See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/340240525

Exploring Value in the Creative and Cultural Industries

Chapter · March 2020

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-37035-0_1

CITATIONS READS

4 185

1 author:

Rachel Granger
University of the West of England, Bristol
39 PUBLICATIONS 263 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Rachel Granger on 23 April 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Metadata of the chapter that will be visualized online

Chapter Title Exploring Value in the Creative and Cultural Industries

Copyright Year 2020
Copyright Holder The Author(s)
Corresponding Author Family Name Granger
Particle
Given Name Rachel
Suffix
Division
Organization/University De Montfort University
Address Leicester, UK
Email [email protected]
Abstract As a mainstream construct the ‘creative economy’ has become part of the
daily vernacular of the policy and praxis of economies, cities and regions,
the workplace, and even society. The drive to become creative is to adopt
a productionist lens in which the primary objective is to harness—or more
literally, to convert—cultural capital for economic (capital) gain. Reducing
complex aspects of the creative economy into simple, economic configurations
is to at once restrict the focus of analysis to fewer mainstream activities and,
in doing so, to restrict our understanding of this complex but important area
of economic and social activity, producing a definitional and operational
deficit. In this chapter, the imperative for policy and academia to prioritise
new ways of thinking about what value means in the context of creative and
cultural industries opens up new sectors and areas of social activity. When the
experiences and techniques of other disciplines are brought into the frame,
new approaches to enriching the evidence base follow. In this chapter and in a
Q1
firm rebuttal of the productionist lens, the creative economy is framed through
‘performing’ in a way that views creativity through creative actions, rather
than creative labels, leading to performance as doing, an art form, expression,
power, process, and experience.

AUTHOR QUERIES

Q1 
Please check whether the sentence “In this chapter and in a firm…” is OK as edited.
 CHAPTER 1 1

Exploring Value in the Creative and Cultural 2

Industries 3

Rachel Granger 4

Introduction 5

The creative and cultural industries as the primary focus of this book con- 6
stitute the most distinct area of economic growth of the new Millennium, 7
and are increasingly viewed as an emerging paradigm in their own right 8
(see Lazzeretti and Vecco 2018). Recognising and exhorting their early 9
economic potential, UK and Australia under the Blair and Keating gov- 10
ernments began to commercialise the creative and cultural industries in 11
earnest during the 1990s, and in so doing, invested heavily in public and 12
private flagships, which were to become key international demonstrators, 13
for instance, London’s Tech City, Manchester’s Northern Quarter and 14
Media City, Brisbane’s South Bank and Creative Precinct. These early 15
demonstrators drove fascination and spawned creative projects through- 16
out much of the western world, drawing on Florida’s (2001) assertions of 17
the creative city and creative workers as an economic panacea, and produc- 18
ing a ‘serial replication’ of investment (McCarthy 2005) in creative infra- 19
structure. As such, the first decade of the new Millennium could be 20

R. Granger (*)
De Montfort University, Leicester, UK
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2020

R. Granger (ed.), Value Construction in the Creative Economy,
Palgrave Studies in Business, Arts and Humanities,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37035-0_1
 R. GRANGER

21 characterised as a period of creative consolidation in the UK and Australia,

22 with new international creative cities and clusters emerging in regional
23 capitals such as Bristol, Birmingham, Sheffield, and Glasgow in the UK,
24 and in Australia, Sydney, Melbourne, and Perth. Elsewhere, cities have
25 invested in new creative bases to replicate these early successes in the UK
26 and Australia, developing meandering creative quarters in metropolitan
27 areas across both Europe and North America (e.g. New York, Portland,
28 Austin, Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver).
29 The resilience of the creative city form in the face of a global downturn
30 has been especially notable, perhaps acting as one of the few truly expan-
31 sionary areas of the global economy, and the most recent spatial fix under
32 capitalist conditions (see Harvey 2001; Jessop 2006). In the Global South,
33 especially in South East Asia, there has been a concerted effort over the
34 last decade to develop internationally competitive creative cities to match
35 those of the Global North, and as a result, considerable investment has
36 been directed in recent years into the creative industries in world cities
37 such as Seoul, Shanghai, Taipei, Bangkok, and, more recently, the Middle
38 East. This globalisation of the creative and cultural industries has been
39 underpinned especially in South East Asia by new digital technologies, and
40 a landscape of mature multinationals and global investment.
41 At the heart of this growing policy attention is the remarkable growth
42 and economic potential of the creative economy, which in some countries
43 has offered a route out of long-term structural decline of deindustrialisa-
44 tion. In these countries, creative industries now account for one in ten
45 jobs in the economy, and one in four new jobs (DCMS 2018). For exam-
46 ple, between 2011–2014 and 2015–2016, the creative industries in the
47 UK grew on average by 11 per cent, twice as fast as in the rest of the
48 economy (NESTA 2018a). In a climate of continued economic and politi-
49 cal uncertainty, where the effects of the Global Financial Crisis are still
50 being meted out a decade on, and the risk of a further downturn ever
51 present, the potential for employment and income from new areas such as
52 the creative economy acts as a centripetal pull on policymakers. In this
53 sense, the value of the creative and cultural industries can be seen in terms
54 of jobs and wealth, and this provides one view of value construction in the
55 creative economy. This cursory view of what the creative and cultural
56 industries are, and what value they have, is a recurring theme of this book.
57 While more and more is known about the creative economy, in other
58 respects our understanding of it has been constrained by prevailing narra-
59 tives and a dogmatic orthodoxy tied to the economics of production.
 1 EXPLORING VALUE IN THE CREATIVE AND CULTURAL INDUSTRIES

