining a rational understanding of creativity and how it works. We can therefore no longer assume that our commonsense assumptions provide a sound base for thinking about communication, creativity and cultural production. Consequently, if a research based understanding of creativity is applied to the issues that are currently pertinent to media practice in radio, journalism, television, film, photography, popular music and digital media, and then absorbed into the study of communication and cultural production, the focus of these issues will inevitably change as well. If this is the case then we need to put in place a slightly different set ...

Through the use of corporate communication and anti-piracy campaigns, creative industries elaborate their own definitions of cultural production and creativity. In most cases, rather than being made explicit and presented as the result of specific historical conditions, these definitions are provided as an intrinsic feature, something ‘natural’ which is simply given ‘in the nature of things’. More precisely, media campaigns tend to promote ‘the idea that the production of cultural goods is essentially a matter of individual creativity, effort and excellence’ and completely conceal the idea of creativity as ‘a social activity that entails copying and borrowing from cultural texts already in circulation’ (Yar 2008: 613-14). My paper aims at discussing Yar’s remarks with particular reference to a new contest promoted by Italian creative industries, titled ‘The Protagonist’ (Il protagonista 2013), which extensively elaborates on the issue of creativity with the manifest purpose of harmonizing user-generated content and film industry.

2009

Press. My love and gratitude goes particularly to Sandra, who first introduced me to the world of theories and taught me that doing scholarship is ultimately a leap of faith. I did not know how much I was indebted to her teaching until I began this project, and her lessons will continue to enrich my scholarly attempts in the years to come. Among others, Jane Gaines, Michael Dutton, Lisa Rofel, Meaghan Morris, and Rey Chow have genuinely believed in my endeavor, giving me the needed courage to embark on this almost directionless academic journey. I also want to thank those artists, curators, and filmmakers, including Leung Mee Ping, Li Xianting, Li Feixue, Wang Yan, Zhang Tingjun, and a number of young film directors in Hong Kong whose identities I would like to keep anonymous, who have generously shared with me their works, future ambitions, and current frustrations. Their real-life experiences as creative agents are essential for me to understand the ways creativity is practiced and embedded in their social conditions. Earlier versions of chapters of this book were presented in invited lectures

M@n@gement, 2012

Distribution électronique Cairn.info pour AIMS. © AIMS. Tous droits réservés pour tous pays. La reproduction ou représentation de cet article, notamment par photocopie, n'est autorisée que dans les limites des conditions générales d'utilisation du site ou, le cas échéant, des conditions générales de la licence souscrite par votre établissement. Toute autre reproduction ou représentation, en tout ou partie, sous quelque forme et de quelque manière que ce soit, est interdite sauf accord préalable et écrit de l'éditeur, en dehors des cas prévus par la législation en vigueur en France. Il est précisé que son stockage dans une base de données est également interdit.

2006

Drawing on empirical work with a third sector community organisation in the UK and the young NEET adults (16–20 years old, ‘not in employment or education or training’) they ‘creatively’ work with, this paper explores the practices and meanings of creativity as they emerged through a project funded through public and third sector organisations. The paper argues that there is an increasing disjuncture between creativity as a process or method, evidenced in the approaches, practices and ethos of the community organisation I worked with, and the notion of creativity as productive outcome seen in wider policy. This is having an impact on the practices and values of community organisations, particularly as they are pushed to rationalise processes as a result of austerity measures. Indeed, in the era of wider public and third sector cuts, creativity as a process or method is becoming harder to sustain on a day-to-day basis.

2013

This paper presents an overview of the current research into creativity, contrasts this with some common sense assumptions about creativity, and explores what the implications are for media practice in the light of what that research is telling us (McIntyre, 2012). In doing this the paper concentrates on some of the issues that apply to an understanding of the ways the products of screen based media, in particular television and film, come into being. It specifically focuses on so called confluence approaches to creativity and cultural production, including the systems model of creativity developed by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (1988, 1997, 1999) and combines this with the comprehensive approach to cultural production put forward by Pierre Bourdieu (1977, 1990, 1993 ,1996). The argument being presented is that it is the combined action of multiple interacting factors that enables creativity to emerge in film and television.

Dayan Thussu writes that 'with the revolution in digital distribution, a whole range of new revenue earning opportunities has surfaced as the media and telecommunications sectors intersect globally ' (2006: 99). Some refer to the industries, both traditional and new, that have taken advantage of these developments as creative, cultural or copyright industries (Hartley, 2005: 30-31). Terry Flew writes in his recent book The Creative Industries: Culture and Policy (2012), terminology in reference to these industries 'changes across countries, with some referring to the cultural industries, the copyright industries, the digital content industries, and even the cultural and creative industries or -as in China -the cultural creative industries' (2012: 4). As Flew argues, no matter what the nomenclature each shares the same issues, concerns and 'underlying questions opened up by the creative industries debate' (ibid). Since the notion of creativity is central to these debates it would be pertinent to understand what is meant by this term. The first step in that process is to ask; what do we already know about creativity? This question necessitates a perusal of the research literature on creativity. In surveying this literature (McIntyre, 2012) there appears to be some emerging consensus that the structures that characterise social networks and knowledge systems coupled with the application of idiosyncratic agency produce creativity; in other words what we may be looking at is the idea that creativity emerges from a system in action (Hennessey and Amabile 2010). Armed with these research efforts this paper makes a comparison of this body of literature with the literature coming from creative industries. In doing so it observes the correspondences and disjunctures found there since the term creativity appears to have been conceived differently, at different times, by the various scholars who pursue the issues that swirl around the notion of creative, cultural or copyright industries. Nonetheless the narrative trajectory or movement of thought for each body of literature seems to be similar. The paper concludes by addressing what appears to the current destination for both bodies of literature, that is, the idea that creativity is systemic.

Behind the Screen, 2013