ABSTRACT
This book began by noting that the BBC states that its vision is to be “the most creative organisation in the world” (2013: n.p.). It was shown that the idea of ‘creativity’ runs through the ways in which the British television industry talks about itself, with ‘creativity’ as a goal that all broadcasters and programme-makers strive towards. As public service broadcasters such as the BBC and Channel 4 must demonstrate that the material they produce fulfils particular social roles, it is assumed that this can be achieved through enabling creative activity in the best manner possible. Creativity is therefore positioned as a conduit through which those social goals can be achieved, with creative approaches towards programme production and content perceived to be one of the ways in which those goals can be evidenced. Creativity is therefore both the tool for delivering public service broadcasting and evidence of it. Yet defining creativity is highly problematic, and evidencing that it has taken place is equally difficult. Given the term “can refer to a trait, a process, an aptitude, an attitude, the quality of a person or object, a gift, a social construction, a type of distinction, a form of action, etc.” (Gla˘veanu 2014: 11) it can be called on to fulfil a variety of actions, many of which commonly take place within activities often not referred to as ‘cre ative’. Given these difficulties the role creativity has been given has often been an economic one, hence the UK government’s annual publication of the Creative Industries Economic Estimates (Department for Culture, Media and Sport 2016). These estimates outline the contribution work defined as ‘creative’ makes to the UK economy, with the intention of demonstrating the value of that sector and therefore the logic in continuing to invest in it. The fact that creativity has come to be understood as an economic contributor is evident in the use of the term ‘creative industries’, where its industrial nature aligns it ideologically with other sectors such as manufacturing and services. It is within these contexts that those whose work is defined as ‘creative’ takes place, and the labour they carry out is therefore often seen as worthwhile primarily because of the contribution it can make
economically. Given that this context is one at odds with ‘traditional’ romantic ideas of creativity, the experience of working in the ‘cre ative industries’ is therefore one of managing the expectations placed on labour by a government, and the specific personal rationales that motivate an individual. It is the experience of workers within this tension of conflicting needs that this study, drawn from the material from the ‘Make Me Laugh’ project, explores. This final chapter aims to contribute to debates about how ‘creativity’ can be defined, drawing on those experiences of the project participants. It does this not with the intention of offering a definitive, unarguable definition of the term, but instead to outline the ways in which the various uses of the term impact upon the work of those in the sector. Workers must find ways to define their own activities as ‘creative’, using a definition of that term which enables them to find pleasure in the activities they undertake. These definitions may or may not align with those of broader industry or government policy; indeed, they may deliberately reject such definitions. But the lived experience of such work is one with a relationship to ideas of creativity, and that is a multifaceted term whose various meanings enable it to be employed in many ways. The aim in this final chapter, then, is to ask ‘what is creativity?’ given that it is both a context within which creative work takes place, and the lived experience of those who undertake that work.