Despite the richness of data now available at a variety of spatial scales and 60
places, and across sub-sectors (e.g. Florida et al. 2012; NESTA 2018b; 61
Nathan and Kemeny 2018; Gabe 2011; Lazzeretti 2014), our under- 62 AU2
standing of what it means to be creative (or cultural1), how this is con- 63
structed, and the wider impact of this remains dictated by the economic 64
lens. Thus, while the last decade has seen advancements in defining cre- 65
ativity (e.g. Cunningham 2002; Landry 2011) and understanding the 66
bifurcation of production and consumption (e.g. Potts et al. 2008a; Anand 67
and Croidieu 2015), and of new genres of creativity (Capdevila et al. 68
2015; Eliete and Amal 2018; Lorentzen 2014), the same cannot be said 69
for our empirical constructions. We have expanded our conceptual under- 70
standing of the role of others in the creative economy through networks 71
(Potts et al. 2008b), intermediaries (O’Connor 2015; Hracs 2015; Perry 72
2019), users (Di Maria and Finotto 2015; Flowers and Voss 2015), and 73
co-producers (Potts et al. 2008a; Hracs et al. 2018), and we are more 74 AU3
aware of the precarities of pay and access to creative work (Banks 2017; 75
Oakley and O’Brien 2016), and yet in all of this, our view of value remains 76
either conceptual or embedded firmly in industrial notions of success 77
(measured by jobs, earnings, investment, and business), as universal values 78
based on the use and functionality of creativity. 79

Deficits in the Creative Discourse 80

The corollary of early efforts to commercialise and profit from creative and 81
cultural activities is the primacy of the ‘creative product’ and of the pro- 82
ductionist lens in creative discourse, which has reduced value to a narrow 83
set of impacts shaped by the dogma of economic institutions. Framing the 84
creative and cultural industries, and more precisely their products, as cen- 85
tral to the expansionary potential of economies is to frame humans (cre- 86
ative workers) and projects as market actors, vying for capital, neoliberal at 87
heart, and imbued with power relations (see discussion by Mould 2018). 88
The overall effect is a deficit in our understanding about this important 89
contemporary economic and social form. There are at least four deficits, 90
pertinent to the discussion about the value of the creative economy, which 91

1
Following Jones et al. (2015, p. 5), the arts and cultural industries can be seen as a subset
of creative industries because they depend on creativity and derive value from this creativity.
See also Tose (2011), Caves (2000), Throsby (2001), Heilbrun and Gray (2001), Throsby
and Withers (1979), and Vogel (2007) for commercial underpinnings of arts and culture.
 R. GRANGER

92 relate to: (1) the economic returns on creativity and the hegemonic eco-
93 nomic lens; (2) the creative city form, premised on capitalist expansion;
94 (3) the inequalities inherent in the creative paradigm; and (4) the domi-
95 nance of prevailing narratives in the creative discourse.
96 Within the creative and cultural industries, diverse communities, actors,
97 and interests have voice, and the idea of value itself is multiplex. Much of
98 the definitional basis of creativity and the way society ascribes value to
99 it—or valorises—draw on economic and productionist terms of reference.
100 This is reinforced by the views and practices of a small number of institu-
101 tions, through and by which our perception of value has become institu-
102 tionalised over time. The overall pattern has been one of reducing complex
103 aspects of value into simple, often economic configurations, and restrict-
104 ing analysis to fewer and fewer mainstream activities. To qualify, the recent
AU4 105 Cultural Value Scoping Project in the UK (Kaszynska 2018) conflates
106 those who actively make, debate, and assess cultural value with ‘people
107 working in arts and culture’ (ibid., p. 3) or those ‘making and influencing
108 cultural policy’ (ibid., p. 5). Yet, a more expansive and discursive approach
109 drawing on ancillary sectors and actions would provide a richer lens
110 through which to conceptualise impact and worth. As we argue in this
111 book, there is an imperative for policy and academia to prioritise new ways
112 of thinking about what value means in the context of the creative and
113 cultural industries, leading to new ways of working across sectors, drawing
114 on the experiences and techniques of other disciplines, and adopting new
115 ways of using the evidence base. Broadening the framework of creative
116 and cultural activities as active production rather than products, and
AU5 117 including behavioural change and intricate connections (Gillespie et al.
118 2014) as part of ecologies (Holden 2015), as well as interrogating how
119 conversations around value are framed, have salience in addressing this
120 current deficit in understanding. Conversations guide definitions, and
121 conversations and techniques confined to established communities of
122 understanding and practice limit new knowledge, as a result of lock-in of
123 ideas and thinking.
124 It could be argued that prevailing narratives on both the ‘creative city’
125 and ‘inequality’, which have come to dominate the creative landscape,
126 refer to two sides of the same coin, and emerge from this productionist
127 view of creative and cultural industries. The creative city as a spatial mani-
128 festation of the creative economy, neoliberal at its core, results in a
129 homogenised socio-economic model, which Mould (2017) argues is para-
130 doxically devoid of creativity. It is merely the most recent permutation of
 1 EXPLORING VALUE IN THE CREATIVE AND CULTURAL INDUSTRIES

the neoliberal form, reflecting both cities’ transition to ‘entrepreneurial 131

urbanism’ (Harvey 1989) and a ‘fast urban policy’ (Peck 2005) based on 132
conspicuous consumption. As Mould (2017, p. 33) argues, ‘cultural 133
industries soon became an arena, in which a tidy profit could be made’, 134
and leading quickly to the ‘Porter effect’ (p. 67), in which every locale 135
sought to become a creative city, quarter, or cluster. 136
Inevitably, and following the logic of capitalism, creative cities lead to 137
revanchist approaches as part of the entrepreneurial urbanist project in 138
which they must now operate. Gentrification, precarious working, inequal- 139
ity of access, and poor social mobility are by-products of a system that 140
disadvantages the most disenfranchised in society. And yet the current 141
policy model of creative cities overlooks the original sentiment of the 142
term, which Montgomery (2008) argues is a triumvirate of characteristics 143
based on creative activity and the built environment, as well as meanings. 144
He suggests that a cultural quarter, for example, which provides no new 145
meaning (no new work, no new ideas, or new concepts) is likely to be 146
merely a pastiche of another place and is not authentically creative 147
(Montgomery 2008, p. 310). Meaning in this sense might connote the 148
hidden signs and symbols of creative and cultural activities, or the semio- 149
capitalism through which a place becomes unique and authentic—the 150
spiritual, social, intrinsic, and symbolic. Lefebvre (1961) articulates these 151
often hidden signals and symbols as the ‘background noise of the city’. 152
On the one hand, we recognise that creative and cultural industries are 153
a diverse set of activities with different product and consumption combi- 154
nations, complex issues of power ingrained into access, and different semi- 155
otic values and material bases, which elicit aesthetic values (see Lash and 156
Urry 1994; Jones et al. 2015). On the other hand, it seems inconceivable 157
that one might frame the functionality of creative and cultural activities (as 158
products) without considering the broader notion of signs and symbols 159
that shape its materiality and consumptive appeal (see Baudrillard 1996). 160
Moreover, the fact that some creative activity or cultural assets do not have 161
a direct (or indirect) economic functionality is becoming acutely obvious 162
(see Mould 2017, p. 69). Therefore, reducing creative cities and associ- 163
ated discourse to nothing more than economic returns oversimplifies what 164
has already been established as a complex area. Against this backdrop, the 165
primary purpose of this book is to provide a critical response to this defi- 166
nitional deficit, and to provide a framework for looking towards other 167
disciplines and approaches, and investigating different creative forms. Our 168
hope is to create a space for reconceptualising value and impact in the 169
 R. GRANGER

170 creative economy, which moves beyond the economy, and accordingly
171 defining value in the creative economy is the first pillar of this book.

172 Values in the Creative Economy

173 There have been numerous attempts to categorise values into universal
174 value systems, which reflect values at the level of the individual (e.g.
175 Rokeach 1973; Hitlin and Piliavin 2004) and those operating at the soci-
176 ety level (e.g. Hofstede 2001). Both are seen as instrumental in shaping
177 decision-making. As such, sociologists and anthropologists have been
178 studying values for over a century, given their centrality in understanding
179 human groups and societies, and differences between these. Values give
180 direction to the way that individuals, organisations, and societies act, what
181 they strive for, and what they deem important. For example, ‘Values shape
182 people’s beliefs about what is desirable, important, or worthy of striving
183 for in their lives … are of particular relevance to people’s social and envi-
184 ronmental concern, [and] people’s motivations to express this concern …
185 and feelings of social connectedness’ (CCF 2016, p. 6). As the Common
186 Cause Foundation go on to note, public expression of value is shaped by
187 the interplay of people’s own values (their personal value system), and
188 people’s perception of values is reinforced by those held important by fel-
189 low citizens and shaped by our institutions (CCF 2016, p. 5). In a land-
190 scape dominated by economic institutions, individual and organisational
191 values will influence wider perceptions and policies towards the kind of
192 economic society they would like and how institutions should operate to
193 reinforce the economic lens. People’s perceptions of fellow citizens’ values
194 are likely to contribute to a deepening of their commitment to some val-
195 ues (e.g. economic) and a weakening of commitment to others (e.g. semi-
196 otic, intrinsic, aesthetic etc.), and people who have values that differ in
197 importance to them may not be activated in particular contexts (Jaspers
AU6 198 2016) or be part of the mainstream.
199 The issue of value, and more specifically, the dominance of economic
200 value, is therefore very important in helping us to rebalance the creative
201 and cultural industries, and in opening up new avenues of debate. Our
202 starting point in this book is to recognise value in a variety of forms includ-
203 ing—but not exclusively: (1) the arts and other manifestations of human
204 intellectual achievement leading to a need for more nuanced understand-
205 ing and appreciation (valorisation) of culture and creativity; (2) the ideas
206 and customs of a particular people or society, and the networks, spaces,
 1 EXPLORING VALUE IN THE CREATIVE AND CULTURAL INDUSTRIES

