There’s yet another study (login with username: ‘ajreader’ and password: ‘access’), this time in Minnesota, on the economic value of the arts in a local economy. The ‘great cities’ class of justification for public art support (that great cities have arts, and lame cities do not), is just the latest in a long line of utility arguments for artistic activity (the arts make more economic activity, the arts make smarter children, the arts help at-risk youth).
It’s clear that all of these things are true, to an extent, but that none of them are true only of the arts. And while direct connections are best when visiting any elected official (cut the arts, and you destroy the economy, your children, and society), they can cloud our view of more complex interconnections‹between expressive learning and scientific learning, between commercial and non-commercial urban planning, between family counseling and individual creativity.
These more complex and subtle connections of the arts to our world are horrible for advocacy, but necessary for any high-level manager of an arts organization. There are some interesting conversations surrounding all of the above (like the Memphis Manifesto Summit I attended last May, or a more philosophical roundtable in London last June) worthy of a little time and attention.
