The False Divide is Bridged

An article written by Julianne Schultz for the Sydney Morning Herald poses the question "Is there an Australian Culture in a Facebook world?" - the title seems a bit strange for this blog - but the article itself is about the Australian creative sector (still thinking to a degree in economic terms) and its role, influence and development within Australian culture. She makes some interesting statements that really do adapt and challenge previous concepts of 'creative'.

Such as:

"It comes as a surprise to many to be told that [creative industries] represent the same proportion of the economy as agriculture. The symbolism of this should not be underestimated. Both agriculture and the creative industries nurture and sustain; they are both sources of innovation and entrepreneurism, shaped by individual passion, shrewd corporate decisions and strategic public-sector support." This is quite a 'wholesome' point of view to take, especially in the same sentence as 'shrewd corporate decisions'.

She goes on to define what she terms as 'industries' - which for her are "ranging from the arts to media, architecture, fashion, games, film, publishing, broadcasting and design" (more limited than Richard Florida's definition)- as an industrial sector like any other. One which contributes significantly to the economy (employment and services) and also as the "face of the nation" mentioning 'fine art' examples "indigenous art at the Musee du quai Branly in Paris" as well as pop culture and news exponents such as soap operas and news, sport and drama on TV.

"In a world dominated by popular culture, the arts are increasingly significant." This is the part I liked/found the most relevant. Popular culture is driven by the creative industrial sector - the motivation and intentions vary widely of course and may be defined by the medium e.g Dane Rumble's (I shudder to use him but I was looking for a tacky NZ pop example and equate him with the likes of Justin Bieber) intentions would be vastly different from Michael Parekowhai's. But they both contribute in a cultural and economical sense to New Zealand and become part of Popular culture in some form or another or in Schultz's words are "an essential component of a contemporary nation, with tangible economic and social benefits".

The article is a good one, it introduces interesting ways to conceptualise 'creative' within terms that are concrete and applicable to the real life experience of those of us who have more and more bills to pay (damn you ACC levies). So that "In times of rapid change, the arts and creative sector are crucial to making sense of social and economic transformation".

I think this beautifully articulates a pathway and point of view in our current economic climate, and creates an avenue for all to take in a large, global sense but also provides lessons and ideas that we can all bring in to out lives and decisions.

I leave you with a quote (of a quote) from the recently deposed Kevin Rudd:

"This false divide between the arts and science, between the arts and industry, between the arts and the economy: we've actually got to put that to bed … Our ambition should be to create and to foster a creative, imaginative Australia (*insert NZ here*), because so much of the economy of the 21st century is going to require that central faculty"