Arts, Culture, and the Economic Downturn

Last week, I read an article where Charles Schwab urged investors and others concerned about America's economy to start funneling capital into the arts. In this Forbes article he suggested that the primary channel for such investment should be in the non-profit arts world, through museums, theater companies, operas, and more. While I think his cultural investment strategy may be a bit short-sighted, Schwab explores something that many are realizing: the creative class matters, not only for what it can teach the world, but also for its economic value.

In a time of economic duress, I think America would do well to reevaluate its spending priorities and consider what mechanisms might best reform and renew our economy. Such mechanisms, though, can't be quick fixes. If politicans, investors, even artists, really want to make things better, they have to look at how to do it sustainably and thoughtfully; they have to look beyond the financial bottom lines. The worldwide economic situation should make that quite obvious.

Today, I discovered a recent book that touches on the importance of culture in fueling economic growth called The Warhol Economy. While I probably wouldn't agree with everything the book has to say-in fact I haven't read it yet, so I don't know my conclusion to its content-the premise is intriguing. Essentially, (it sounds like) author Elizabeth Currid is arguing that art and culture matter greatly for America's, particularly New York's, economic stability. Here's an excerpt from an Economist article published last year reviewing the book:

WHEN New York agonises over its place in the world, it is usually because it fears losing its position as the world's financial capital. That has certainly been the case in recent months. Yet Elizabeth Currid thinks that policymakers should be fretting less about credit markets and more about culture. The contribution made by art, music and fashion to the city's economy has, she argues, long been overlooked. And unless something is done about it, another crown could slip. (http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9762770)

Currid is an interesting lady for sure; trained under Richard Florida, with a background in public policy, tall, attractive, and sharp as a tack (just try looking her up on youtube). But, contrary to the Economist review, her ideas-believe it or not-are not as new as some might like to think. Although at the moment it is increasingly en vogue to talk about why culture and creativity matter, the reality of Currid and others' theses have been around for centuries . Cultural production fueled the Roman empire, for the good and the bad. Paris became what it is today due, in large part, to movements in architecture and art fueled by the French government and Napoleonic reforms.

Additionally, a lady named Luann Jennings, who lives in NYC and has worked in the arts for much of her career, has written an interesting piece for Comment Magazine on Currid's book. Her review, and another on the Cardus site take my understanding of these ideas to a new level. To view the article, you can go here: http://www.cardus.ca/comment/article/45/. I have a lot of respect for Jennings after meeting her over the phone this past summer during an especially intense/odd job search. Her understanding of the arts world, particularly as someone working within the context of a church, is quite nuanced. Based on my conversation with Jennings, I can understand why she would take interest in Currid's book; her combination of urban planning issues and arts and culture is especially engaging. Unlike Currid, however, Jennings highlights the importance of the communal aspect of the arts world.

Similarly, another Comment reviewer symapthizes with Currid's initial arguments but takes issue with a few of her points. This gentleman, Eric Jacobsen, hits upon some of my own internal battles with new urbanism and cultural development. His statements are especially enlightening, given the current discussion, and i'll close with a portion of his article:

For Currid and Florida, a city is doing well when it has a strong economy filled with young, creative types. This is a narrow view of the culturally rich human artifact known as the city. It is a synchronic, albeit comprehensive, view—confined to one, particular stage and aspect of life. A more diachronic view might also evaluate the city in terms of its helpfulness to the immensely important task of nurturing children, cultivating citizens, and transmitting culture of all kinds. But neither Florida nor Currid seems to consider these other dimensions as they suggest tactics for making cities more successful and viable. I do think they do a good job of challenging presuppositions and shaking up our thinking a bit. However, we should keep in mind the notion that there is so much more to cities than just a thriving economy, including a vibrant arts economy and artistic class. What we should aspire to and seek to achieve for the city is shalom, not Chanel. (http://www.cardus.ca/comment/article/27/)