In March this year, I found myself in Nairn, a little seaside town on the Moray Firth coast, just 16 miles east of Inverness, in Scotland. This quiet, beautiful, and very cold location was host to the fourth in a series of British Council seminars entitled ‘Nurturing Creative Economies’.

In the past, this series has looked at issues facing policy-makers, leaders of the creative sector and academics who seek new understanding on how the creative economy works. This year’s seminar — Nurturing Creative Economies IV —focused on examining how the creative economy challenges the way in which we think about and develop cultural policy.

So over five days, in a 130-year-old manor by the sea, a mix of 23 policy makers, civil servants, administrators, creative entrepreneurs, artists, academics and consultants from 17 countries across the world attempted to deconstruct what drives a creative economy and how cultural policy has the ability to aid, and even hinder, the sector’s development.

In the UK, the creative industries were defined in 1997 by the Creative Industries Task Force, led by Rt Hon Chris Smith MP, then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The definition that the Task Force adopted was: The creative industries are those industries that are based on individual creativity, skill and talent. They are also those that have the potential to create wealth and jobs through developing intellectual property. From this definition the Task Force identified fields of creative activity as part of the sector, which include: Advertising, Architecture, Art and antiques markets, Computer and video games, Crafts, Design, Designer fashion, Film and video, Music, Performing arts, Publishing, Software, Television and Radio.

The UK was an early adopter of the term ‘creative industries’ and has been keen to share its experience internationally. This seminar was a part of this process of sharing, so that we could together advocate for a relevant cultural policy that is beneficial both locally and globally, to the individual and the community.

Recognising the considerable socio-political, economic and historical differences between the various countries present at the seminar (e.g. Argentina, Bulgaria, India, Nigeria, Egypt and Estonia), there was a dire need for a culturally specific redefinition of the term ‘creative industry’ to ensure that this gathering was relevant to all present.

It was this fundamental issue that was at the root of most discussions between the international participants. It was clear to us that culture is not as universal and deeply connected as ‘creative industry’ gurus from the UK like to advocate, but is in fact experienced, understood and determined quite differently across cultural contexts. Nevertheless, for practical purposes, we were encouraged to stick with Lord Smith’s definition of ‘creative industry’, and it was under this rubric that panel discussions and working group meetings ensued.

Our task was to create a universally acceptable framework through which cultural policy embraces the industrialization of artistic endeavour, towards building a thriving ‘creative economy’. This rather ambitious exercise succeeded in transforming the seminar into an exciting platform for cross-cultural dialogue on issues faced by various constituencies in the arts. Also, new perspectives on how to negotiate government policy and ideas on how to activate economic growth machines to prioritize funding art and culture were also discussed. A statement that reflects the issues identified through our deliberations will now be published on the NCE website.

Ultimately, one realized that the concept of ‘creative industries’ in its current avatar, is important and interesting to address – not because of its claim to ‘promote culture’ but for the dialogue and debate it raises on the consumption of culture – a rather complex issue that we must continually address in the context of globalisation.