Presentation by Mr. Walter Santagata, Professor,
University of Turin, Italy
Walter Santagata
I shall devote this presentation to the link between creativity and territory. I want to underline
that territory is a variable which influences the definition of the social model of creativity.
First, I wish to say that I agree with what has been said before, in particularly with David
Throsby, namely that creativity and culture are two very different things. Creativity is no
more than an instrument, a means, and should not be considered as an end. For this reason, we
should make a clear distinction between creativity and culture.
Although we may consider culture as an end in itself, creativity cannot be so considered.
Confusing the two may have remarkably unfortunate consequences: creativity is a contributor
to industrial processes, insofar as the invention of the atomic bomb was reliant on creativity,
the mafia is a criminal organisation with enormous creative powers, just as Arsène Lupin, the
gentleman thief, however creative he was in his chosen profession, remained a thief.
Creativity must therefore be kept under the control of the culture within which it works, that
is, by ethical and moral fundamentals. Hence, if we take into consideration the cultural
dimension just mentioned, we may identify different models of creativity, reliant on the
territorial and social models of creativity itself.
Culture and territory form an indissoluble and twin source of inspiration. The link between
the two comes into being at the critical moment of the birth of any social group. In its modern
and anthropological meaning, the term territory is both a social space and a space for
productive activities. Projections of notions of culture and territory into modern social and
economic structures are increasingly frequent, one form of which are newly emerging cultural
industries, which are determinants of a particular reorganisation of the territory and its
creative activities. Hence we find the reappearance of productive cultural work, developing a
chain of value of both creative and economic worth, which in each phase is rooted in its
territory, and nourished thereby.
The Italian Ministry of Culture has just taken part in the drafting of a White Paper on
creativity, which reviews a number of different sectors of creativity1. In the Italian situation,
we suggested that there was value in the notion of a material culture, bringing together sectors
that were productive of ideas, services and personal goods, namely, fashion, design, and fine
cuisine in particular. Also the content industries (television, cinema, advertising, publishing,
software), and industries with responsibility for the cultural heritage (museums, architecture,
music, contemporary art). In particular, we added to this, the international standard
classification of the cultural sector, of the agro-industrial sector, and more particularly the
wine and fine foods sector, because in our view, creativity and innovation are also a matter of
good farming and fine foods. We believe that, in economic terms, this macro-sector is worth
about 9 % of the Italian gross domestic product. It employs some 2.8 million people. This
therefore is a highly important sector for our country.
It should also be emphasized that this form of economic organisation of the cultural industries
has been a success. Analyses in Italy, as in other countries, show that the organisation of the
cinema, audiovisual, and industrial design industries, as well as the artistic and handicraft
industries, museum services and the wine and fine food complex, are very closely tied up with
1
Walter Santagata (under the direction of), Libro Bianco sulla Creatività in Italia, Università Bocconi Editore,
Milano, 2009
the territory and with the original local community, irrespective of their size. The success of
the business models of these industries is based on the existence of the externalities (in the
economic meaning of the term) that are to be found at the local level, and in the micro and
small-industrial sector, where the values involved also include identity, the sense of
belonging, and the social cohesion that are characteristic of a particular territory.
Hence territories and space are matters of increasing importance. The production of goods is
based on culture, and the sub-segments in this field are very much characterized by the
idiosyncratic nature of culture. There is therefore a direct link between culture and territory.
Crops grow at a particular point in time and in particular places, and are the result of the
combined forces of those that grow them. It is incredible the degree to which the twinning of
time and place can be individualized, instances of which are fashion in Paris in the 1950s,
industrial design in Milan in the 1970s… Time and place always play a fundamental role in
the diffusion and development of cultures. Ten days ago I was in Buenos Aires in Argentina,
where I made the discovery of a road known as Calle Caminito, some ten houses, no more,
devoted to dancing. Tango was born here. This tiny place bounded by its territory, has
developed a culture recognized worldwide. For this reason, we can say that culture is a
product rooted in a particular place, which at the same time speaks to the whole world.
Inspired by tradition, culture has the means to become universal.
I would now like to explore the question of cultural policies and their relationship to the
territorial dimension. I like to start with a functional classification: cultural policies may be
qualified in many ways, as policies for the destruction of culture – that has happened on a
number of occasions –, of neglecting culture – that has happened, even in our country - of the
hybridisation of culture, of the conservation of culture and finally, of the production of
culture. These last two need to be looked at in greater depth. In Europe, and in particular in
Italy, many techniques for the conservation of culture have been developed, to the detriment
of the production of new culture. However, production requires the implementation of
different processes quite other than those of conservation. Producing means choosing artists,
designing projects, bringing them forward, adapting content to a particular medium, and
diffusing and distributing cultural products to consumers. On the other hand, conservation is
related to the restoration and to the protection of a work of art in a legally supportive
framework. I have the feeling that a clinamen, a trend, has developed over the last few years
in major historical cities, in favour of conservation, which has gradually overtaken the need to
produce a new culture for today. The production of culture will in the future be a matter of
fundamental choice. Cultural production means engagement with cultural policies linked to
territories, precisely because artistically productive activity is always anchored to a particular
place.
Territories also matter from the cultural supply-side point of view. In France, André Malraux,
appointed Minister of Cultural Affairs in February 1959, even then expressed the idea, with
the creation of Maisons de la Culture, that the territory was both the origin and final purpose
of cultural policy.
Finally, I shall present two models of creativity, to encourage deeper reflection on the
relationship between culture, creativity and their social and spatial dimensions. Distinction
must be made, as already mentioned, between creativity as an end in itself, and creativity as a
means. But creativity is only a means. The cultural dimension may outline a number of
different models of creativity. In general, culture and creativity recombine, in accordance with
the historical determinants specific to each country, and produce different models. According
to circumstances, technological or economic aspects relating to market development, or legal
aspects such as copyright and its application, prevail, whereas in others, cultural aspects,
reference to tradition, to territory and to social quality predominate. These different models
that I have just outlined remain nevertheless relatively close to one another. Even so, if we
were to differentiate them descriptively, the first model could be said to be creativity for
innovation and the second model creativity for social quality.
To speak about creativity for innovation is a way of saying that creativity and the production
of culture are considered as the input of the knowledge society, of the communication
technologies and of the content industries. What matters here is scientific research, from the
market perspective, business, the marketing of products and creative services. On the other
hand, when we speak about creativity for social quality, we make reference to the creative
force in our culture, in our territory, in our daily lives. From this point of view, creativity and
culture become pillars of quality in social life, constitute an environment which is made up of
a free, fair, economically developed, and culturally alive, community. This model sub-tends
culture conceived as being a producer of cultural goods, yet is also committed to releasing the
locked-in value of the heritage and content industries, which are conceived as factors for
progress in terms of the quality of life in society.
On an international level, Italy like France has a very rich historical heritage, evidenced in its
city architecture and in its traditions. This means that our countries are attractively positioned
in terms of the production of culture and creativity. Our countries are placed midway between
the developing countries of the south and the advanced industrial countries of the north. The
former have a fundamentally massive cultural heritage, but lack the technological and
financial resources to operate in the contemporary market for creativity, of the latter. My
feeling is that there is a sort of continuum in the field of artistic production, ranging from high
technology at one extreme, to social quality at the other. In the continuum interconnecting
north and south, countries such as Italy and France lie in an intermediate, middle zone. Can
our two countries play a role at the point of interconnection between these two concepts of
creativity? Can our two countries represent in some way a goal or ideal, to be pursued by the
developing countries, which are rich in cultural heritage, yet aspire to draw closer the
developed countries, which are rich in technologies?