Creativity is dangerous, especially when it’s missing

The recent controversy surrounding the culture minister’s remarks on public funding and the boundaries of creativity has generated understandable reactions.

Questions about artistic freedom, public funding and the place of creativity in society deserve serious consideration. I believe the episode offers an opportunity to examine something deeper—how Malta understands culture, how we organise public policy and what kind of society we are trying to build. 

We have developed a tendency to reduce public debate to personalities. As a result, the underlying questions remain untouched. In this case, the deeper issue is a mindset that regards culture as a sector to be administered, funded and occasionally celebrated, rather than a dimension of national life that should influence how we educate, plan, govern and live. This is not a failing attributable to one minister or administration. It reflects a longstanding fragmentation in the way we approach national development. 

As an economist, I recognise the contribution of the cultural and creative industries to employment, tourism, exports and innovation. Artists, designers, performers and writers generate economic value. But to justify culture solely through its contribution to GDP is to misunderstand its purpose.

A library remains valuable even when its economic return cannot be calculated. A theatre production can matter profoundly to a small audience. A public artwork can give meaning to a neighbourhood without generating ticket sales. Some of society’s most important assets resist financial valuation. 

Markets not sole arbiters 

Indeed, economics itself provides a useful explanation for why markets cannot be the sole arbiters of cultural value. Cultural activities frequently generate benefits that extend beyond those purchasing a ticket or attending an exhibition. They contribute to education, civic participation, collective identity and the attractiveness of places. These wider benefits are rarely captured in the revenues of the organisations producing them. 

Economists describe such effects as positive externalities, where the social value of an activity exceeds the private return received by its provider. This provides a legitimate economic rationale for public intervention, although it does not remove the need for accountability, transparency or careful assessment of how resources are allocated. 

This is why the discussion about public funding requires greater nuance than whether a successful production should pay for itself. Commercial viability matters, and public resources must be allocated transparently and responsibly. Yet ticket revenues capture only part of the value created by artistic activity.

Culture can foster belonging, preserve collective memory, encourage dialogue and expose us to unfamiliar perspectives. Some artistic work will never attract mass audiences, precisely because it challenges conventions or speaks to overlooked experiences. Public support exists because markets alone cannot provide all the cultural goods that a healthy society needs. 

Art also offers societies a way to question established norms, confront uncomfortable truths and imagine alternatives. This does not place artists beyond criticism or exempt institutions from accountability. It does mean that artistic independence should be respected, including when the work produced is provocative or unpopular.

A confident society can distinguish disagreement from danger. Its willingness to accommodate voices that challenge prevailing opinion is one measure of democratic maturity. The role of public institutions should be to create conditions in which artistic expression can flourish, not to determine which ideas are comfortable. 

Malta has no shortage of talent or cultural heritage. Our language, architecture, music, literature, traditions and contemporary creative expression form a rich, evolving identity. Nor do we lack policy documents. The National Cultural Policy of 2021 recognised culture as part of wellbeing and national development.

Arts Council Malta’s Strategy 2030 prioritises cultural rights, fair practices and inclusion, while Vision 2050 acknowledges the creative sectors. The problem is therefore not simply an absence of stated ambitions. It is the distance between these ambitions and decisions taken across government, where culture often remains confined to its own portfolio. 

Social cohesion 

This becomes particularly relevant when considering how Maltese society itself is changing. Over recent decades, economic expansion, migration, technological developments and changing lifestyles have transformed the communities in which we live. Yet our public conversation about these changes has largely focused on employment, infrastructure and economic necessity.

Much less attention has been devoted to the cultural foundations of social cohesion. How do we create a shared sense of belonging in an increasingly diverse society? How do we preserve our language and heritage while remaining open to new influences? How do we create opportunities for different communities to encounter and understand one another? Culture offers an important part of the answer because identity is not sustained through preservation alone, but also through participation and renewal. 

Consider education. We speak frequently about digital skills and preparing children for future employment, yet artistic education is too easily treated as enrichment rather than an essential component of learning. Music, drama, literature and visual expression help develop imagination, empathy, confidence and the ability to interpret the world.

These qualities have professional value, but their significance extends further. Education should prepare children to earn a living and to live meaningfully. A system that prizes examination results while neglecting creativity risks narrowing the very capabilities a changing society requires. 

Shaping belonging 

The same fragmentation appears in our built environment. We invest in roads, buildings and urban projects, but too rarely ask whether the spaces created invite people to gather, linger and participate in community life. Public squares, libraries, cultural venues, green spaces and thoughtful architecture are part of a country's social infrastructure.