and relations, as well as valued patterns of behaviour, which govern these, 207
and which lead to value constructions; and (3) personal and social values, 208
and behavioural activities, as well as institutions of society, which construct 209
key value points. Our hope is that within this broader but also open frame- 210
work, which covers different creative and cultural sectors and different 211
research disciplines, a more convincing paradigm might emerge, which 212
sets out new thinking for contemplating value in the creative economy, for 213
the next decade and beyond. 214

Viewing Creative Value Through 215

the Performing Lens 216

Recognising that the critiques of existing research on creative and cultural 217
industries constitute a set of methodological and critical deficits, the sec- 218
ond pillar of the book relates to the need to look towards other disciplines 219
and approaches. The starting point is a critique of existing discourse, 220
which reinforces creative and cultural mindsets, and views the creative 221
landscape as an amorphous economic term. By contrast, the contributors 222
to this book view the same landscape differently, as a markedly diverse set 223
of activities and values, each constituted with its own set of characteristics 224
and preferences and narratives. In this vein, the book looks towards disci- 225
plines such as sociology, anthropology, geography, and law to attempt an 226
alternative view of the creative economy. 227
While the contributors come from the Midlands, UK, and draw on the 228
experiences of Leicester, we have sought wherever possible to discuss value 229
in an international context to draw meaningful comparisons for a wider 230
readership. In many ways, Leicester’s experiences as a regional capital and 231
middle-ranking creative city provide important insights in a literature 232
dominated by world city narratives, with the book providing a richness 233
that speaks to the multitude of ‘ordinary’ cities, which must compete with 234
star creative cities and an overwhelming economic logic. 235
We contend that there are limitations from the tendency and ability of 236
economic narratives to be reduced to subsumptive accounts, which over- 237
simplify (and overstate) causal factors and relations and build explanations 238
upon all-encompassing logics, while ignoring the explanatory capacity of 239
the other, expressed here as other paradigms, disciplines, and creative sub- 240
sets. Moreover, we recognise that these interlocking deficits limit engage- 241
ment with new and alternative lens and prevent the development of 242
 R. GRANGER

243 informative spaces of contestation. These deficits highlight the failures of

244 the existing elite to grapple with the micro-criticisms of the prevailing
245 economic framework, noted previously by O’Brien (2010) (acknowledged
246 partially by Bakhshi et al. 2015) but which have nevertheless become part
247 of the creative mainstream.
248 In thinking about how to move forward the debate, it would be tempt-
249 ing to look towards Bourdieu’s (1986) work on capital, as a construct that
250 lends itself to the creative and cultural industries, and has both currency
251 and a wider reach. However, Bourdieu’s framing of embodied, objectified,
252 and institutionalised cultural capital, as well as his work on social capital, is
253 in many respects an overly simplistic framework that does not take us any
254 further in exploring the other, for instance, the distinction between the
255 individual and collective, the importance of place-based meanings, sub-­
256 narratives, emotions, and other hidden aspects. It does, however, high-
257 light the importance of spatiality and power through the central role of
258 habitus. Bourdieu’s work sheds light on the way activities—such as the
259 creative and cultural industries—are shaped, owned, and used in society.
260 Such a view shifts the focus away from simple cataloguing of differences
261 between sectors, occupations, and places to a more subtle and complex
262 inquiry into how resources are created and can be used to produce dif-
263 ferentiation, and the role of the other in this. Bourdieu’s work has a further
264 advantage in that it acknowledges implicitly, the variability of identities,
265 behaviour, histories, and so on through and by which the economy, com-
266 munity, and workers perform, and through which assets are accumulated.
267 Looking towards sociology, Butler’s (1990) Performative Model,
268 which draws on ‘performative utterance’ to examine gender, has been
269 invaluable in destabilising rigidly applied gender identities and categories,
270 while enabling a richer unpicking of issues related to these same notions of
271 power and precarity. Butler’s conclusion that gender is ultimately con-
272 structed through one’s own repetitive performance underpinned by sym-
273 bols and signs (see also Cameron 1997) implies that people and
274 communities are active producers (that enact and perform) rather than a
275 product per se. In other words, gender is produced from actions, not
276 applied from a label. In thinking about how these same ideas might be
277 applied to the creative landscape, the notion of ‘performing’ moves the
278 discussion away from the functionality of creativity as a product, towards
279 materiality, eliciting a different view of value, which intersects with narra-
280 tives in potentially illuminating ways. The overall effect is to frame the
281 creative economy in a more nuanced way, from which new outlooks and
 1 EXPLORING VALUE IN THE CREATIVE AND CULTURAL INDUSTRIES

models might advance. It therefore offers one way of resolving current 282
criticisms of the creative discourse and the puzzle of how best to convey 283
value. Building on the use of performativity used in other disciplines (e.g. 284
Richardson’s (2019) use of performing in housing), this book interacts 285
with ‘performance’ and ‘performing’ in six main ways: 286

