Does the arts sector have its own dialect and is it marketable?


Participants: Helen, Richard, Jenny and Charlie for a bit

Summary of discussion, conclusions and/or recommendations:

Language is an important tool in communication. As groups and sectors emerge they build their own vocabulary and collection of gestures. Language seems to gradually define how social collectives are formed, distinguished, categorized or labeled. Does the arts sector have its own language and what are the characteristics of it?

Do creative practioners strive not to conform and rather create and recreate their image or communicative tool set? Do we, in the arts sector speak the same language? If so, do those not familiar with this language understand us and if not do we understand each other?

Just as the business and political sector have a language (consciously developed for communicative efficiency) full of management speak (jargon?), influential/manipulative (?) hand gestures and body language, does the arts sector too have its own methodology for development, access, negotiation and persuasion and is this language marketable to other sectors who may assign a low value system to it?

As a case study, this group discussed corporate role play and the benefits corporations gain from seeing their practices and ideas replayed and interpreted by those who use a different language and have a varied perspective to their own. So the corporate sector do recognize the benefits of creativity and alternative perspectives, do the arts sector too recognize these? Would we be receptive to corporate training programmes or replays on how we work, or would we find it constrictive and creatively stifling?

We discussed value systems, principals of exchange and are they now product driven? We discussed accountability in the arts and do we have anything to loose?

Are artists put off working with or in the corporate sector because of the end goals of that industry?

When artists do make money, do others become suspicious of their routes to success?