I was at the event “Media Meets Money – Creating capital value in the new media age”. I honestly didn’t know what to expect content-wise, though I know for sure I am would be one of the few people who are not involved in a startup or technology, or rather, the only person who is from the theatre industry.
(I was there anyway at 9am on a Monday morning, surrounded by men in suits and women in powersuits. Me? I was in a leather jacket and hobo skirt. Well, at least Ben Southworth was in a wine-red-ish knitted jumper which made me feel a little bit better.)
Creative industries… 8% of GDP…
As well as the talks about how the Budget 2013 reflected the government’s support to Creative industries, the panels referred to the above statement extensively during the event. The same statement appeared in an advocacy article in Dance UK News that I was reading that evening.
Suddenly I realised that we are not talking about the same “creative industry”. Ed Vaizey, during the event, used the terms “creative industry” and “cultural organisations” as separate concepts, and theatre and the performing arts belonged to being a latter more than the former.
* * *
I sometimes ask myself why I attend events where I would be amongst people who I don’t know and dare not speak to (because of the gap in experience, background etc).
It is so that I can get out and look at who I am from the outside, because it is important to me that I am relevant to the environment I am in.
The word ‘creative’ is such a vague term tbh. We never use it in the same way as others do.
In reality and practices I don’t care about labels, but when it comes advocacy and standing our ground, we can’t just pluck out statements that we think refer to us but we are not even minutely close to it. I won’t disagree when people say that artists (or dance, or theatre industry) are inward looking, ignorant and self-obsessed.