Craft and Creative Economies
Roberta Comunian
To date the role of independent craft practices within the creative economy has been under-scrutinised (Banks 2010), despite calls to consider how creative contexts and practices are established for contemporary cultural workers (Rantisi et al. 2006). Nevertheless, as many authors suggests (Jeffcutt and Pratt, 2002; Scott, 2004), there are at least two levels to consider when looking at CCIs and their economic and organisational performance. On one level, there is a fast-growing creative economy, mainly comprising large transnational corporations often interacting in wider global economy and based in major global cities. On another level, there is a large variety of small and micro enterprises which often struggle to make a profit and grow, powered mainly by personal, social and cultural objectives. Lower running costs are often stated as a reason for these companies to be located outside the capital.
Although the policy focus has shifted towards the regional dimension of the creative economy (DCMS, 2003), little consideration has been given to the impact of this change. While the creative economy can provide apparent success at a national level, the reality of how the creative economy works and performs at a local level is still under-researched.
Oakley (2004) critically states how every city and region in UK has blindly adopted creative economy policies and initiatives. Alongside active interventions, many cities and regions have tried to estimate their profile in the sector and supported claims on the importance of their CCIs in the local economy (Jayne, 2005). The usual measures of success in this area include: number of companies, start-ups, size of companies and turnover. The CCIs are rhetorically presented as a model of entrepreneurialism (Leadbeater and Oakley, 1999). In a regime where the numbers of business start-ups becomes a major indicator of development, the fact that many of these activities are established as micro-enterprises or sole-traders organisations has helped policy makers to make the case for support.
The association between CCIs and hi-growth technology-based industries was already being discussed in the UK even before the ‘creative class’ theory emerged (Florida, 2002) . In fact, Garnham (2005) suggests that the move from cultural to creative industries was motivated by the necessity to include this hi-growth economic sector within the more tradition and slow growing cultural sector. Some authors (Creight-Tyte, 2005; Oakley, 2006) have criticised the inclusion of the software, computer games & electronic publishing sector in the ‘creative industries’ definition of the DCMS (1998). This is very similar to the criticism made by Markusen (2006) on the breath of the occupational categories included in the ‘creative class’ of Florida (2002); she underlines that these professions do not share any specific characteristics in terms of job profile, income and ideals. In support of this argument, Comunian et al. (2009) identify the different levels of economic rewards of graduates working in creative disciplines, compared with graduates in other fields. Also Erard (2003) highlights the difficulty of surviving from the earnings of people’s creative/artistic work and states how usually they refuse to be associated with the mainstream creative economy and try to find ways to survive outside the market. This is further stressed by Gibson (2003) who suggests that a large number of assumptions about ‘work’ in the CCIs have not yet be critically examined in the literature.
One of the key approaches in academia to study the role of networks is to take a cluster perspective, therefore considering the value of interaction across a specified group of individuals, often in a confined context (a city, a quarter, a region). This is particularly true in relation to creative and cultural industries and has strong implications also in craft sector.
Most authors looking at creative industries at local and regional levels have used some kind of cluster approach, on the basis that clustering plays an important role in these industries. For example, Scott (2000, 2002, 2005) and Storper (Storper, 1989; Storper and Christopherson, 1987) have specifically developed their studies in the context of cultural clusters, i.e. the development of the film industry in Hollywood. Many other authors have focused on the analysis of clustering in different sectors: film and media has been used by policy makers and researchers without a clear understanding of the sort of interactions which take place at local level in the creative economy. In fact a gap in the literature in reference to the way the creative industries work and interact at the local level - to which this research aims to contribute - is still present “there is a lack of strategic knowledge about the relationships and networks that enable and sustain the creative process in a knowledge economy” (Jeffcutt and Pratt, 2002: 228).
Networks play a specifically important role in the creative economy for some sector-specific reasons – which are specifically important in relation to the craft sector - which relate to the broader arguments presented in the economic geography literature but are also context-specific to the sector:
1) The creative industries sector comprises of small and medium size companies, and solo trading is typical. It is therefore easy to think about how networking can have a role and an impact in the development of economic growth and support for the sector (Taylor, 2006)
2) Working patterns of the sector are characterized by unstable, temporary working conditions (part-time, freelancing, contract working), therefore networking is important to access work and obtain future work (Blair, 2001)
3) Social dynamics are a really important part within the economy fabric of the creative economy and they relate to the creation of trends and scenes as well as to the social exchanges which enable cultural intermediaries to set values and trends (Fleming, 2002)
To date the role of independent craft practices within the creative economy has been under-scrutinised (Banks 2010), despite calls to consider how creative contexts and practices are established for contemporary cultural workers (Rantisi et al. 2006). Nevertheless, as many authors suggests (Jeffcutt and Pratt, 2002; Scott, 2004), there are at least two levels to consider when looking at CCIs and their economic and organisational performance. On one level, there is a fast-growing creative economy, mainly comprising large transnational corporations often interacting in wider global economy and based in major global cities. On another level, there is a large variety of small and micro enterprises which often struggle to make a profit and grow, powered mainly by personal, social and cultural objectives. Lower running costs are often stated as a reason for these companies to be located outside the capital.