They shape belonging and determine whether neighbourhoods feel like places to live or merely places to pass through. A more culturally informed planning system would consider beauty, heritage, accessibility and human interaction alongside density, transport and economic feasibility. 

Culture also belongs in health and social policy. Loneliness, isolation and the erosion of community ties cannot be addressed through clinical services alone. Opportunities to sing, create, perform, read or participate in local cultural life can strengthen social connections and contribute to wellbeing.

This does not make art a substitute for healthcare. It recognises that health is shaped by the relationships and environments through which people experience daily life. The same thinking could enrich policies for ageing, disability, integration and community development, areas that too often operate in separate administrative compartments. 

Creative Ireland programme 

Ireland offers a useful example of a more integrated approach. Its Creative Ireland programme treats creativity as a cross-government concern, connecting it with education, communities, health, climate action and industry. Each of its 31 local authorities has a Culture and Creativity Team and a five-year strategy developed with local stakeholders. 

Its Creative Youth programme widens opportunities for participation, while collaboration between cultural and health institutions embeds creative engagement within wellbeing policy. Ireland has also experimented with a Basic Income for the Arts, recognising the economic insecurity faced by many professional artists and evaluating whether greater income stability supports creative work. These are not models Malta should copy uncritically, but they demonstrate a willingness to connect policy, experimentation and evidence. 

What makes the Irish approach particularly interesting is the recognition that cultural development cannot be delivered by a culture ministry acting alone. It requires education authorities to consider creativity as part of learning, local government to support cultural participation, health institutions to recognise the value of creative engagement and economic policymakers to understand the conditions in which cultural enterprises operate.

The emphasis shifts from funding individual events towards developing an ecosystem in which creativity becomes more accessible and sustainable. For Malta, with its relatively small administrative system and geographical proximity between communities, such coordination should be achievable. Our size could become an advantage if institutions were organised around shared outcomes rather than separate responsibilities. 

Culture needs to influence decisions 

The lesson is not that we need another strategy or an imported programme. We need culture to influence decisions that currently sit beyond the cultural portfolio.

What would change if education reform, urban regeneration, public health, tourism and community planning were designed with cultural participation in mind? What if local councils worked more closely with artists and residents? What if we measured access to cultural life, the quality of public spaces and community participation alongside economic output? These questions point towards a more coherent understanding of development, one that takes people's lived experience as seriously as aggregate economic indicators. 

There is also a question about the cultural ecosystem itself. Malta has developed an impressive calendar of festivals, performances and cultural events, many of which attract considerable audiences. However, a thriving cultural sector requires more than successful occasions. It depends on affordable spaces for rehearsal and production, opportunities for emerging artists, professional development, fair remuneration and institutions capable of supporting creative work over time. It also requires cultural opportunities beyond the most prominent venues and established centres.

A child growing up in any Maltese or Gozitan locality should have meaningful access to music, theatre, literature and artistic expression. Cultural participation should be understood as part of everyday life rather than an occasional experience associated with major events. 

These ambitions also require a different relationship between government and the cultural community. Public funding should be guided by clear objectives, independent assessment and transparent decision-making, while allowing room for experimentation and artistic risk. Not every publicly supported project will achieve commercial success, just as not every research initiative produces an immediate breakthrough.

The purpose of a mature funding framework is to distinguish responsible experimentation from poor governance without discouraging the former. Such an approach requires mutual respect between policymakers and practitioners, recognising both the legitimate demands of public accountability and the distinctive nature of creative work. 

Reflection on finesse 

These considerations invite reflection on finesse. Finesse is not elitism or an obsession with appearances. In public policy, it means sensitivity to context, an appreciation of complexity and the ability to recognise value that cannot be reduced to a spreadsheet. It is visible in how we treat public spaces, how institutions listen, how political leaders speak about professions they may not fully understand and how respectfully we manage disagreement. A society can become wealthier without becoming more thoughtful. Economic progress alone does not guarantee a richer public life. 

Malta needs stronger coordination across portfolios, meaningful engagement with practitioners, independent and transparent funding decisions, and continuity between strategic aspirations and implementation. Above all, it needs a shared understanding that culture is not a luxury to be considered after the supposedly serious work of economic development is complete. It is part of what development is for. 

Perhaps the question raised by this episode is ultimately simple. When we speak of improving Malta’s quality of life, do we mean only higher incomes, better infrastructure and more efficient services, or also a society with greater imagination, generosity, beauty and room for different voices? We need all of these. 

Progress will not be found exclusively in how much we produce, but also in the places we create, the relationships we nurture and the freedom people enjoy to express what it means to belong. Building a better Malta is as much a cultural endeavour as an economic one.