1. Performance as Doing—reflecting a technical undertaking such as a 287

task, constructing identity and so on 288
2. Performance as an Art Form—as an act, a manifestation of intellec- 289
tual capability 290
3. Performance as an Expression—reflecting deeply held views or 291
aspects of an identity 292
4. Performance as Power—exerting control and power in the construc- 293
tion of the creative economy 294
5. Performance as a Process (performing)—through which social accep- 295
tance or monetary value/success is ascribed 296
6. Performance as an Experience (visible, hidden, or private) 297

In doing so, the use of performing as an underlying construct for this 298
book enables the creative and cultural industries to be framed in poten- 299
tially richer and occasionally, contradictory ways: 300

• as a reflection of one’s own ideas and values (expressively) 301

• as a set of relationships 302
• as assets and conduits 303
• as transformative processes 304
• as an indicator of personal status and success (monetary and 305
otherwise) 306
• as a permanent or continuous (evolving) facet 307

It is my contention that theorising creative and cultural industries as 308

acts of performing provides a valuable way of viewing the creative econ- 309
omy otherwise. The contributors to this book agree that the creative 310
economy is a significant part of our economy and society and is here to 311
stay, and that more robust frameworks and methods are needed to over- 312
come the challenges to it. We must go beyond old notions of money and 313
business designed for an industrial era, in order to get a better sense of the 314
meanings of creative and cultural industries and the intersection of value. 315
The use of performing as a construct provides a potentially more valuable 316
 R. GRANGER

317 lens through which we might glean new patterns and theories. In Chap. 2,
318 Laura Parsons builds on these same ideas to examine the value of culture
319 to society and reflects on value that remains ostensibly hidden in society as
320 a result of rigidly applied taxonomies and labels. In her work, Laura dif-
321 ferentiates between value that is hidden by virtue of being unknown
322 (unconscious acts), that which is unable to be conveyed through codified
323 means (tacit, intrinsic, and symbolic values), that which is ephemeral, or in
324 hard to see settings such as the household. These diverse views on cultural
325 value serve to shed light on the limitations of mainstream categories and
326 lenses, and open up ideas for alternative and more nuanced taxonomies.
327 In Part II of the book, which deals with the Self, several contributors
328 reflect on different areas of value—embodied, objectified, institution-
329 alised—and which interact with different power dynamics, that shape per-
330 formance of creativity and culture. In many of these cases, the creativity
331 economy is framed in terms of a concerted action and manifestation of
332 intellectual capital and artistic skills. In Chap. 3, Pinky Bazaz examines
333 education and specifically degrees, as an objectified part of the creative
334 economy, from which society ascribes different values. Pinky draws on
335 Rokeach’s (1973) taxonomy of value to underscore the inherent conflict
336 between the economic valorising of degrees in the market place, and the
337 more subtle, soft returns of cultural degrees such as design, especially
338 faced by BAME groups. Pinky uses the construct of ‘success’ to examine
339 what cultural capital and performing in universities might mean as a pro-
340 cess, through which economic value develops, but for some groups, cre-
341 ates barriers of achievement in society and raising wider questions around
342 voice, wealth, power, and race.
343 In Chap. 4, the same dominant issues of power are brought to bear on
344 an analysis of the visual and performing arts sector in the UK, and the way
345 power and policy process militate what art means and how this is accessed,
346 experienced, and shaped by the corporate other. In their work, Jennie
347 Jordan and Ruth Jindal examine the notion of ‘philanthropy’ in the arts,
348 the emergence of which can be viewed as a paradigmatic shift in arts policy
349 and funding. As Jennie and Ruth argue, the mainstreaming of philan-
350 thropy into arts is to introduce significant power dynamics into the field,
351 and fundamentally to alter the experience and value of arts by the self to a
352 more commercial and collective experience. By shaping the location of,
353 access to, and content of arts, philanthropy in effect changes art from an
354 individual to a collective experience and process, shaped by commer-
355 cial others.
 1 EXPLORING VALUE IN THE CREATIVE AND CULTURAL INDUSTRIES

