Number 1 and 2

For a few years now Switzerland is number 1 and leader of the index, followed by Sweden. Remarkable is the policy on creativity development of these countries and their none membership of the European Union.

[clear]

The Netherlands

The Netherlands rises from the sixth position to the fourth. Earlier the Netherlands is defined by the European Commission in their Green paper on Innovation (see the index on the right), as an innovation follower instead of an innovation leader. Countries, like Sweden, who early started with on policy strategy on development of creativity, are now the innovation leaders. The Netherlands preferred an industry strategy and not a general strategy for innovation progress. That is probally the lack of the Dutch policy, they change their opinion on policy strategy too often from general to specialised policy and vice versa. Furthermore the SME’s benefit to little of the economic policy choices and programmes, and large companies like Philips do. Lastly the attention is mostly drawn to technological innovation, instead of for instance open, social and creative innovation. Policy makers believe the biggest profits are in these business lines.

Fast mover US

The United States is the fastest growing country on innovation. They moved in the index from the tenth to the fifth spot. According to the report this is due to the education system of the US and strong base of top-ranked universities. And secondly US has seen strong increases in software spending and employment in knowledge-intensive services.

Think global and act local for innovation in your own country

As an advice to stimulate growth of innovation in your own country, they suggest to still think global but act local: realize the full potential of innovation in your own backyard. Don’t try to copy models from elsewhere, like Silicon Valley, because they might not be suitable for your country. Learn and improve your local systems of innovation. They also highlight in this report the importance of innovation hubs. Countries must create and provide an environment that unleashes the potential for innovation. This means knowledge and institutions must be available, stimulate start-ups, make seed capital possible for these kind of companies, facilitate access to soft and hard infrastructure and develop a business-friendly legal framework. But above all, create your own formula and innovation eco-system, just by locating the interest and need of the people and companies you want and need to attract.

If you’re interested in attracting creatives to your region. Read also my blog about the location choices creatives make and their benefits of locating in a hub. Recent research in The Netherlands presented another perspective on clustering and the output of these clusters.

Want to read the full report of GII 2013? Go to the site of The GII.

Do you need help with your policy making on innovation? Please contact me and I can advice you.

Het bericht The rise of nation’s innovation verscheen eerst op CreativeMV.

Related Keynotes and Workshops and services:

• Innovate Masterclass
• Creation or Innovation?
• Development of Competencies
• Innovation
• Creative industry

What is creativity and who determines it?

In the Dutch dictionary, creativity is described as “creative power” or “the urge to shape. It can be explained as the ability and the will to create. A creative process can therefore be seen as a process in which people focus on forming new shapes and ideas. According to Runco and Jaeger, creativity requires originality and effectiveness. An original idea or product, which is not suitable or suitable for a practical application, is not creativity. Effectiveness is a form of value for creativity. Guilford (1950) described creative work as accepted or realistic ideas, which are critically assessed. Too much criticism and limited thinking can destroy creativity and ideas. However, the selection of ideas must be tested. The question that is asked here is who determines whether an idea is good? Stein (1953) explains a creative work as an innovative, not existing in this form, which is seen as tenable and usable for a certain group at a certain moment. He adds the factors of time and user to his definition of creativity and a creative work.

Characteristics of a creative person

Stein established a relationship between the perception of the individual and the degree of impact of the creative work. A creative person has a lower threshold or greater sensitivity to problems and gaps in society. Traits and skills attributed to creative individuals are broad interests; ability to assess objectively; autonomy; and open to new experiences. Research by Albert Rothenberg (1971) shows that a creative person has the ability to see similarities and a less creative person is focused on differences. Csikzentmihalyi researched a hundred creative persons. He added to the list of characteristics the ability to bring opposites together, and the ability to consciously experience the consciousness of a so-called “flow”. Flow is defined as a state of mind, especially experienced by highly creative artists, of optimal intrinsic motivation, where a person is fully committed to what he is doing. Any other needs or incentives are completely ignored during the flow. In addition to playfulness and high energy, a counterpart such as stamina is characteristic of the creative person. Feist has researched the relationship between someone’s character and creativity. He has compared groups of a group of artists and non-artists and a group of scientists and non-scientists. Scientists and artists do not share the same profile. Artists are more emotionally unstable, cooler and dislike group norms.

What makes one more creative than another?

In the 1960s, the Institute for Personality Assessment and Research Berkeley conducted psychological research into differences in the degree of creativity among creators in the same art discipline as architects. The research shows that the most creative artists had a strong ego and a high degree of independence. They have great willpower, confidence, dominance, and are self-centered. A marginal comment concerns the question whether these qualities lead to success in the creation of art, or whether these qualities are necessary to be successful as an artist in a Western society. Research by Otto Rank (1954) also shows the differences in the degree of creativity between persons on willpower and guilt as a result of conflicts with parents during childhood. Creativity arises from not automatically accepting the standards of your parents or society, but creating your own ideals and independence. This research also shows a link between independence and creativity.

According to Amabile (1996), 3 elements are necessary to increase creativity: expertise; skills for creative thinking; and intrinsic motivation. However, according to Amabile, a significant positive relationship between creativity and intrinsic motivation has not yet been consistently demonstrated. However, between creativity and intrinsic motivation in relation to a product.

