Culture, creativity and industry should be considered separately.

Culture, creativity and industry should be considered separately.

Every year, "cultural and creative industries" are criticized and repaired, and this year is no exception, but this time it involves a relatively wide range of issues. Songyan and Huashan, which were originally planned as "models" of cultural and creative industries, have also been labeled as "restaurants." there's no culture at all. But the controversial point is: what is culture? What is creativity? What is called industry? In 2009, Vice President Vincent Siew held the "Round Table Forum on Cultural and Creative Industries". There were in-depth discussions on which can become industries and which can not, and how to distinguish them.

Frankly speaking, not all culture can be turned into an industry, mass production and pricing are sold, and culture and thought themselves are priceless. When Confucius was alive in ancient times, he had no ideas, no one bought it, and wandered around to teach, but thought influenced later generations. Confucius' thought became the mainstream and the basis for imperial examinations, and the educational circles immediately regarded it as a cash cow.

To count in detail the largest cultural industry in China, from ancient times to the present, nothing is more than Confucius and Mencius and Confucianism, but the thought is priceless, and the priceless ones are the publishers of science, teaching, printing and examinations. this is the industry, which is now called the textbook industry.

In addition, artistic creation is also priceless. Paintings cannot be mass produced. Van Gogh could not sell paintings all his life, but his paintings after his death became a museum and an industry. That is to say, creation cannot be mass-produced and cannot become an industry, but museums can. Exhibition industry can. In film and television, pop music, conferences and exhibitions, news, sports, advertising and other aspects, those who have already formed an industrial scale do not need special subsidies, as long as they create a good policy and environment.

Therefore, we must first distinguish between those that can do industries and those that cannot, and those that can do industries. What the government needs to do is to formulate basic laws, formulate good policies, and create a good creative environment and market, so that those who are interested in participating in the industry are convenient in terms of financing, venue acquisition, activities and exhibitions, and so on.

As for those that cannot be industrialized, such as literary creation, theatre, opera, etc., cultural subsidies already exist, so they should be maintained, while at the same time, in order to encourage creative vitality, a certain proportion of subsidies should be given to creators. The reason is very simple. All creativity must come from the rebellion against past forms and ideas, mainstream values and old thinking.

But such rebellion, through the ages, can be successful, less than one percent, not to mention that each artist has different talent, even for the artist himself, every creative experiment may not be successful. Allow failure, calmly continue to create, this is the driving force of creation, and the government needs to do is to give due subsidies, so that warm-blooded creators, have more opportunities to do successful or failed experiments.

As for the proportion of subsidies, it is better to give 1/3 to young creators. The number of each person does not have to be large, but it is given to many people to give warm-blooded ideas a chance to practice. Among them, 90% may not be successful, but it does not matter. Accumulating creative experience is more important than anything else, and the remaining 1/10 is very lucky.

The second ratio of 1/3 may subsidize the development of these creators, giving them the opportunity to become a medium-sized group or to do larger creations, and they may fail, so there must be only a very small number of people who will succeed in the end. It is to be able to act on its own, or to perform internationally on behalf of Taiwan. As for whether these creators can become an industry, it depends on the various abilities of the artists. There are also successful creations and business failures. Who can guarantee that?

The purpose here is not to explain how "cultural and creative industries" should be, but to explain that culture, creativity, and industries should be considered separately, and not just one concept. All the way to the end, culture has heritage and innovation, and the essence of creativity is rebellious. Industry can be copied, successful marketing, the three can not be equated. Therefore, whether an idea can become an industry often lies not in the idea itself, but in more other factors, which requires a lot of hard work in production, circulation and exhibition. Which of the seemingly successful creative industries does not rely on long-term painstaking management and the establishment of contacts? It is not at all easier than traditional industries.

Artistic creation is based on one heart and there is no fluke. Whether the industry is successful or not is another matter, just as whether Van Gogh's creation is good or not is one thing; whether he can make gallery with his works is another; if you think about it carefully, it will be easier for the cultural and creative industry to move on.

▲ culture, creativity and industry should be considered separately.