Although the policy focus has shifted towards the regional dimension of the creative economy (DCMS, 2003), little consideration has been given to the impact of this change. While the creative economy can provide apparent success at a national level, the reality of how the creative economy works and performs at a local level is still under-researched.
Oakley (2004) critically states how every city and region in UK has blindly adopted creative economy policies and initiatives. Alongside active interventions, many cities and regions have tried to estimate their profile in the sector and supported claims on the importance of their CCIs in the local economy (Jayne, 2005). The usual measures of success in this area include: number of companies, start-ups, size of companies and turnover. The CCIs are rhetorically presented as a model of entrepreneurialism (Leadbeater and Oakley, 1999). In a regime where the numbers of business start-ups becomes a major indicator of development, the fact that many of these activities are established as micro-enterprises or sole-traders organisations has helped policy makers to make the case for support.
The association between CCIs and hi-growth technology-based industries was already being discussed in the UK even before the ‘creative class’ theory emerged (Florida, 2002) . In fact, Garnham (2005) suggests that the move from cultural to creative industries was motivated by the necessity to include this hi-growth economic sector within the more tradition and slow growing cultural sector. Some authors (Creight-Tyte, 2005; Oakley, 2006) have criticised the inclusion of the software, computer games & electronic publishing sector in the ‘creative industries’ definition of the DCMS (1998). This is very similar to the criticism made by Markusen (2006) on the breath of the occupational categories included in the ‘creative class’ of Florida (2002); she underlines that these professions do not share any specific characteristics in terms of job profile, income and ideals. In support of this argument, Comunian et al. (2009) identify the different levels of economic rewards of graduates working in creative disciplines, compared with graduates in other fields. Also Erard (2003) highlights the difficulty of surviving from the earnings of people’s creative/artistic work and states how usually they refuse to be associated with the mainstream creative economy and try to find ways to survive outside the market. This is further stressed by Gibson (2003) who suggests that a large number of assumptions about ‘work’ in the CCIs have not yet be critically examined in the literature.
One of the key approaches in academia to study the role of networks is to take a cluster perspective, therefore considering the value of interaction across a specified group of individuals, often in a confined context (a city, a quarter, a region). This is particularly true in relation to creative and cultural industries and has strong implications also in craft sector.
Most authors looking at creative industries at local and regional levels have used some kind of cluster approach, on the basis that clustering plays an important role in these industries. For example, Scott (2000, 2002, 2005) and Storper (Storper, 1989; Storper and Christopherson, 1987) have specifically developed their studies in the context of cultural clusters, i.e. the development of the film industry in Hollywood. Many other authors have focused on the analysis of clustering in different sectors: film and media has been used by policy makers and researchers without a clear understanding of the sort of interactions which take place at local level in the creative economy. In fact a gap in the literature in reference to the way the creative industries work and interact at the local level - to which this research aims to contribute - is still present “there is a lack of strategic knowledge about the relationships and networks that enable and sustain the creative process in a knowledge economy” (Jeffcutt and Pratt, 2002: 228).
Networks play a specifically important role in the creative economy for some sector-specific reasons – which are specifically important in relation to the craft sector - which relate to the broader arguments presented in the economic geography literature but are also context-specific to the sector:
1) The creative industries sector comprises of small and medium size companies, and solo trading is typical. It is therefore easy to think about how networking can have a role and an impact in the development of economic growth and support for the sector (Taylor, 2006)
2) Working patterns of the sector are characterized by unstable, temporary working conditions (part-time, freelancing, contract working), therefore networking is important to access work and obtain future work (Blair, 2001)
3) Social dynamics are a really important part within the economy fabric of the creative economy and they relate to the creation of trends and scenes as well as to the social exchanges which enable cultural intermediaries to set values and trends (Fleming, 2002)