Hi Terry,
Could you clarify the basis of your second point-
"2. Large-scale surveys of the creative industries that show creative industries as offering a significant contribution to society do so primarily on the basis of their inclusion of engineering and other technical disciplines - and these latter typically form the main economic and employment contribution (examples include the national surveys in the UK and Australia)."
I am not suggesting that it is not true but can't find anything to substantiate it. Richard Florida's views are interesting but I'm not sure how typical they are.
At http://www.thecreativeindustries.co.uk the 'industries' listed are advertising, architecture, arts & culture, craft, design, fashion, games, music, publishing, tech, TV & film. A more detailed table of these (and sub-sectors) the UK government's breakdown of creative industries can be found via the link below , under '2.2: Standard Industrial Classification used in Creative Industries sub-sector estimates' -
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/578932/DCMS_Sectors_Economic_Estimates_-_Methodology.pdf
These are the definitions used in 2016 to calculate the £87 billion value of the UK creative industries (5.3% of UK GVA). They do seem to comprise of 'areas taught in Art and Design and Architecture'. So perhaps, in the UK at least, this is not entirely a 'misleading public media promotion'?
Of course I am not suggesting that 'creativity' is not key to many areas of the sciences such as maths and engineering, just trying to clarify commonly accepted definitions of 'creative industries'.
Best wishes,
Martin
Professor Martin Salisbury
Course Leader, MA Children's Book Illustration
Director, The Centre for Children's Book Studies
Cambridge School of Art
0845 196 2351
[log in to unmask]
http://www.cambridgemashow.com
http://www.anglia.ac.uk/ruskin/en/home/microsites/ccbs.html
________________________________________
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Terence Love [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 1:57 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Invitation: International survey on responsible conduct in research-creation
Dear Phillipe,
In support of Fil, and agreeing broadly with your and Ken's comments, there are three other factors relating to the inclusion of Engineering and other technical fields into 'research-creation'.
1. Richard Florida's research and publications on creative industries/creative cities/creative culture, which are often seen as a key reference, place Engineering, Law and other non-Art creative disciplines as central and the main drivers of creative industry, creative economies and the creative culture.
2. Large-scale surveys of the creative industries that show creative industries as offering a significant contribution to society do so primarily on the basis of their inclusion of engineering and other technical disciplines - and these latter typically form the main economic and employment contribution (examples include the national surveys in the UK and Australia).
3. The idea that the creative industries primarily comprises the areas taught in Art and Design and Architecture appears to be a misleading public media promotion of the latter sub-fields, particularly Art. It can be seen most clearly if commentaries from those fields about the literature in the previous two points are compared with the actual literature.
Regards,
Terry
==
Dr Terence Love
PMACM, MISI, MAISA, FDRS, AMIMechE
Director
Design Out Crime & CPTED Centre
Perth, Western Australia
[log in to unmask]
www.designoutcrime.org
+61 (0)4 3497 5848
==
ORCID 0000-0002-2436-7566
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ken Friedman
Sent: Sunday, 9 April 2017 10:42 PM
To: PhD-Design <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Invitation: International survey on responsible conduct in research-creation
The label “research-creation” seems in some way to focus on the forms of research identified as 1) practice based research, 2) practice led research,
3) artistic research, and 4) the outlier “practice as research” position. As Philippe notes, the venture cuts across all fields that are “project-based, or action-based, or practise-based.”
It doesn’t necessarily seem to claim that these are the only these fields involving creativity. Nevertheless, I can see the problem that Fil raises.
At a meeting of Australian deans on the subject of research, I heard one dean argue for the validity of “creative research outputs” on the basis that “art and design carry our culture.” It seems to me that all fields of human activity “carry our culture.” At least that is what the social and behavioral sciences tell us.
A great deal of the contemporary debate involving design research suggests that design is somehow different to other research fields — this may be true to the degree that mathematics differs to physics, physics differs to musicology, and musicology differs to economics. But the actual practice of any field at the highest level involves creation and creativity.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
--
Please click here to view our e-mail disclaimer http://www.anglia.ac.uk/email-disclaimer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