In Chap. 5, Claire Lerpiniere reflects on the consumption and produc- 356

tion of fashion and textiles, which on the one hand could be viewed as an 357
objectified form of capital (literally an expression of capital wealth) but 358
which reveals wider views of the self, relating to personal values on the use 359
of raw materials and environmental damage caused by the production of 360
fashion. In Chap. 6, Malika Kraamer frames fashion and textiles more as 361
an embodied and art form, which depicts historical and anthropological 362
issues of how value is constructed in a society, and the use of a cloth to 363
express self-identity within a community. Malika uses her work to reflect 364
on different aspects of performing, which take place through Kente Cloth 365
in Ghana—its use over the years to reflect both tradition (history) and 366
modernity (innovation), and the individual choices to wear such cloth and 367
perform in the cloth, to connote complex relations between occasion, self-­ 368
identity, belonging, and political standing in a society. 369
In Part III of the book, Collective Space and Processes, the creative 370
economy is portrayed as a collective space and process through which 371
value is constructed. In Chap. 7, David Rae reflects on the collective char- 372
acteristics of two locales, one in Canada and the other in the UK, and the 373
role micro cultures play. As David argues, micro cultures play out (or per- 374
form) at a community level and are critical in shaping value, in this case 375
through micro cultural entrepreneurship. David draws on the collective 376
power of a community, and the cultural signs that reside there to trans- 377
form the area in which they live. In Chap. 8, I use the same ideas to reflect 378
upon the unique signs and collective power of another space and locale in 379
Denmark, which is argued to perform as a third space. What is revealed 380
from the chapter and discussion of Danish culture and use of innovation 381
incubators is the importance of social spaces, and the collective performa- 382
tivity of informal production spaces to produce economic benefits, as well 383
as generating value from a wider sense of belonging and collective identity. 384
In Chap. 9, Jennifer Garcia Carrizo and I examine the effects of culture as 385
an art form in the North East of England, which is performing as a trans- 386
formative process, which has boosted morale and collective identity in the 387
Ouseburn Valley. As we argue, while the arts activities themselves might be 388
viewed as low economic value, their performative power can be seen in the 389
way they drive social capital, their collective self-worth in the community, 390
their collective voice outside of the community, and their inclusivity in 391
bringing a range of economic, social, and third actors together. Many of 392
these aspects go unnoticed, and to draw on Laura Parson’s work, are hid- 393
den day to day in the community. 394
 R. GRANGER

395 In Chap. 10, David Heap and Caroline Coles reflect further on the
396 value of the hidden in collective terms, by investigating the notion (or
397 value) or silent design in the commercial design sectors. David and
398 Caroline draw on the examples of silent design in the furniture industry
399 and the value of non-designers in the wider design process. Reflecting
400 further on the legal and commercial dominance of value in design, David
401 and Caroline raise some concerns about the degree to which the economic
402 lens pervades many aspects of creative performance, effectively excluding
403 some groups from commercial success, preventing some workers from
404 performing as designers, and imposing significant risks on others through
405 intellectual property. David and Caroline conclude by examining the role
406 of creative commons in value construction, and whether this acts as a pro-
407 cess through which other values are enabled. The same ideas are expressed
408 in Chap. 11 on hidden networks, where I take a relational view of the
409 creative economy and examine the degree to which some actors and sub-­
410 sectors perform different roles in producing economic value in creative
411 products. While current taxonomies and measurement apparatus privilege
412 the economic value of the end product, we seldom view products as a
413 longer-term process and acknowledge the role of intermediaries, co-­
414 designers, and gatekeepers, and ancillary networks and platforms.
415 Acknowledging platform in a different, virtual, sense, Tracy Harwood,
416 Jason Boomer, and Tony Garry examine the different performances that
417 play out through the ‘Let’s Play’ field, which has emerged from the prac-
418 tice of Machinima. Viewed ostensibly as a consumptive practice, Tracy,
419 Jason, and Tony examine the wider values derived from the Let’s Play
420 performance, which is viewed as a complex interplay between both con-
421 sumption and production. This interplay between production and con-
422 sumption, hidden and visible, and individual and collective raises a number
423 of issues about how frameworks need to straddle and be flexible.
424 Performing in this area produces considerable value and is leading to a
425 rewriting of the creative economy taxonomy.
426 These different contributions serve to remind us that the creative econ-
427 omy is not an amorphous term; rather a set of separate sub-sectors, actors,
428 and areas of practice with very different characteristics, histories, and lan-
429 guage. The book spans the areas of gaming, textiles and fashion, food, and
430 art, but also thinks about the role and production of communities, pro-
431 cesses, identities, and expressions. It provides a variegated menu that will
432 have broad appeal and offer different policy ideas and contributions to the
433 wider creative discourse. While Pinky Bazaz (Chap. 3) and Jennie Jordan
 1 EXPLORING VALUE IN THE CREATIVE AND CULTURAL INDUSTRIES

and Ruth Jindal (Chap. 4) address power in a negative way, Jennifer Garcia 434
Carrizo and I (Chap. 8) frame this as an empowering process. Equally, 435
while David Rae (Chap. 7) and David Heap and Caroline Coles (Chap. 436
10), for example, frame power as a hidden asset and space through which 437
value is constructed, Malika Kraamer and Claire Lerpiniere (Chap. 4) and 438
Malika Kraamer (Chap. 5) frame this more emphatically as an expressive 439
event. In these seemingly disparate accounts, we have attempted to pro- 440
vide a variety of viewpoints on what is often conveyed as an exclusively 441
economic area of activity. 442
We believe that a desirable attribute of this book is that it accommo- 443
dates a wide variety of viewpoints and sector analyses of the creative econ- 444
omy, and in doing so draws upon a diversity of conceptual frameworks and 445
approaches that readers might use for further development. Value has 446
been conveyed in a variety of ways and the goal of the book is not to pro- 447
vide a unified approach and ideological framework; rather to present a 448
diverse framework with options that might stimulate future conversations, 449
leading to more nuanced approaches and understanding of value capture. 450

