Is Hong Kong a Creative City?

by Lakshmi Jacota

Hong Kong is making efforts to be known as a creative city. Is it heading in the right direction?

What do we mean by a “creative city”? The consensus is that a creative city describes an urban environment which fosters creativity, innovation and cultural expression. This is usually characterised by cultural diversity, originality, material and in-kind support for the arts, provision of innovation hubs and ‒ of course ‒ arts-focused education and talent development.

The UNESCO Creative Cities Network (UCCN), formed twenty years ago, has 350 current members but they do not include Hong Kong. Should we be concerned about that? The UCCN definition of a creative city is one that places creativity and the cultural industries “at the heart of its development plan at the local level” while cooperating actively at the international level. Why does Hong Kong not meet this definition?

When asked in June 2024 whether Hong Kong had been proactively considering joining the UCCN, the Secretary for Culture, Sports and Tourism provided a written response to the Legislative Council in which he highlighted many of Hong Kong’s achievements. These included cultural events and initiatives supported by the government, which showcased Hong Kong as a city of creativity under the national 14th Five-Year Plan. While the facts are undeniable, it is still not clear how they make Hong Kong a creative city per se.

The city’s Cantopop and films used to have international influence, particularly during the 1980s and 1990s. But amid rising competition, are we fully realising our potential in the same way do as a business, trading and financial centre?

If we are to be honest, Hong Kong does not yet have the defining characteristics of cities such as New York or London, both known for their art galleries, museums, theatres, music and fashion. Nor does it match Berlin, known for eclectic performances, or Tokyo, with its blend of traditional and modern, from calligraphy to anime. It also fails to offer vibrant cultural exports, like Seoul with its ubiquitous K-Pop, Mumbai with its film industry, Bangkok with its street art, Barcelona with its architecture, or Copenhagen with its clean line designs.

Nevertheless, there are ways in which Hong Kong can compete, particularly in the events we host. However, one of the greatest challenges is the pressure for commercial viability. This comes from an emphasis on achieving recognition and success quickly. That is an unrealistic demand to place on anyone in any creative field and is perhaps the most daunting challenge facing talented young people here today.

Where do young people themselves stand on the issue? When asked if they might become professionals in the creative sphere, as opposed to being creative in other kinds of work, they apparently see a career pathway fraught with difficulty, even though the hurdles vary in type and number. Some cite limited study and work places, despite those offered by well-known venues¹ that are dependent on public or private support. They point not only to the bureaucratic hurdles they must navigate, but also to insufficient funding. They see the lack of public engagement and general awareness of the creative arts as another hurdle. But perhaps what they lament most of all is Hong Kong’s traditional educational system that does not always fully support either creative thinking or artistic expression, instead emphasising rote learning and good examination results.

These are all real obstacles, but none are insurmountable. The government’s newly released Blueprint for Arts and Culture and Creative Industries Development (see more on page 6) addresses some concerns, and could represent a very positive step if it is implemented resolutely. It has four key directions: promoting Chinese culture, developing diverse creative industries, building an international platform for cultural exchanges, and refining the ecosystem for creative industries. However, these should signify a long-term strategic plan for Hong Kong, rather than simply stating what “needs” to be done.

How else might Hong Kong foster an environment where creativity is celebrated? It must be a mainstream goal, not just a tangential factor considered only in the light of economic development. Indeed, with creativity at the forefront, a rebirth and reimagining of both our global and local reputation could take place.

First, some fundamental questions must be addressed. Where are the affordable spaces where creative talent can thrive? Would these allow budding artists to survive and prosper instead of being tempted by lucrative salaried jobs? Is more arts patronage the answer? If artistic experimentation and even failure were encouraged, a more imaginative mindset could be cultivated. Art education, if added to the curriculum as promised but without the stress of exams, might unleash creative spark and a grassroots ecosystem of cultural dialogue could emerge. If the public were involved in contributing to cultural dialogues, a grassroots ecosystem could take hold.

The Blueprint offers promises to enhance the city’s cultural identity, and we all hope it succeeds. In the meantime, if we ask, “Is Hong Kong a creative city?” the answer is both “yes” and “no.” Although Hong Kong and creativity are not yet inextricably linked in people’s minds, some steps in the right direction are being taken. With passion and determination, Hong Kong might one day become a member of the UCCN. First, the creative and cultural industries need an indisputable place at the very heart of its development plan. ■