The Not So ‘Arty-Farty’ Creative Industries
Fashion, drama, art, music, TV, publishing are all creative industries, they all make a valuable contribution to the economy, and provide jobs. But this sector is one that is often not taken seriously enough – it’s labelled fluffy, airy-fairy and arty-farty.
In education the arts are often considered a ‘easy’ option. It was no surprise that a recent survey found that more than a third of schools have made cuts to arts education in the past five years.
But what had our MD Debbie springing out of bed in outrage this week was Radio 4’s Today programme presenter John Humphrys’ observing: “Sciences are going to get you a job, doing art is probably not going to get you a job.”
The recent figures from The Creative Industries Federation, an independent UK-wide organisation that represents creative businesses say otherwise:
- There are nearly 1.96 million jobs in the creative industries – 25% more than in 2011.
- The sector is growing at four times the rate of the wider UK workforce. It now provides 6% of all UK jobs.
- It contributes £91.8bn to the UK economy.
- Since 2010, its contribution has increased by a massive 44.8% and the sector now makes up 5.3% of the UK economy.
The stats speak for themselves. Fashionizer is part of an artistic industry and we are a skilled and qualified team. We have qualifications in fashion, textiles, communications and marketing, and we all celebrate the fact that we are working in a constantly changing, relevant and inspiring environment.
Technology is an integral part of our work at Fashionizer, and all our team know it. They work with it every day – whether that’s creating patterns on a CAD system or using integrated databases to manage our processes. Just look at the processes that are involved in developing our fabrics, or our project on recyclable and biodegradable fabrics. The reality is that the creative arts don’t sit in their own furrow, untouched by maths, engineering and chemistry. If they did, they would not be as successful as they so clearly are.
Time to think again, Mr Humphrys?