References 451 AU7

Anand, N., & Croidieu, G. (2015). Niches, Genres, and Classifications in the 452
Creative Industries, in User Innovation in Creative Industries. In C. Jones, 453
M. Lorenzen, & J. Sapsed (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Creative Industries 454
(pp. 327–349). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 455
Bakhshi, H., Fujiwara, D., Lawton, R., Mourato, S., & Dolan, P. (2015). 456
Measuring Economic Value in Cultural Institutions. A Report Commissioned by 457
the Arts and Humanities Research Council’s Cultural Value Project. 458
London: NESTA. 459
Banks, M. (2017). Creative Justice: Cultural Industries, Work and Inequality. 460
London: Rowman and Littlefield. 461
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of 462
Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241–258). New York: 463
Greenwood. 464
Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. 465
New York: Routledge. 466
Cameron, D. (1997). Performing Gender Identity. Young Mend of the Construction 467
of the Heterosexual Masculinity. The Discourse Reader, 26, 442–458. 468
Capdevila, I., Cohendet, P., & Simon, L. (2015). Establishing New Codes for 469
Creativity through Haute Cuisine: The Case of Ferran Adria and elBulli. 470
Technology Innovation Management Review, 5(7), 25–33. 471
 R. GRANGER

472 Caves, R. E. (2000). Creative Industries: Contracts between Art and Commerce.
473 Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
474 CCF. (2016). Perceptions Matter. The Comms Cause UK Values Survey. London:
475 Common Cause Foundation.
476 Cunningham, S. D. (2002). From Cultural to Creative Industries: Theory,
477 Industry and Policy Implications. Journal of Media Research and Resources,
478 102(1), 54–65.
479 DCMS. (2018). Creative Industries: Focus on Employment. Department for
480 Culture, Media and Sport. London: ONS. (See also http://www.thecreativein-
481 dustries.co.uk/uk-creative-overview/facts-and-figures).
482 Di Maria, E., & Finotto, V. (2015). User Innovation in Creative Industries. In
483 C. Jones, M. Lorenzen, & J. Sapsed (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Creative
484 Industries (pp. 301–319). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
485 Florida, R. (2001). The Rise of the Creative Class. And How Its Transforming Work,
486 Leisure, Community, and Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books.
487 Florida, R., Mellander, C., Stolarick, K., & Ross, A. (2012). Cities, Skills and
488 Wages. Journal of Economic Geography, 12(2), 355–377.
489 Flowers, S., & Voss, G. (2015). User Innovation in the Music Software
490 Industry: The Case of Sibelius. In C. Jones, M. Lorenzen, & J. Sapsed (Eds.),
491 The Oxford Handbook of Creative Industries (pp. 320–326). Oxford: Oxford
492 University Press.
493 Gabe, T. (2011). The Value of Creativity. In D. E. Andersson, A.-E. Andersson, &
494 C. Mellander (Eds.), Handbook of Creative Cities (pp. 128–145). Cheltenham:
495 Edward Elgar.
496 Harvey, D. (1989). From Managerialism to Entrepreneurialism. Geografiska
497 Annaler B, 7(1), 3–18.
498 Harvey, D. (2001). Globalization and the ‘Spatial Fix’. Geografische Revu,
499 3(2), 23–30.
500 Heilbrun, J., & Gray, C. M. (2001). The Economics of Art and Culture (2nd ed.).
501 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
502 Hitlin, S., & Piliavin, J. A. (2004). Values: Reviving a Dormant Concept. Annual
503 Review of Sociology, 30, 359–393.
504 Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Value, Behaviors,
505 Institutions, and Organisations across Nations (2nd ed.). Thousand
506 Oaks, CA: Sage.
507 Hracs, B. J. (2015). Cultural Intermediaries in the Digital Age: The Case of
508 Independent Musicians and Managers in Toronto. Regional Studies,
509 49(3), 461–475.
510 Hracs, B. J., Seman, M., & Virani, T. (Eds.). (2018). The Production and
511 Consumption of Music in the Digital Age. London: Routledge.
512 Jaspers, E. (2016). Values. Oxford Bibliographies in Sociology. https://doi.
513 org/10.1093/OBO/9780199756384-0182.
 1 EXPLORING VALUE IN THE CREATIVE AND CULTURAL INDUSTRIES

Jessop, B. (2006). Spatial Fixes, Temporal Fixes, and Spatio-Temporal Fixes. In 514
N. Castree & D. Gregory (Eds.), David Harvey: A Critical Reader 515
(pp. 142–166). Oxford: Blackwell. 516
Jones, C., Lorenzen, M., & Sapsed, J. (Eds.). (2015). Creative Industries: A 517
Typology of Change. In The Oxford Handbook of Creative Industries (pp. 3–28). 518
Oxford University Press. 519
Kaszynska, P. (2018). Cultural Value Scoping Project. Swindon: Arts and 520
Humanities Research Council. 521
Kemeny, T., Nathan, M., & O’Brien, D. (2018). Creative Differences? Measuring 522
Creative Economy Employment in the US and UK Using Microdata. IZA 523
Discussion Paper 11740. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/ 524
papers.cfm?abstract_id=3238565. 525
King, P. (2017). Thinking on Home. A Social Philosophy of Housing. Abingdon: 526
Routledge. 527
Landry, C. (2011). A Roadmap for the Creative City. In D. E. Andersson, A. E. 528
Andersson, & C. Mellander (Eds.), Handbook of Creative Cities (pp. 517–536). 529
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. 530
Lash, S., & Urry, J. (1994). Economies of Signs and Space. London: Sage. 531
Lazzeretti, L. (2014). Creative Industries and Innovation in Europe. London: 532
Routledge. 533
Lazzeretti, L., & Vecco, M. (2018). Creative Industries and Entrepreneurship. 534
Paradigms in Transition from a Global Perspective. Edward Elgar. 535
McCarthy, J. (2005). Cultural Quarters and Regeneration: The Case of 536
Wolverhampton. Journal of Planning, Practice and Research, 20(3), 297–311. 537
Nathan, M., & Kemeny, T. (2018). Creative Differences? Measuring Creative 538
Economy Employment in the US and UK Using Microdata. University of 539
Birmingham. Retrieved from http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/3154/. 540
NESTA. (2018a). Creative Nation. London: NESTA. 541
NESTA. (2018b). Creative Nation: Local Profiles. Open Dataset with Roxanna 542
Torre, Frontier Economics, and ONS Virtual Micro-Data Laboratory. 543
London: NESTA. 544
O’Brien, D. (2010). Measuring the Value of Culture. London: Department for 545
Culture, Media and Sport. 546
O’Connor, J. (2015). Intermediaries and Imaginaries in the Cultural and Creative 547
Industries. Regional Studies, 49(3), 374–387. 548
Oakley, K., & O’Brien, D. (2016). Learning to Labour Unequally: Understanding 549
the Relationship between Cultural Production, Cultural Consumption and 550
Inequality. Social Identities, 22(5), 471–486. 551
Perry, B. (2019). Governing the Creative City: The Practice, Value and 552
Effectiveness of Cultural Intermediation. In P. Jones, B. Perry, & P. Long 553
(Eds.), Cultural Intermediaries Connecting Communities. Revisiting Approaches 554
to Cultural Engagement (pp. 119–132). Bristol: Palgrave. 555
 R. GRANGER

556 Potts, J. D., Hartley, J., Banks, J. A., Burgess, J. E., Cobcroft, R. S., Cunningham,
557 S., & Montgomery, L. (2008a). Consumer Co-creation and Situated Creativity.
558 Industry and Innovation, 15(5), 459–474.
559 Potts, J. D., Cunningham, S. D., Hartley, J., & Ormerod, P. (2008b). Social
560 Network Markets: A New Definition of the Creative Industries. Journal of
561 Cultural Economics, 32(3), 166–185.
562 Richardson, J. (2019). Place and Identity: The Performance of Home. Abingdon:
563 Routledge.
564 Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press.
565 Throsby, C. D. (1994). Economics and Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge
566 University Press.
567 Throsby, C. D., & Withers, G. A. (1979). The Economics of the Performing Arts.
568 New York: St Martin’s Press.
569 Tose, R. (2011). A Textbook of Cultural Economics. Cambridge University Press.
570 Vogel, H. L. (2007). Entertainment Industry Economics (7th ed.). Cambridge:
571 Cambridge University Press.
 Author Queries
Chapter No.: 1 0004676718

Queries Details Required Author’s Response

AU2 The citation “Lazzeratti, 2014” has been changed to
“Lazzeretti 2014” to match the author name/date in the
reference list. Please check if the change is fine.
AU3 The citation “Hracs, 2018” has been changed to “Hracs
et al. 2018” to match the author name/date in the
reference list. Please check if the change is fine.
AU4 The citation “Kaszynnska, 2018” has been changed to
“Kaszynska 2018” to match the author name/date in the
reference list. Please check if the change is fine.
AU5 Refs. “Gillespie et al. (2014), Holden (2015), Mould
(2017, 2018), Montgomery (2008), Lefebvre (1961),
Baudrillard (1996), Throsby (2001), Peck (2005), Eliete
and Amal (2018), Lorentzen (2014)” are cited in text but
not provided in the reference list. Please provide details
in the list or delete the citation from the text.
AU6 The citation “Jasper 2016” has been changed to “Jaspers
2016” to match the author name/date in the reference
list. Please check if the change is fine.
AU7 References “Kemeny et al. (2018), King (2017), Throsby
(1994)” were not cited anywhere in the text. Please
provide in text citation or delete the reference from the
reference list.

View publication stats