Creativity and the City
Interview with Irene Tinagli one of the co-founders of Creativity Group Europe, together with Richard Florida and Giovanni Padula
Carlotta Oddone
Embedded: Irene Tinagli, photo © Doors of Perception
CO: How would you define the creative class? In practical terms who is the “creative” person you refer to in your studies?
IT: A ‘creative’ is not necessarily an artist or a scientist. The creative class is a very broad category we apply to all those who use their own ideas and knowledge to solve non-standard problems or come up with new products and services. In practical terms, managers (of various kinds), architects, lawyers and teachers, but also business people, artists and writers, etc. In our research the term ‘creative’ is more an attribute of the type of work or occupation carried out by a person, rather than an intrinsic characteristic of the individual. We are more interested in the socio-economic aspects of creativity than its psychological/individual side.
Do we really believe that we, and developing countries themselves, need to have children stitching footballs or making bricks?
CO: Are there also types of creativity that do not represent a resource for the economic development of a city?
IT: No, there is no specific ‘creative’ profession that is of more or less use to a city, but there can be situations where people with high creative potential are not given the opportunity to apply and exploit their abilities at work. This can be connected to the internal organization of the workplace or be part of a broader problem linked to a socio-cultural context which limits and inhibits, or even punishes new, non-standard, “creative” personal initiative at work.
CO: The research carried out by your team up to now has focused on the post-industrial society. Do you believe that the three Ts model can also function in less developed areas? Are there some cases where creativity can prove to be an obstacle?
IT. This is a very interesting question that I am happy to answer, as it is closely related to the issues and contents of a project I have just completed in collaboration with the United Nations.
Developing countries often take on, or it is probably more appropriate to say that they are often forced to take on, a model of growth that favours that of industrialised countries: these countries are obliged to make products that it is no longer cost effective for us to produce, while in the developing country you can always find people willing to do this work cheaply.
We believed, and we led these countries to believe, that their only advantage was that of having a large population willing to work for a few cents. But how on earth can we think that the worth of countries with immense historical and cultural backgrounds like China, Thailand and Malaysia comes down to this?
These countries could be capitalising on and investing in their human resources, their history, intelligence and culture, and gradually entering the new “global value chain”, without necessarily having to experience the squalor of an old-style industrial development that is now obsolete.
Do we really believe that we, and developing countries themselves, need to have children stitching footballs or making bricks? We can easily use new technologies to do this work rapidly and cheaply.
photo © Doors of Perception
The problem is that not only has the West chosen not to believe in this option, but the “developing” countries themselves have often been (and continue to be) governed by totalitarian regimes which deliberately oppressed the creativity and free expression of their people, not investing in the education and technology that would have emancipated these populations and enabled them to grow.
It is not economic backwardness that blocks the development of a “creative” economy, but political and cultural backwardness.
And it is not unthinkable that poorly industrialised or backward countries can use their knowledge and creativity to get back into the global economic scene. Just look at what Ireland was like 20 years ago, or even Finland, an economy once based on fishing and its huge forestry resources, which is now one of the world leaders in the field of telecommunications and new technologies.
One recent example of a transformation in progress is India. India began its economic reforms in 1991, but its strength and forward-thinking approach really lies in the decision to invest, beforehand, in education, human resources and technology, in the space of a few years becoming one of the main centres for the production of software in the world, attracting and establishing important technology companies which compete on a global level. It should also be noted that India is a democratic country, where the choices and economic transformations undertaken are the result of a common process with the aim of ensuring the ongoing development of the country, and this certainly plays an important role. This is why I believe much more in the growth of India than China, for example.
Not only is creativity not harmful; on the contrary, it would be a fantastic opportunity for these countries, if only there was, both here and there, the political and cultural will to cultivate and capitalise on it.
In the project I worked on with the United Nations, which is due to be released shortly as a UN publication, what comes out is that in the new economic system based on knowledge and information, even relatively small, less developed economies can compete and prosper. Today what counts is the ability to invest in people and their education, as well as their cultural development, participation in political life, and creative development. And that will never be counterproductive, or represent a risk.
CO: What research approach did the Creativity Group adopt for its work on Italian cities?
IT: We used the “3Ts” approach developed by Richard Florida, according to which the growth of a city or region depends essentially on three Ts: Talent, namely highly qualified human resources, Technology and Tolerance, the open-mindedness to accept and capitalise on ideas and diversity.
With regards to the more strictly “technical” aspects, namely the indicators and standards used to measure the position of various cities in terms of these three areas, we attempted to expand or explore indicators which were used in similar studies carried out in American cities or European countries.
This will enable us to interpret the results more accurately and obtain a more precise picture of the situation in Italian cities.
