Discourse  III  –  Art  as  Creative  Capital

The most important success factor of the future is creative capital (2011: 24).^xxxi

The third discourse – Art as creative capital comprises perhaps one of the most essential discourses of our time namely, capitalizing on art, culture and creativity. At the latest this discourse shows that Finnish cultural policy is no longer to be perceived as merely a national policy but as a policy that to a high extent is intertwined with European and international policy strategies. Capitalizing on art and creativity is at the essence of the ubiquitous concept of creative economy. An immense amount of reports (see e.g. The United Nation’s Creative Economy report from 2010) have been conducted on the subject that has capitalizing on creativity as its focal matter. A domestic example is the report conducted by the Ministry of Education in 2009 Creative Economy and Culture at the Core of Innovation Policy (Luova talous ja kulttuuri innovaatiopolitikan ytimessä). Although this report is clearly separated from other cultural policy reports of the Ministry of Education and Culture, including the report at hand, similarities in the use of language and on a wider level, the discourses, are to be found.

Creative capital is part of the social capital of a nation and the core of spiritual and economic wellbeing and innovating that give birth to novelty and have a permeating effect on the functions of society. (…) Creative capital produces social and economic interaction, cultural productions, services and exchange (2011: 10).^xxxii

At the core of this discourse is the emphasis on creative capital as the main element in building a competitive national economy. The essence of creative capital is art and culture since – it is presumed – they generate innovations, and innovations is a focal factor of economy. Creativity, art and culture are intertwined in a conceptual and ideological net, which aims to promote all that there is to be capitalised on creative capital.

In the context of the cultural policy reports, the term ‘capital’ occurs here for the first time. The report states that creative capital is part of social capital and the core of mental and economic wellbeing and innovating. As Farr (2004: 6) points out, social capital is one of our trendiest terms. Farr (Ibid.) further argues that the excess use of the term is proliferating meanings.

The same could also be argued in terms of creative capital. As creativity is at the core of art and culture they are juxtaposed with one another. In the age of creative economy, when creativity and innovation became obsessions in the political domain, art and culture as creative capital

54

entered the picture. This says more about the developments in public policy and economy on a larger scale than about the evolvement of cultural policy. Or, more precisely, this reflects the overall entanglement and interconnectedness of different policies, which are grounded in an economic ideology. Creative capital, art and culture as parts of it are utilized for the benefits of economic aims and for a prosperity of a nation.

McGuigan (2009: 295) argues that creative economy has become the driver of economic policy.

As an effect the role of the cultural policy discourse has been influenced by economic reasoning and turned into a branch of economic policy.

Creativity is the ability to combine things and meanings into new mixtures in a yet inexperienced manner. The premises for creativity are the mental mobility of people and the vastness of thinking, the diversity of the life environment and flexibility and the opportunity to play and experiment. Creativity is associated with every human activity but in art, culture and science it has an intrinsic significance and a professional ground. The basic knowledge of creative self-expression and cultural literacy are central parts of the creative capital of a nation. They promote the attachment to community, active citizenship and prevent social exclusion. Creativity may be promoted, its prerequisites improved and its results utilized. Creative artistic work also needs support (2011: 15).^xxxiii

How is then art and culture portrayed as part of creativity and creative capital? Creativity, it is claimed, has an intrinsic significance for art and culture. However, this discourse withholds the assumption that all creativity creates something new and is therefore a catalyst to innovation.

Herein lays the motive to capitalise on creativity, art and culture. The problem with this logic is that creativity in art and culture is not always generating innovation. Especially culture and to some account also art might as well be about preserving traditions, not necessarily creating new.

Art and culture can create sensory experiences by evoking thoughts, emotions, associations and insights. These are not, however, innovations but aesthetic experiences. There appears to exist a preoccupation of creativity, art and culture as generators of innovation. This, in turn, results in discussions concerning the ripple effects of creativity: how numerous positive benefits are generated by creativity.

The creative capital discourse represents one manifestation of the new paradigm of cultural policy, which emphasises the instrumentalism of art for economic benefits.

*

55

The discourses of 1978 to 2011 entail the changes in society in general and the understanding of art and its autonomy in particular. The discourses in cultural policy have evolved from art as a promoter of the aims of social policy to art as applications.

The last chapter will elaborate on the findings of the analysis and discuss their possible implications together with offering suggestions for further research.

56