Creative Hubs in Hanoi, Vietnam

‘Creative City’ R.I.P.?

Istanbul as a "City of Design"

Culture, politics and the cultural industries: Reviving a critical agenda

On 31 December 1985, Singapore left the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), turning against the ‘New International Information Order’ demanded by UNESCO at that time. In October 2007, after 22 years of absence, Singapore rejoined UNESCO, looking for an intensification of cultural and scientific exchange. Taking this example of reviving co-operation between Singapore and UNESCO, this paper assesses the concept of ‘creative industries’ as a boundary concept that allows for increased co-operation between players with generally opposing knowledge concepts — as manifested in their respective knowledge and cultural politics. The paper starts with a conceptual discussion on the crossing of boundaries. This is followed by an assessment of first, UNESCO's and second, Singapore's gradual repositioning towards culture. While UNESCO turned from distinctly separating ‘culture’ and ‘market’ in the 1970s and 1980s to an increased openness for profit-oriented conceptualisations of culture today, Singapore identified the economic potential of culture, creativity and the arts, and therefore the need to foster these as part of its development into a knowledge-based economy. The underlying differences in interests and the orientation of content, expressed by the traditionally opposing conceptualisations of knowledge and culture, are still valid today, yet the concept of ‘creative industries’, adopted by both sides, seems to offer a common meeting ground. It acts clearly as a bridge, and hence a boundary concept, allowing for an intensification of mutual co-operation. This is discussed in the final part of the paper.

There has been immense talk of creativity in organisations such as the WTO, UNESCO and EU but as yet no common definition has been agreed by them for the cultural and creative industries. Can the creative community take a more prominent role in this process? A backlash from the creative community has started against creative industry and city definitions. This turn of events is especially ironic since the term cultural industries was first used by Adorno and Horkheimer in a derogatory sense in their essay the age of enlightenment which set out a series of arguments against the commercialisation of culture. In the future, the general public or ‘creative citizen’ could and must play a much bigger role within creative industry and city initiatives if they are to be truly successful. Therefore the connection between creative spaces and the community becomes key. The voice of creative catalysts and other organisations similar to Transforma are muted voice within the creative and cultural industry lobby. Such agents of creativity are absent from recent creative industry definitions and thinking. Could Transforma change that state of affairs? The Anglo-Saxon approach to the commercialisation of culture and creativity depends on an entrepreneurial spirit across society and strong connections between academic institutions and commercial companies across all sectors. These connections are not always present in smaller and developing economies and this fact may inhibit their appropriation of creative and cultural industry policy making. Can Transforma be catalysts for a new luso-friendly definition of creativity? Is there is an opportunity in Portugal and abroad for Transforma to make a creative difference via their unique connection with the city and to ‘test’ forward thinking creative policy and initiatives that engage creative spaces, creative community, creative catalysts and the creative citizen or public at large?

Part I: Cultural and Creative Industries in Europe 1. The Geography of Creative Industries in Europe: Comparing France, Great Britain, Italy and Spain Rafael Boix, Luciana Lazzeretti, Francesco Capone, Lisa De Propris and Daniel Sanchez 2. Why Do Creative Industries Cluster? Luciana Lazzeretti, Rafael Boix and Francesco Capone 3. Creative Industries in Spain: The case of printing and publishing Rafael Boix 4. Creative and Cultural Industries in Austria Michaela Trippl, Franz Todtling and Rene Schuldner 5. Creative Industries in the United Kingdom Lisa De Propris 6. Leisure, Culture and Experience Economy as a Creative Strategy in the Periphery: Does North Denmark benefit from the experience economy? Anne Lorentzen 7. Creative Industries and Creative City Policy in Japan Masayuki Sasaki Part II: Innovation, Creative Space and Symbolic Value 8. Complexity Geography and the Rise of the Green Creative City Philip Cooke 9. From Cultural Cluster to Creative Cluster: The case of art restoration in Florence Luciana Lazzeretti and Tommaso Cinti 10. Geographical Proximity and New Short Supply Food Chains Leila Kebir and Andre Torre 11. Product Category Dynamics in Cultural Industries: Spaghetti Westerns' renewal of the Hollywood Western movie genre Gino Cattani and C. Moritz B. Fliescher 12. Cultural Activities in Territorial Development: The case of cultural and creative enterprises in the Swiss watchmaking industry Hugues Jeannerat and Olivier Crevoisier 13. Putting Creativity in Place: A relational and practice perspective Udo Staber 14. Design at Work: The interwoven effect of territorial embeddedness, social ties and business networks Marco Bettiol and Silvia Rita Sedita 15. The Importance of Gatekeeping Processes and Reputation Building in the Sustainability of Creative Milieus: Evidence from case studies in Lisbon, Barcelona and Sao Paulo Pedro Costa

