Andrew Dubber

To ask the question ‘how can creativity serve the economy?’ is, I think, to misunderstand both concepts.

Economy stems from the Greek word oikonomos, “one who manages a household,” from oikos, “house,” and nemein, “to manage.” It’s a straightforward enough concept, and it appears self-evident that a healthy economy is a good thing, and a recession a bad thing. But when you ‘manage a house’ – whether literally at home with your family or figuratively on a national scale, you do not do so purely for its own sake. It is a means to an end.

The purpose of household management is not that the house is managed, but that the people who live in it do so well. Prosperity facilitates a nice life; poverty causes misery. Money is the numerical measure we use for the degree of prosperity or poverty encountered – but it serves as an unreliable indicator of happiness or despair.

Likewise, creativity is also a means, rather than an end. It is the capacity and the activity of making new, original and possibly unique ideas, works and artefacts. Again, the function of creativity is not merely so that there can be new stuff. It is so that the people for whom the new stuff is made can be enriched in some way.

Scientific progress, innovation and new works in design, arts, music, media and crafts serve the health, well-being, intellectual life and progress of human beings who are inherently social creatures. Creativity contributes to culture, and culture is the word we use to describe the experienced, shared lives of the citizenry. It is the sum of the beliefs, values, traditions, ideas, behaviours, experiences, conversations and artefacts jointly held by the members of a society.

In a sense, neither economic prosperity nor creative ingenuity are of any intrinsic value if the people they are supposed to enrich do not benefit. The propagation of what we call ‘culture’ is of utmost and primary importance. It is insufficient that creators create and are rewarded for doing so. It is insufficient that organisations and corporations can reap commercial gain. If this is what we seek for its own sake, then we have forgotten our purpose.

In other words, economics and creativity do not simply serve each other. Rather, both are means by which quality of life can be served. And it’s clear that there is significant overlap between the two strategies. Creativity suffuses business. It’s the entrepreneurial spark that finds a solution to a problem, meets a need or fills a gap in the lives of people. By creating value for people, capital flows.

Similarly, business suffuses creativity. Acts of invention, creation, performance and construction create value. Sometimes that value is intangible and unrewarded, but frequently that value converts to a sustainable income. It is the way in which we ensure that a steady flow of further works of creativity will be possible.

It’s a virtuous circle, and things are, generally speaking, better when both are doing well. A vibrant economy and a vibrant creative environment contribute positively to the experienced lives of the people in society. But just as when things are going well we tend to overlook the intended outcome, and instead celebrate the means for its own sake; we also rush to fix the broken bit when things go awry, rather than ensure that the end result is maintained no matter what the conditions.

That is to say the very obvious – that the important thing right now is not that the economy is suffering, but that people are suffering.

In situations of great prosperity, the economically powerful can bolster the creative sector. In times past, having amassed most of the available wealth, monarchs and the church were able to commission breathtaking works of creativity, from awe-inspiring architecture to symphonic works and frescoes of incredible beauty.

Likewise (and in hopefully more egalitarian ways), creativity can often support and engender economic growth. Bohemian areas of a city where artists congregate, and find ways to express and invent, create a buzz and draw business and development towards them. People want to live and work where there are interesting and exciting things going on.

There is, in fact, no end to the ways in which creative activities generate economic prosperity. But my purpose here is not to enumerate them, but rather to raise a flag. Misinterpreting what we are trying to achieve as “how can creativity help business?” is a trap. And it’s a trap that we’re currently trying to climb out of. Economics as an engine for generating more money out of thin air is self-deluded and counterproductive. Yet it is undeniably the source of current financial woes.

So then asking how creative industries can lead us out of recession takes us inevitably toward the talk of protecting and advancing intellectual property and extension of copyright laws. To do so without at least equal attention (even, I would argue, much greater attention) to an open and vibrant public domain is to forget the reason we are doing any of this in the first place.

Creativity and economy can support and grow each other. And when one stumbles, the other can take it by the hand and lead it back to its right path.

But the endgame of both is culture.

Right now: