Article
posted 18th June 2024
Creativity
Definition
When I sat down to write this article in my local library, I was immediately struck by my own ignorance regarding a definition. I have to be honest, I didn't really know how to properly describe a creative act. Considering we all take part in creative acts of a kind with conversation, cooking, and whatever our hobbies allow us as a matter of quotidian course, you would think characterising a creative act would be easy. I certainly have an idea as to what creativity is – and to a certain extent what it entails – but as to how to objectively and empirically delineate it from other human endeavour, I was somewhat at a loss.
Thankfully, creativity has been described and studied in painstaking detail by all manner of academics and professionals. Anna Abraham, author of 'The Neuroscience of Creativity', defines creativity as adduced from psychological research, as falling into two separate domains – Scientific or Artistic (1). It will be with the latter of these disciplines that I turn my attention.
Mark Runco and Garrett Jaeger, writing in the Creativity Research Journal, cite an M.I. Stein as providing the 'first clear use of the standard definition' of creativity (2). That the definition by Stein was published in 1953 (3), seems almost implausible considering the length of time humans have been producing art (some 70,000 years (4)), but Runco and Jaeger ascribe his work as ostensibly definitive. To quote Stein:
'The creative work is a novel work that is accepted or useful or satisfying by a group in some point in time' (3).
So there's essentially a dichotomy of values here. One pertains to originality, the other to utility. Indeed, Anna Abraham writes that 'there is presently broad agreement regarding originality and appropriateness as being the two defining factors of creativity across domains of human enterprise' (1). I do get the sense that I could fall head-first down any number of rabbit-holes here – how to understand 'appropriateness' appropriately, or how to consider the magnitude of a creative act – but I hope you get the point. A monkey bashing away at a typewriter will certainly produce a novel work, but without utility, it fails this simple test as a work of art.
I hope this doesn't present as a tedious exercise in splitting academic hairs, but it's something I'm going to come back to, especially when broaching the subject of artificial intelligence and it's impact on the creative industries. So if we're forearmed with a ready definition of what a creative act is, how then do we value it?
For the sake of brevity I'll primarily concentrate on music here. As a cultural yardstick of appreciation, it seemed the most amenable to study. I will be touching on the arts in general in Northern Ireland, and how under the most stringent financial pressures we're still punching well above our weight. But before I do that, there are themes that have emerged in the music sector this last twenty years or so that should trouble us and our relationship with artists.
Value
Lars Ulrich of Metallica once dubbed himself 'the most hated man in rock'n'roll' (5) when he went after Napster. This was back in 2000 when online streaming was just finding it's feet. Nowadays the phenomenon of streaming has effectively deprived recording artists of any meaningful income. Snoop Dog has been discussing this on-line, revealing his incredible feat of accruing one billion streams to have resulted in a comparatively paltry $45,000 dollars in return (6).
So the Danish drummer might well have been pilloried, but he was sure as hell right about what was happening. As to what exactly transpired that's resulted in this amelioration of royalties – was it Silicon Valley types consolidating and monopolising an emergent market while ripping off artists, or was it simply the apathetic appetites of the public that fomented this change – that's for another time. Suffice to say we now live in a world where a public purposefully accessing an artist's music out of choice, does not translate in income as it did in the previous century.
In addition to the modern internet affecting the monetary value of an entire creative industry (at least to artists), more recently we've been witness to another round of re-calibration. In 2020 we were thrown as a global collective into the teeth of a pandemic. I feel I'm only fully recovering from the effects of it now. For our creative industries, the prognosis at times wasn't so good. That could have had something to do with how the arts were perceived as the pandemic was taking hold.
A survey carried out by the Sunday Times at the height of the pandemic in 2020, revealed that 71% of those 1000 Singaporeans asked to share their views, ranked 'Artists' number 1 in a list of 'least-essential jobs' (7). The mind boggles. In the States, those non-essential workers were described as 'someone employed in a job that is not critical during an emergency like the Covid-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic' and included in their list, 'Employees belonging to the entertainment industry, such as theatre and concert events' (8). In the UK, our dithering PM at the time, Boris Johnson, addressed the nation on March 23rd 2020, and stipulated, 'All non-essential retail, hospitality, entertainment, sports and recreation, and places of assembly... must close' (9).
