Couple interesting articles about the arts and the economy. The first is about the results of a three year study on the arts economic impact in Arkansas:
The study revealed that although Arkansas has been known primarily as a manufacturing state, the slowing economy is making way for more and more creative industries to be pursued. These industries include museums, entertainment, festivals and other events, and places deemed as amenities that explore creativity. They can also include the manufacturing of unique handmade goods that say something about their surroundings. In the 1960 s and 1970 s, the goal in manufacturing was to make products cheaper. "All of us were going to compete to see who can give workers the lowest wages and the highest quality of life," Butzen said.
In the 1980 s, that move went toward making things better, as developments in technology were enhanced. However, the move resulted in "serious competition from the world."
In the 2000 s, that emphasis moved toward making better things, combining quality and technology that could also be replicated in other places, Butzen said.
Today, that move is toward making things better here, offering products that are special because the "product has that here-ness," and therefore is unique to one specific area, she said.
The study also says that the arts are Arkansas' third largest industry. Who knew?
One thing the article discusses that I think is worth talking about more (and I hope will get me a gold star from The Professor) is the idea of local art. The example it gives is a music festival which was good for the economy of the area it was in but to a limited extent because no local vendors were involved and the town it was held in had limited involvement in it.
Localness is an issue that gets talked about to some extent in theatre. But it is often discussed (including by me) as a bug in its business model. Theatre can only happen live, it can't open in multiplexes, this frustrates our desire for the kind of revenue streams we find in movies etc. But the truth of the matter is it is a feature, not a bug. Theatre is local. That is its nature. The question needs to be "What can we do to make the art we create more local?" This becomes even more necessary as we continue down the road to hyper globalization.
I'm not against globalization and universality per se, I'm not against there being broad culture. I think it's great that I can go to South Western Virginia and talk about Mad Men while tailgating at a football game. It's just not the only game in town, and it shouldn't be. Local culture has its own value, excitement, worth.
The other article is about Los Angeles, where a recent study shows these rather incredible findings: in LA, creative industries count for one out of every ten jobs and generate more than 3.8 billion in tax revenue. Even more surprisingly, the entertainment industry only counts for 38% of the creative jobs in LA. Unsurprisingly, all of this has LA leaders looking to the creative industries to help carry them through the economic crisis.
Can we now stand up for the Woodstock and Teapot Museums' earmarks? They got a bad rap as if the devil himself would be the only one to benefit from their being built. Allowing the word "earmark" to be demonized is right up there with the shameful use of "death tax."
Posted by: RLewis | October 09, 2008 at 11:56 AM