Towards an evidence-based assessment of the creative economy
4
in statistics for the creative economy with a problem. Only a small number of materials are “cultural or creative” by definition, that is, used exclusively for a cultural purpose. Diamonds, for example, can be used in jewellery and as a cutting edge for tools. Qualities of materials are unevenly captured in the current Harmonized System (HS) classification. This is largely a historical issue that refers more to the patterns of trade when such taxonomies were first devised, in short, when trade was dominated by manufactured goods and commodities (see HS 5206 for an example of the fine distinctions made between different yarns used in clothing). A classification based on the amount of plastic used in the production of a classical music and a pop music CD, for example, would inform us only of the raw materials incorporated into the products. Even a measure of the wholesale price of the CDs reveals nothing of the copyrights associated with the products. Clearly, there is no way to express the “real” value of a song or a story. It might be suggested that one could track the royalty payments. However, this again is difficult. First, such tracking relies upon a sophisticated and well-functioning collecting society (the organization that acts as an intermediary between artist and users). Manufacturers and distributors return a particular percentage on sales of products (books and records, for example) to the collecting society, as do broadcasters, and any public users of music. Then royalty owners receive a proportion of returns. In theory, it would be possible to track such “micro-payments” in an online system. However, this is not a current reality. The aim, therefore, is to develop a pragmatic way forward within the confines of the current data sets that would tell us something about the creative economy, summarized in table 4.8. Creative products are clearly a subset of all products. So, beyond this matrix lie all other products, where usage is wholly functional. Our proposal is that products could be subject to two criteria. The first criterion would be whether they are primarily the subject of artistic or artisanal production, or of mass production. In reality, products will lie on a continuum; however, for classificatory purposes, it is necessary to create a division. This criterion is indicative of the degree of creative labour content of each item produced. The assumption is that creative labour content is high in goods of higher creative content and significance. The second criterion would be to represent the typical use of the product, ranging from an artistic decorative artefact or ornament, termed “aesthetic”, through designer 26
118
products, to those that are mainly functional (beyond this will lie all other products that are primarily functional). Again, this should be seen as a continuum with, in practice, usages being proportionately more one use or another. For example, a “designer” chair is functional but it is aesthetically valued as well. In such a case, the assumption is that the more aesthetic use is likely to represent more creative value. In the absence of an ideal or precise taxonomy and database, it can be proposed the combination of these two criteria so as to offer some useful and pragmatic distinctions. The two extremes might be mass-produced functional usage (cell 4) and artisanal and aesthetic usage (cell 1). In between, it could be distinguished the art crafts designer goods from those that are mass-produced but with a premium on “design” (or creative input). Attempts should be made to separate out the aesthetically specific goods from those that are more functional, and from those that are only functional (non-creative goods). However, there are a number of “grey areas” that are associated with shifting cultural practice. For instance, interiordesign products comprise a very difficult category. However, some of these products might be distinguished from the more or less functional ones by the degree to which their value rests on aesthetics (cell 2). The same sort of distinction is even more difficult to make with respect to clothing. Traditionally, high fashion/haute couture is distinguished from prêt-àporter/ready to wear or even basic production. As indicated in the proposed classification below, there is a possibility of separating out designer one-offs and designer styled goods. However, in practice, in the case of clothing, only “luxury goods” such as fur, cashmere or silk as markers can be identified. To avoid distorting the data, at the initial stage, it is better to exclude textiles from the fashion category since they are too difficult to distinguish. This is clearly not a perfect system of classification: it is offered as an indicator to simply under-representing the creative sector by including only items that fall into cell 1.26 The benefit of the taxonomy presented in table 4.8 is that it offers a more indicative picture of the extent of the creative economy. Moreover, cells 2 through 4 are indicative of the site of discussion of future taxonomies and data collection, if they are to begin to represent the creative products accurately rather than what happens at present where the existing taxonomies effectively render the creative economy invisible.
Any product or artefact, whether mass/artisanal or aesthetic/functional, can be commodified (sold or traded) or be considered as beyond such valuation. Where a particular product lies in this commodification domain is always an empirical fact that needs to be investigated, and it will change through time and place.
C R E AT I V E E C O N O M Y R E P O R T 2 0 1 0