It could be argued that the use of 'non-essential' as a descriptor was merely an expedient use of language given the unprecedented circumstances, and I'm certainly sensitive to the deleterious effects of the pandemic on industries other than those pertaining to the arts. But given the effect the pandemic had on musicians, many of whom received little or no help, I'm not so sure.
COVID and Recovery
On the 14th April 2020, UK Music – an umbrella organisation that represents the collective interests of the UK music sector – delivered a submission to the House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sports Select Committee (10). In particular, the economic hit on the live music scene was highlighted.
UK Music credited the live music sector as generating '£1.1 billion a year for the UK economy before the virus struck', and estimated that 'at least £900 million' would be lost from the sector's expected contribution in 2020. They also highlighted the precarious nature of the sector as a whole, with 'an estimated 72% of the music industry being self-employed' (compared to the national average of 14.7%), with 'an estimated 52,240 workers in our sector... not currently being reached by Government support schemes.' So what was already a perilously poised industry was bound to suffer under the auspices of a pandemic. True to form, the figures bore that out.
In October 2021, the Musicians' Union reported the British music industry as a whole to have contributed £3.1 billion to the UK economy – down from £5.8 billion in 2019 (11). Concomitant with that economic downturn came a wave of unemployment, with nearly 70,000 (1 in 3) jobs lost in just one year. In September 2022, PRS Music reported only a 14% rise in employment from 2020 (), but thankfully, it appears the sector is now recovering well.
Pundits have credited the re-introduction of cultural mainstays such as Glastonbury as re-vitalising the market, and UK Music's 'This is Music 2023' report, cites impressive figures of £6.7 billion gross value added to the UK economy, along with £4 billion of exports, and a pre-pandemic busting figure of 210,000 individuals now employed in the sector. So while the Government may have been somewhat churlish with their choice of descriptor, it's gladdening to know the public didn't feel the same way. That the music industry in the UK is essentially built around the self-employed and freelance model, the fact this hasn't been celebrated more widely for the incredible recovery it is is beyond me.
Home Fires
You could be forgiven in thinking that the state of artistic affairs in Northern Ireland was in rude health if we use music as our means of measure. Just off the top of my head (and in no particular order), we boast Duke Special, The Bonnevilles, Tru, Amy Montgomery, Phil Kieran, Rory Nellis, Phil d'Alton, NI Soul Troop, Two Door Cinema Club, Ash, The Divine Comedy, The Dirt Byrds, Divides Unfold, David Holmes, Robin G. Shields, Malojian, Wynona Bleach, Virgins, Therapy, and if you must, Van Morrison (add at your leisure). So what with the veritable resurgence in economic activity as previously described, as well as our depth and breadth of talent, you'd think the sector would be sitting pretty as a whole.
Unfortunately, funding in the NI arts sector has taken a hammering this last ten to fifteen years. In 2009, the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure, released a report on their enquiry into the funding of the arts in Northern Ireland. Contained within their report were figures produced by the Arts Council of Northern Ireland (ACNI) pertaining to per capita spending. The report cited available figures for 2008/2009 as being £7.58 per capita (12). This was the lowest figure for the UK and Ireland. In the interim, that figure has decreased dramatically.
In June 2023, the Arts Council Chief Executive Roisin McDonagh said, 'It is worth repeating that government investment in the arts here is the lowest in the UK, and by a considerable margin. Per capita, the arts in Northern Ireland receive just £5.07 (13). A FactCheckNI article from July 2023 claims that, 'Central arts funding per capita in Northern Ireland is £4.72 per year' (14), which is as galling as their contention that our neighbours south of the border receive £22.50.
As to what the exact figure actually is, that the arts sector in NI is treated with such institutional disdain should worry us all. And it's not just a matter of figures, even though that's important. And if a sector so poorly funded is still responsible for 3.1% of NI's GVA, and accounted for 33,000 jobs in 2020 (15), just imagine the returns and prosperity if funded as it is in the south? And yet it's not just economics that should sway our thinking here.