Introduction The evolution of creative city paradigm in the last three decades has dramatically changed the notion of placemaking and the meaning of art and design for urban development in the creative and cultural economy context. Very recently, a spontaneously emerging art district has been exploited by policy actions in many cities, resulting in its presence on the global stage at the UNESCO Creative City Network. The two most common approaches that drive art and design-based development policies are seen in the creative city approach and community development approach (Evans; Murdoch III et al.). The creative city approach aims to contribute to economic development by focussing on the economic role of art and design (Florida; Murdoch III et al.). The community development approach, on the other hand, is seen as an important factor for social benefit and democratic development (Murdoch III et al.; Grodach; Markusen and Gadwa). Grassroots arts movements and community arts organisations, in the community development approach, support the arts as a low-income community involvement and development initiative (Murdoch III et al.). According to Grodach, public spaces and art and design spaces have three main roles in community development, and are built on local assets to increase community engagement, interaction, and participation. Despite the vast range of economic considerations in the current literature, it remains unclear how creative placemaking through arts, crafts, and design operates in the context of creative cities. Particularly, there is a need for a more comprehensive perspective of how creative placemaking contributes to art district development. Economic competition among creative cities has increased, especially since neoliberal policies diffused to the urban agenda. The city of Izmir, located in the Aegean coast of Turkey, being one of the world's top 130 cities (Tekeli), contributes to globalisation of the region and occupies a unique position in Turkey’s democratic history. Regarding the global arena, Izmir has reformulated its governmental structure in the making of places, with particular neighbourhoods seeking to increase their attractiveness to the creative class, support the creative industries, and to become a ‘Creative City’. Since the Culture and Art Workshop in 2009, when the Izmir Metropolitan Municipality established a creative city vision to serve as a high point in a democratic era, in particular involving elements of culture and creativity of importance for local and global actors, there has been a series of programs with different design strategies and governance mechanisms, such as the design projects (e.g. Izmir Sea Project and Izmir History Project, and History Design Workshop), formations (e.g. establishment of Izmir Mediterranean Academy with branches of history, design, ecology, culture, and arts in 2013), events and organisations (e.g. Good Design Izmir in 2016, 5th World Design Talks by the World Design Organization [WDO] in 2018), and applications for candidacy (e.g. for the World Design Capital title 2020, and UNESCO Creative Cities Network in 2019). The purpose of this article is to explore the drivers for art and design-based development in the urban environment through the lens of creative placemaking, and how this is practiced by creative class grassroots initiatives in cities such as Izmir, Turkey, which was shortlisted in the Creative City Network competition in 2019. The methodology is built on 1) a framework analysis through the research on art and design districts and the utilisation of creative placemaking, and 2) a field study exploring the creative placemaking drivers in an emerging art district, Darağaç, in Izmir. The field study is composed of site visits, visual mappings, the use of snowball sampling to reach the creative class, and structured interviews. The framework analysis findings suggest a set of creative placemaking drivers for art and design-based developments, and the case study findings present implications for future policies for integration of localised initiatives into the creative city framework. Framework Analysis The practice of creative cities applies one-size-fits-all strategies based on tangible and intangible characteristics to attract talent and support economic growth, whereas creative placemaking offers some crucial approaches to contribute to a locale's success and involvement in larger-scale plans. Therefore, placemaking appears as a phenomenological process that explains a sense of place, attachments, and, more broadly, the interaction between a region and its inhabitants (Mengi and Guaralda). The term ‘creative placemaking’ was first used by economist Ann Markusen and art consultant Anne Gadwa in the 2010 White Paper of the National Endowment for the Arts, as a solution when cities, suburbs, and small towns are faced with structural changes and displacement. Creative placemaking aims to revitalise space and economic development with creative initiatives. Markusen and Gadwa argue that creative placemaking provides gains in areas such as innovative products and services, livability, diversity, jobs, and income opportunities. Creative placemaking is also defined as a community-participatory tool to strengthen and enrich the identity of a place as well as development of a place. Community identity enables local assets to build trust and relationships (Kelkar et al.) while exploiting social and civic fabric that brings out the local character and narratives (Borrup). Moreover, Redaelli formulates creative placemaking as an innovative way of thinking for solving community problems that utilises the creative power of art and artists. From an economic perspective, Gallagher et al. point out that creative placemaking can happen in communities of any size and uses art and cross-sector collaboration to benefit the space. Creative placemaking through cross-sector collaboration is directly related to political ideology, social division, community size, resource limitations, and capacity of arts organisations. The theoretical discussion derived from the literature enables us to reconsider the use of creative placemaking approaches for creative city strategies and provides a framework that brings the most significant drivers of creative placemaking, especially for art and design-based strategies in urban environments (Table 1). Drivers Indicators Creative Practices Products Artworks Events Festivals Cultural Production Local Assets Local Knowledge Context Listening & Gathering Stories Knowledge & Skill Exchange Creativity Exchange Experiential Learning Community Involvement Co-Creation Collaboration Creative Placemakers Artists Designers Craftspeople Resident of the Community Local Audience Virtual Platform Archive/Publications Creativity Productivity Collectivity Spatial Environment Neighbourhood Streets Place Identity Digital Hub Atelier Digital Studio/Maker Space Art Galleries Exhibition Spaces Art Equipment Maker/Supplier Meeting Place/Third Place Institutional Support Networking Platform for Dialogue Space for Exhibition Publicity Public Fund Private Fund Philanthropists Sponsorship Education Institutions Art Institutions Art Organisations Non-Government Organisations Government Table 1: Major drivers of creative placemaking. Creative Practices, as the first driver, aim to describe tangible outputs such as products, works of art, events, and festivals. Wyckoff defines projects and activities involving art, culture, and creative thinking as the driving forces of creative placemaking to create collective memory. In this regard, Mutero et al. emphasise the importance of listening and gathering stories, in which it associates definitions such as community, local knowledge, and context. Describing community participation as a tool to improve the development of a place, Kelkar et al. mention that it helps to change the perception of the community. In this context, it creates trust and relationships while building community identity and sense of belonging. Creative Placemakers, as the second driver, represent actors in creative placemaking. One of the six drivers suggested by Markusen and Gadwa for creating a successful place are the creative initiators. Borrup, on the other hand, underlines the role of crucial actors, named as creative placemakers, such as city planners, developers, artists, local policy makers. neighbourhood residents, and local audiences, who also take part in creative practices guided by artists, designers, and craftspeople. According to Gaumer et al. and Schupbach, local actors must be involved as partners to realise more effective successful creative placemaking practices. Similarly, Kelkar et al. argue that the relationships that are built on the collaborative nature of involving actors transform productivity and create social capital. Spatial Environment, as the third driver, focusses on the spaces of creative practices. Spatial environments can be referred to at different scales, such as the digital hubs, ateliers, maker spaces, and event areas such as art galleries and exhibition areas that bring creative placemakers together and enable them to produce together. According to Ellery et al., such spaces enhance the use of public spaces while providing a sense of aesthetics, security, and community. Wyckoff lists drivers of creative placemaking as art spaces where artistic, cultural, and creative projects take place, work and living spaces for the creative class, art, culture, and entertainment activities. Institutional Support, as the fourth driver, underlines the expectations of creative placemakers from institutions. The institutional support through networking provides a platform for creative placemakers to establish dialogue as well as opportunities for exhibition areas and performances. The importance of the support of institutions and organisations s

