The term “creative industries” covers a range of fields, including advertising, architectural design, art, crafts, design, fashion, movies, entertainment software, music, theater, publishing, computer software, television and radio broadcasting. They are sometimes defined as activities using personal creativity, skills and abilities to develop intellectual property, which is then applied to create wealth and employment opportunities.
However, the concept of “cultural and creative industries” has become popular in Taiwan because it has the word “cultural” attached to it. Government departments involved with culture love to evoke this word as a catchphrase and to add a degree of gravitas. Unfortunately, this shows a clear lack of understanding about economic development.
The concept of “cultural development” first appeared in Japan in the late 1990s, while former British prime minister Tony Blair said that the UK should promote its creative industries to the world, as it had already succeeded in developing its manufacturing and financial industries.
Culture has since become the driving force behind the UK’s economy in the 21st century. The idea also supported Nomura Research Institute’s forecast that 2015 would see huge changes in Japan, marking the county’s third major transformation after the Meiji Restoration and the new direction embarked on after World War II.
In contrast, Taiwan has not yet left behind the heavily polluting manufacturing industry; and developing the country into an international financial center remains a dream. The term “cultural and creative industries” may sound more impressive than simply “creative industries,” but it is at odds with reality because all we have seen to date is creative industries in the narrow sense of the term.
Little wonder then that writer Chang Ta-chuen (張大春) dismissed the whole idea of cultural and creative industries as “bullshit.” Our government has departments like the Council for Cultural Affairs and the Council for Economic Planning and Development. There are some cities, counties and townships, however, that do not even have one decent bookstore. Chang’s criticism was harsh, but it did touch upon certain issues.
The concept of creative industries is a very new one in economics, and adding the word “cultural” is a bit pretentious. It is a throwback to a time when Taiwan was awash with grandiose slogans, when people thought they could solve all sorts of problems simply by affixing the word “culture.”
The Council for Cultural Affairs seems to have got totally carried away with this new slogan. That whole series of supposed “creative events” planned for the 100th anniversary of the Republic of China is a prime example.
What is the economic value of these events and what is their real political meaning? Don’t these events just involve giving money to people to put on a show? In fact, how are we to understand the very nature of the “nation” that exists on Taiwan?
The UK is always looking for ways to develop. Japan, despite its economic problems and challenges, still has an annual per capita income of more than US$30,000, compared with just a little more than US$19,000 in Taiwan. The prediction that Japan will undergo another transformation in 2015 is the subject of continuous internal debate, with many Japanese hoping this will be the third time in their history that the country has opened itself up to the outside world.
We are being overly constrictive of our potential if we allow ourselves to be bogged down, obsessing over opening up or closing Taiwan, with China in mind.
Lee Min-yung is an author and a poet.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations