In his policy address, Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa listed what he saw as Hong Kong's 11 creative industries: design, architecture, advertising, publishing, music, film, computer software, digital entertainment, performing arts, broadcasting, and antiques and art dealing.
But he forgot one important category: plain old art, meaning basic visual art such as painting, drawing, calligraphy, photography and sculpture. If Mr Tung's speech is to be taken literally, it would mean that dealing art commercially is a legitimate creative industry, as is using art for commercial ends, like product design or architecture. But painting a picture or taking a photo would not count. With a careless swipe, Mr Tung dismissed the tens of thousands of Hong Kong professionals who actually create art, filling our galleries, museums and public spaces with their ideas and work. His speech reflects a problem typical in government: a short-sighted emphasis on money-making results, with no thought as to what long-term steps we have to take to get there.
Where does Mr Tung think that innovative product design, advertising, filmmaking and architecture come from? They come from a society that encourages creativity from the start, through strong, early arts education. And yet, in November, 80 arts educators signed an open letter to the education and manpower secretary protesting about a new government education plan, saying that 'arts education is on the verge of dying'.
It is a simple case of cause and effect. The child who is not taught how to sketch a human figure in art class will probably never grow up to be a top fashion designer. A child who never has the chance to build a sculpture will probably never develop the trained eye needed to conceptualise a stunning new skyscraper.
Mr Tung told us that Britain's creative industries make up 8 per cent of its gross domestic product, compared to Hong Kong's measly 4 per cent. He failed to mention that, for the last few decades, Britain has put much money, time and effort into long-term arts infrastructure. Most importantly, the British government tried to do so with a cohesive plan that combines urban planning, arts-venue management, and support for private enterprises like galleries, auction houses and design studios. It also helps that, after some forward-thinking education reform, design is now a mandatory part of the curriculum. It is the opposite of Hong Kong, where arts courses are increasingly being edged into the 'optional' category in the secondary-school curriculum.
Hong Kong is a rich, sophisticated city with many talented, well-educated and creative people. But our sizeable resources - both financial and human - are being wasted because of the government's short-sightedness and disorganisation. The proposed West Kowloon cultural district is a good case in point. Potentially, it could become a place where Hong Kong youngsters could see great international art, hear world-class performances, take art classes, and be inspired by cutting-edge design and architecture. The government, however, seems more interested in the short-term payback that flats and shopping centres will bring.