The arts should be viewed through a lens other than fiscal. The Arts Council point out that such funding cuts, 'Will have a grave impact on arts delivery in Northern Ireland, particularly for older people, disadvantaged children, D/deaf and disabled groups and more' (16). Alice Adams Lemon from Equity states that, 'The arts enhance good health, enhances good mental health, enhances community cohesion' (16). Who wouldn't want to invest in any of that? As to what the political thinking is behind curbing such funding, I have to say I'm at an utter loss.
Considering the condensed body of talent we have here in NI, along with the fact that the creative sector's longstanding bedfellows are hospitality and catering, you would think a timely increase in funding would be a somewhat easy call. Because if we want to see the accomplishments of Array Studios (17), or James Martin (18) emulated, or see another barnstorming display of comedic brilliance like Derry Girls, they're not just going to drop out the pale blue sky. Such ambitious young creatives need paid and paid well.
Of course, my concerns about our lack of governmental funding significantly pales when confronting the modern spectre that seemingly threatens our every future creative endeavour. The 21st century invention of creative AI is something we touch upon in the accompanying Podcast. It seems the threat this modern power poses over even the most prodigious of talents can't be over-stated.
AI and the future of Creativity
Max Tegmark opens his book 'Life 3.0 – Being human in the age of artificial intelligence' with an imaginative prelude to the book proper. He spins a wild tale of 'the Omegas', a creative team responsible for designing an AI they've nicknamed 'Prometheus' (19). It's a tall tale that describes how an AI program effectively takes over the entertainment industry, tirelessly producing programming and movies to be streamed at home at a fraction of the cost of its competitors. Their AI is so successful, it eventually floods the world's patent offices with spectacular inventions, becomes one of the most viewed news platforms on the planet, and eventually creates its own political agenda that's adopted all over the globe as a means to erode the power of any state. It's certainly entertaining and more than a little far-fetched. That said, for it being published in 2017, it was somewhat prescient given the effects AI has had on the creative industries of late.
At the end of 2023, a deal was struck with striking writers in Hollywood that effectively protected their profession for the next three years. Their main concern was that AI was, to quote Bryan Cranston, 'literally dehumanising the workforce'. And it wasn't just writers that viewed AI as a threat to their livelihoods. That certain studios 'had proposed paying background actors for a day’s work to use their images in perpetuity' perfectly illustrates the concerns that those working in the industry have (20). Of course the AI is one thing, the use of it another. My understanding is that this isn't about protecting ourselves from the tech. Moreover, it's about protecting those creative interests against fellow humans who would like to see certain roles usurped by a cheaper alternative.
That one of the longest Holywood strikes resolved itself in ostensible favour of writers and actors (for now) is to be applauded in light of the economics, but we are still poised to see a huge drop-off in those employed in the creative industries. There are plenty of less auspicious jobs that AI threatens. It's not just A-list actors and screenwriters. In particular, those that work behind the scenes in post-production roles are particularly at threat.
An article in the Holywood Reporter by Winston Cho published in January of this year, details the significant deleterious effects of AI on the industry as predicted by those intimately involved in the process of making modern movies (21). A study commissioned by various cartoonists, artists and animators was prepared by CVL Economics, and can be found on the Animation Guild website (22).
Gleaning data from this comprehensive report, Cho describes how, 'Over the next three years... nearly 204,000 positions will be adversely affected' (21). In particular, sound engineers, voice actors, concept artists, visual effect specialists and other post-production experts will find it increasingly difficult to find work.
Of real note is a prediction made by the former DreamWorks founder Jeffrey Katzenberg, who apparently is on record as predicting 90% of jobs within the animation industries are liable to be replaced by AI technology (21). As to whether those guardrails that were put in place to protect actors and writers can be installed in time to protect these employees, only time will tell. But given the intrusive nature of AI in so many disciplines and in such a short period of time, I hope it's not wishful thinking on my part that such art and creativity might be protected by law.
Death of the hobbyist
What I find particularly depressing about the advent of AI (apart from the fact it puts highly educated and passionately creative people out of work), is the ripple effects it might have outside of those idioms of commerce. Like a lot of folk I know, I'm a devoted hobbyist. I'm of the mind that following a creative pursuit as an adult is one of the healthiest things we can do for our minds and general outlook. And this isn't about accruing 10,000 hours and being judged on our competence. This is about engaging with a discipline that we like for no good reason other than it makes us feel good. But whether it's writing fiction and non-fiction, composing songs or breaking out your paintbrushes, there's no longer a creative endeavour that we're simply out-competed in. And I for one can't help but take that personally.
