We have been talking about developing the local arts and cultural industry in Macau for over a decade. The initiative was first discussed on the government level more than ten years ago. The Cultural Industries Advisory Committee was subsequently established about seven years ago, and in 2014, the much-anticipated Cultural Industries Fund was launched. Through this Fund, tens of millions of Macau patacas have been invested in the sector, through direct financial grants and loans, and hundreds of enterprises and their projects within the creative sector have been funded with different amounts.
An allocation of public money comes with the pressure to measure the impacts of a cultural policy in economic terms. When evaluating the outcome of our endeavour, there is always a tendency to conclude positively, overly publicizing a few success stories within the creative sector, while critical remarks are largely avoided despite the necessity for constructive criticism to steer the ship.
The hard truth is that we have attempted many ventures yet we have failed. Our failures are consequential – for instance, the Macau Art Fair (marketed as “Art Mo”) ceased to appear after just two editions; and our so-called creativity incubation centres are merely run on the concept of a leasing business.
Prior to the concept of shaping the creative sector into an “industry”, the local arts and cultural scene was predominately made up of big and small associations that were run on government funds. The leadership at the Cultural Industries Fund comes from a similar background and shares the association culture and mindset, characterized by reciprocity and condescension. They lack understanding of how creative industries work, and without any clear vision of what can be achieved, they tread carefully through the years, “learning” from the sector along the way. They fail to make sound judgments on industry issues and have a distorted view of the value of creativity in our society. They are not cultural elites, or business entrepreneurs; they are conservative thinkers.
Under such a structure, a majority of the artists and creative people are never given deserved status and opportunities in the grand scheme of things. They are trapped in the bureaucracy and the redundant politics of the grand plan.
Right now, for instance, there are very few or no policies and funding programs that directly benefit an individual artist who is not part of an association, while there are event organisors, project directors, association managers and other intermediators who do not necessarily have a cultivated mind in arts and culture, but are making a comfortable living in the name of “creativity”.
We are too eager to assess the immediate economic returns when creativity, the thing that actually creates value, is not given the right environment to thrive.
This problem arises when the development of cultural industries is only limited to direct financial support. The government could and should exercise its role to help shape the macro-environment and help foster a “market”, actively building bridges between different industries and communities and the creative sector.
On the other hand, artists and creative people should be at the heart of a healthy eco-system because they create the first value, and only when this is respected, will there be light at the end of a long tunnel.