Creativity & Intelligence

Research shows a positive but small correlation between intelligence and creativity (Gough, 1961, MacKinnon, 1961, Torrance, 1962, Guilford, 1967). A person with a low IQ is rarely very creative. Creative individuals have a degree of higher intelligence, but above an IQ of around 120, the link between intelligence and creativity disappears.

Creativity as an individual quality

According to Feist, creativity would also take place in isolation and loneliness and not during social processes. Social interaction can be an impulse. Creative people also have a greater need to direct their focus and attention within themselves and to distinguish themselves from others. Separation also contributes to confidence and belief in yourself and what you stand for. He concludes, like Csikzentmihalyi, that creative people are generally more performance-oriented, ambitious and internally motivated. Many people do have an idea, but it takes perseverance and commitment to actually develop and implement the idea.

Opinions seem to be divided as to whether creativity should be seen as mainly individual quality and solitary. Florida (2002), Oostwoud Wijdenes (2012), Griffin (2011), Robinson (2009) are of the opinion that creativity takes place in collective and diversity and that interaction with the environment is necessary. A side note that I must make here is that they already put creativity at the service of innovation processes, especially in this approach. Creativity is approached from the context in which it takes place and potentially assumes that everyone can develop creativity equally.

Cheers!

PS:
I wrote this blog as a result of my thesis research into the current Top Sector policy for the creative industry. The question in this study is whether, given the characteristics of the creativity of the cultural sector, it is justified that the interpretation of creativity development and economic growth is (only) focused on the instrumental values ​​and on certain sectors of the overall creative industry. herein the different concepts such as creativity and innovation.

Het bericht What is creativity? Defining the skill of the future verscheen eerst op CreativeMV.

Richard Florida seems to be an important inspirer and worldwide driver of the opportunities of the creative industry with his book “The rise of the creative class” from 2002. However, the added value of creativity and the creative industry has been praised and criticized for a long time.

This is accompanied by a discussion about the definition of the creative industry. The discussion ranges from the flexibility of the term culture, of which one can wonder whether this applies to the cultural sector, from so-called high and low culture, to a broadly formulated business cycle that is involved in the cultural end product.

However, the discussion about the definition process is ignored and outweighed by the interests of the government to use the sector for other purposes. It has led to economic policies for the sector. The creative industry is used as a vehicle and is seen as a catalyst for the economy.

One size fits all?

The idea of ​​a cultural industry originated in the 19th century with the emergence of the bourgeoisie and mass production. German social philosophers Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer were the first to introduce the term “cultural industry”. It was an attempt to draw critical attention to the commercialization of the arts, as the legacy of the Enlightenment. The two philosophers already heralded developments in the future.

The position and significance of the arts was given a more dominant place by the establishment of the European Community. After WWII, European policy saw the opportunity, particularly in the arts, to promote democracy and aimed to make art accessible to the wider public. As a result, the cultural industry had the opportunity to grow and develop, partly thanks to the released subsidies. The emphasis was on specific sectors such as film, media and cultural heritage.

Australia as a creative nation

The Australian government led by Prime Minister Paul Keaton first spoke in 1994 of creating a creative nation. Keaton assumed that culture creates prosperity, adds value and contributes to innovation, marketing and design. The degree of creativity determines the ability to respond to new economic developments and pressures. This philosophy was soon adopted by countries such as Canada, New Zealand and England. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Blair, England brought the creative industry to Europe as an economic flywheel and established a Creative Industries Taskforce. In 2004, sociologist Hans Mommaas introduced the advantage of a creative cluster as a requirement for the developing knowledge economy in the Netherlands. In it, he emphasized city marketing, encouraging an entrepreneurial attitude to art and culture, encouraging innovation and creativity, breathing new life into old buildings, and promoting cultural diversity and democracy. The advantages of this cluster formation, for innovation and economic growth, had already been described by economist Schumpeter in his “Innovation Theory” (1912). The appeal for politicians to make a policy choice for the creative industry is still in this capacity for innovation.

European definition

Not only at national and regional level in The Netherlands there are differences in the definition of the creative industry, but also in Europe and its various Member States. Where in countries such as Spain and Italy, for example, gastronomy (food and wine) is part of the creative industry, some Scandinavian countries and England add ICT to the sectors.

The differences are in the definition used, the number of sectors and the combination of sectors. It seems very much that the definition of the creative industry by the various governments of the European member states is culture and purpose.

The European Union itself uses two different definitions. The published green paper ‘Unlocking the potential of cultural and creative industries’ by DG Education and Culture, part of the European Commission, defines the creative industry as an industry that produces and distributes goods and services that, given their specific nature, use or purpose , shape or communicate cultural expressions, regardless of their possible commercial value. In addition to the traditional art sector (performing arts, visual arts, cultural heritage including the public sector), they include film, DVD and video, television and radio, video games, new media, music, books and magazines. ICT and cultural tourism are excluded. Public and commercial organizations belong to the same group.
The second definition is from DG Enterprise of the European Commission and defines the creative industry as anyone involved in the creation of products, services and activities to be marketed that depend for their value on a creative or artistic input.

I can only draw one conclusion and that is that the definition has become diffuse. Is that bad? I don’t think many people will be awake. What I do notice in practice is that there is confusion for whom, for example, certain meetings or arrangements are intended. The differences in definition for research are also very inconvenient and not transparent. You quickly compare apples to pears. I also think that a wrong intention has emerged about the top sector creative industry and the related ambitions.

Het bericht One size fits all: defining the creative industry verscheen eerst op CreativeMV.