Case in point – I was sitting in the car with my cousin as we waited on a friend. We were a bit early so we hung back for five minutes or so. In the interim, my cousin downloaded a songwriting app, and in the time it takes to prompt the thing in a text box, we had two songs – with lyrics – both a variation on a stipulated theme. Now I'm not claiming to be a bona fide songwriter. It's just something I've done in the past and greatly enjoyed. But in that instant, listening to what an app could provide us, I felt any effort on my part - past or present - were now essentially null and void. And this is the point I make on the podcast. As humans, we have been creating music for at least 50,000 years as adjudged from the archaeological evidence (23), and it's just extraordinary to me that we are now teetering on this knife-edge of opportunity. On the one hand, we have a technology that can produce compositions (both audio and visual) in the blink of an eye. On the other, it threatens not just hundreds of thousands of jobs, but whole fields of human endeavour.
The origins of art and music signify that great cultural awakening that took place in the human mind many millennia ago. We emerged as an intelligent primate capable of symbolically representing our inner and outer worlds. Along with our prodigious gift of language, we were set apart from the rest of the biological world as a creative force that's now mapped the universe, and synchronised the world from orbit. There is much to admire and celebrate. But by evoking the sentiment of Stein as mentioned earlier – that a creative act is both novel and useful – I feel somewhat torn in contemplating the negative effects AI might have on both collective and individual endeavour, commercial or otherwise. We live in very strange times.
Links
1) Anna Abraham, The Neuroscience of Creativity, 2018 Cambridge University Press
2) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254301596_The_Standard_Definition_of_Creativity
3) https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00223980.1953.9712897
4) https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2018/september/the-oldest-drawing-ever-found-is-a-stone-hashtag.html
5) https://www.kerrang.com/corey-taylor-lars-ulrich-was-right-about-napster
6) https://www.youtube.com/shorts/JJxPDtuFvog
7) https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/times-newspaper-survey-artists-non-essential-jobs/
8) https://www.indeed.com/hire/c/info/who-are-nonessential-employees
9) https://www.squirepattonboggs.com/en/insights/publications/2020/03/uk-covid-19-measures-clarifying-essential
10) https://www.ukmusic.org/news/uk-music-outlines-the-impact-of-covid-19-on-the-music-industry-to-dcms-sele/#:~:text=The%20submission%20urges%20the%20Government,to%20restart%20once%20restrictions%20lift.
11) https://musiciansunion.org.uk/news/uk-music-report-reveals-economic-impact-of-covid-19
12) https://archive.niassembly.gov.uk/culture/2007mandate/reports/report05_09_10r.htm
13) https://artscouncil-ni.org/news/governments-lack-of-investment-in-the-arts-is-affecting-those-most-in-need
14) https://factcheckni.org/articles/is-arts-funding-per-capita-almost-five-times-higher-in-ireland-than-it-is-in-northern-ireland/
15) https://www.nibusinessinfo.co.uk/content/creative-businesses-and-employment-northern-ireland
16) https://www.itv.com/news/utv/2023-04-25/ni-artists-furious-over-possible-arts-funding-cuts-of-10-per-cent
17) https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2021/dec/01/northern-ireland-art-group-array-collective-wins-2021-turner-prize
18) https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/entertainment/film-tv/mbe-honour-for-ni-actor-james-martin-at-windsor-castle/a1046679735.html
19) Max Tegmark, Life 3.0 – Being human in the age of AI, 2017 Allen Lane
20) https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/oct/01/hollywood-writers-strike-artificial-intelligence
21) https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/ai-hollywood-workers-job-cuts-1235811009/
22) https://animationguild.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Future-Unscripted-The-Impact-of-Generative-Artificial-Intelligence-on-Entertainment-Industry-Jobs-pages-1.pdf
23) https://www.classicfm.com/discover-music/instruments/flute/worlds-oldest-instrument-neanderthal-flute/