Recent academic writing on the creative and cultural industries has conferred a new importance on creativity and, by extension, drawn attention to the different ways in which it has been theorised. This chapter discusses the multiple meanings and associations which creativity carries for workers themselves, based on findings from recent research with current and former art college students in London, one of the cities identified as a 'creative hub' in the international upsurge of activity associated with the contemporary creative industries. The chapter discusses the conceptions of creativity which are invoked in accounts of the sector of the cultural and creative industries. These are compared to discussions of creativity in other academic traditions, including different areas of psychology. The chapter briefly introduces the empirical research and outlines how creativity is conceptualized in the narrative-discursive approach adopted in the research. It then sets out some of the meanings around creativity which the research revealed to be play for contemporary creative workers, and discusses the implications of these meanings for the workers’ lived experience.

A country’s competitiveness hinges upon its cities’ competitiveness. Up until the emergence of the Industrial Revolution, cities have managed to preserve their quintessential characteristics ; however, with the industrialization process, the cities’ development has been drawn by a capitalistic logic. Through the combined pressure of demographic growth and technological innovations, cities have required capital to pave the way for their development. Due to the fact that the weight of history and traditions has been outshined by the urge for capital, public policies have come to the fore as a means of harnessing and managing the cities’ latest evolutions. While the rise and fall of cities is inevitable, we must avoid the destruction of the cultural heritage inherent to our cities. A city revitalization means selecting its most valued, representative cultural items and adapting them to a modern urban environment. Through the creative city designation, the UNESCO has contributed to foster the renovation and the sustainable development of cities. The UNESCO launched the Creative Cities Network programme in order to protect their cultural ressources. In South Korea, there are also cities affiliated to the UNESCO creative cities’ network or applying to obtain such a label. For instance, Busan for its film festival and Gwangju, which is currently building an Asian cultural hub based on arts and media to boost the creative industries’ potential not only in Gwangju but also in the Jeollado province. Both cities will soon become affiliated to the UNESCO creative cities’ network. But what are the actual reasons why so many countries strive to receive the honorific UNESCO creative city label? And what kinds of cities are seeking this recognition by the UNESCO?The UNESCO’s creative cities programme originated in the European cultural capitals, which have strengthened the links among themselves thanks to cultural exchanges and activities. This model has spread to Arab and American cities before reaching the shores of Asia. The present author has been searching for successful illustrations of cities preparing for the UNESCO affiliation as creative city in the Far East as well as cultural capital in Europe. For the purpose of this article, the RUHR-GEBIET region is examined as a cultural capital in Europe while Kobe -which was named UNESCO city of design in 2008- is analyzed as a creative city. I will consider how Japanese cities, which have similar urbanization processes with ours, have been selected as creative cities and how they manage them. As regards the UNESCO creative cities network program, it is very much similar to the policies of cultural capitals in the European Union, which aims at bringing together politics and economics through culture. The designation of the Ruhr-Gebiet region as a European cultural capital in 2010 epitomizes this theory. The line of thoughts pursued by the author is that the success of the RUHR region can be followed as a model for Gwangju and Jeollado since they have similar roots. Although recently Gwangju and its surrounding regions have undergone an administrative separation ; culturally speaking, they still share a common heritage and idiosyncrasy whose symbolic backbone is the Yeongsan river. Gwangju being located at the center of the Jeollado, it can work as the driving force of the creative industries’ field for the surrounding regions. Indeed, Gwangju is currently managing the East Asia Cultural City programme while preparing for the cultural hub for Asia and applying at the UNESCO for joining the Creative Cities Network. The present author do not share the view that the three above mentioned projects will only benefit Gwangju, but on the contrary, they will also contribute to the growth of the surrounding regions.

The cultural and creative industries have become a vibrant field of research in recent years. Increasing their contributions to GDP and encompassing a growing share of the labour market, cultural and creative industries have become a common feature in many areas of policy and research, and, especially in urban contexts, have become associated with significant spatial transformations. While the origin of the concept of ‘culture industry’ in the work of Adorno and Horkheimer is often acknowledged, contemporary scholarship in the field of cultural and creative industries has typically paid very little attention to the theoretical work - specifically Adorno’s critique of ‘identity thinking’ and the importance of contradiction and the preponderance of the object which formed the basis of his negative dialectics - which underpinned his arguments concerning the commodification and standardization of cultural products. Consequently, important insights in Adorno’s work are frequently overlooked in contemporary accounts of cultural and creative industries. This article situates Adorno’s arguments on the culture industry within his negative dialectics, and by applying his ‘logic of disintegration’ - or ‘prism’ - to the ‘creative city’, makes an argument for how Adorno’s ideas continue provide important insights into the geographies of cultural and creative industries in postindustrial society.

The ‘Cultural and Creative Hub’ (CCH), serves as platform playing a key role in supporting the socio-economic development of the cultural and creative industries. With diverse manifestations – from regions to independent legal entities – it plays a pivotal role in fostering innovation and supporting inclusive and sustainable economic growth. The scattered information on CCHs globally necessitates a systematic approach to define their activities and economic sustainability comprehensively. This paper aims to validate the practices of cultural and creative hubs: questions regarding their objectives, main activities, and therefore their economic sustainability are explored through an extensive global research initiative, analyzing 587 active hubs in various geographic areas. The study integrates systematic and grey literature reviews, leveraging data from hub networks like the British Council and the European Creative Hubs Network. This research seeks to enhance awareness of cultural and creative hubs through a scientific evaluation of their models and activities, fostering sustainable business practices, cultural diversity, and inclusiveness in the cultural and creative sectors.

The rapid development of creative industries and the formation of the creative economy as a new paradigm of economic growth actualizes the need for a deep theoretical understanding of the interrelationships between these concepts. Despite growing research in this field, fundamental problems remain unresolved, including conceptual uncertainty, fragmentation of research, underestimation of multi-level interactions, problems of statistical accounting and comparison of indicators of the creative sector development between countries and regions, and difficulties in developing effective state policies. This study aims to theoretically substantiate the relationship between "creative industries" and "creative economy," analyze their structural elements, and develop an integrative model of their interaction at structural, functional, and value levels. The research methodology is based on comprehensive analysis of international experience, modern trends, and statistical data. The evolution demonstrates transformation from cultural industries studied by the Frankfurt School in the 1930s to modern comprehensive economic phenomena. "Creative industries" was officially first used in 1998 by the UK DCMS, defining them as "those industries which have their origin in individual creativity, skill and talent and which have a potential for wealth and job creation through the generation and exploitation of intellectual property." The creative economy concept emerged later through contributions from John Howkins, Richard Florida, and Charles Landry. Structural analysis reveals creative industries as economic sectors uniting enterprises, organisations and individual entrepreneurs whose activities are based on individual creativity, skills, and talent, creating high added-value products through intellectual property development. Various models have been developed by different organizations, including John Howkins (15 creative sectors), NESTA (four business models), UNCTAD (six types of creative outputs and about ten industry categories), and David Throsby's concentric circles model. The creative economy is a broader concept encompassing not only creative industries but also socio-economic relations related to production, distribution, and consumption of creativity-based goods and services. Its structural elements include the creative class, creative industries, institutional environment, innovation and digital infrastructure, and creative spaces. The proposed integrative model considers interaction at three levels. At the structural level, creative industries form the creative economy's core, with the creative class as driving force. At the functional level, creative industries generate ideas, innovations, and solutions that penetrate traditional sectors, while creative economy creates favorable development conditions. At the value level, creative industries form new value systems based on creativity, innovation, individuality, and cultural diversity. Practical aspects demonstrate significant economic impact. According to UNCTAD, the creative economy in 2022 created 0.5-7.3 % of GDP and provided 0.5-12.5 % of workforce employment. Creative services exports reached $1.4 trillion USD, nearly double creative goods exports ($713 billion USD). Creative industries generate $2.3 trillion USD annually worldwide (3.1% of global GDP), with projections reaching 10% by 2030. The creative economy shows high multiplier effects: each creative job creates up to 1.9 jobs in related sectors, and every $1 spent generates $2.5 economic effect. For Ukraine, the creative sector represented 7 % of GDP in 2021, with potential exceeding 10%. Despite war challenges, Ukraine exported $3.766 billion in creative services in 2022, creating a $3.042 billion positive trade balance. The research concludes that creative industries and creative economy exist in complex multi-level interaction, with creative industries serving as the system-forming core, generating innovations and transforming socio-economic relations. The integrative model provides theoretical significance and practical value for effective state policy formation to stimulate creative sector development. Keywords: creative industries, creative economy, creative class, creative sector, creativity, innovations, cultural industries, economic development, multiplier effect, structural analysis, integrative model, state policy, international cooperation, Ukraine, UNCTAD, NESTA, UNESCO.

Leaving the City: Artist Villages in Beijing

The idea of ‘creative cities’ has gained prominence amongst urban planners and policymakers who often now find links between economic development and the ‘soft’ attributes of cities. While definitions of the ‘creative industries’ and the ‘creative class’ continue to be contested, many key urban policy actors continue to focus on developing strategic programmes and policies to boost ‘creativity’ and economic growth. In this article we review recent attempts to implement creative city ideas across five Australian state capitals. Following the analysis of interview material derived from contact with 100 key community and policymaker actors, we first develop a typology of approaches to creative city ideas: concerted action, engagement and strategic drift. We then move on to consider how the idea of the creative city provides a simultaneously criticized yet powerful organizing device that informs local strategies in relation to prosperity. Our analysis highlights a series of connected consequences around four key issues: (1) arts projects and gentrification; (2) housing affordability; (3) revanchist strands to public space management; and (4) relative rates of social investment. We find that the rhetoric of universal social potential accompanying creative city ideas continues to overlook those unable to participate in this new economy, as well as those who are more actively excluded.Résumé Le concept des ‘villes créatives’ se fait plus présent auprès des urbanistes et des décideurs politiques qui, désormais, découvrent souvent des liens entre développement économique et attributs ‘non quantifiables’ des villes. Si les définitions des “industries créatives” et de la ‘classe créative’ restent contestées, nombre d'acteurs clés de la politique urbaine continuent à privilégier l'élaboration de programmes stratégiques et de politiques publiques dans le but de stimuler ‘créativité’ et croissance économique. Cet article passe en revue de récentes tentatives de mise en oeuvre d'idées propres aux ‘villes créatives’ dans cinq capitales d'États australiens. Suite à l'analyse d'entretiens tirés de contacts auprès d'une centaine de communautés et décideurs politiques prépondérants, les auteurs ont d'abord conçu une typologie des approches des idées liées aux villes créatives : action concertée, engagement et mouvement stratégique. Est ensuite étudié comment le concept de ville créative procure un outil d'organisation à la fois critiqué et solide qui éclaire les stratégies locales par rapport à la prospérité. Une série de conséquences connexes est mise en évidence autour de quatre enjeux essentiels : projets artistiques et gentrification; accessibilité financière au logement; tendances revanchistes à la gestion de l'espace public; et cadences relatives de l'investissement social. Il en ressort que le discours sur le potentiel social universel associé aux idées de ville créative néglige toujours ceux qui ne sont pas en mesure de prendre part à cette nouvelle économie, ainsi que ceux qui sont plus activement exclus.

Locality selection matters. Investigating creative hubs in the Czech urban environment