Margie Butler, Brown University ‐ June 2008 page |
1
Outside-in >> Inside-out: Audience Engagement with the Core of a Creative City
INTRODUCTION Where are all the artists? This question has remained with me from the time when I began working on cultural economic development in New Bedford, Massachusetts. By the summer of 2003 a portion of visitors to New Bedford had read about the city’s growing arts scene but could not always find it while walking the city’s downtown cobblestone streets. Like many revitalizing post-industrial centers, New Bedford is an authentic and rapidly evolving Creative City. Still I observed during my years there how its core arts scene—organized around studio buildings, local artist enclaves, and grassroots organizations—can be several layers removed from the cultural city visitors encounter. One thing New Bedford does, along with other cities and towns, is to present a monthly cultural evening that celebrates the city’s unfolding renaissance. In New Bedford these evenings are called AHA! Nights (named to spotlight the city’s Art, History & Architecture) and they have taken place on a monthly basis since July 1999. By attending an AHA! Night visitors experience the city’s artist community and creative vibe alongside the world-class museums and historic attractions. But what about the larger portion of visitors who do not arrive in the city on that one evening a month? The answer is not an easy one but it involves continued innovation around how the arts are presented and what can be defined within the cultural tourism footprint. What this scenario really highlights is the cultural tourism gap between the formal and informal experience of a creative city. Or expressed in terms of people, it reveals a gap between a city’s outside audiences (visitors and some portion of its residents) and inside creative scene (local and regional residents who are connected to the arts). Is such separation the necessary status quo, or is this experiential gap between tourism and the creative city’s core one that can be bridged? Furthermore, is it advantageous to do so? In the years since 2003 the visibility of New Bedford’s core arts community has continued to grow – artists have expanded the number of open studio events and installed more art in downtown storefronts; a collaborative “4 arts” brochure profiling four downtown arts venues is now available in the visitor center; and the numbers of artists and artistically geared businesses have noticeably increased. This article seeks to look broadly at these types of initiatives that urban arts stakeholders from various U.S. cities are piloting. For the sake of clarity I should define what I am referring to as the core creative scene. Most succinctly I mean to refer to the slice of city culture that centers on individual artists and the venues that serve the artists. And while such a creative core spans the entire spectrum of arts disciplines, my research principally focuses on the visual arts where the bulk of my firsthand experience lies. Another distinguishing factor is that core arts
Margie Butler, Brown University ‐ June 2008 page |
2
venues, even when located in a central downtown, feel removed from the major museum and performing arts set of attractions. Core arts venues may include urban art centers, galleries, spaces and cooperatives. They are vibrant places sometimes offering a great deal of programming, yet possibly with less publicity or at least less formality. Importantly the core arts scene also involves working artist spaces, studio buildings and their surrounding neighborhoods (which may be in the city itself or adjacent towns). Research in the field or urban revitalization documents this entire urban arts layer in terms of its many “natural” pockets of cultural activity1. For the purposes of my work I would also add in the discourse that connects core arts participants. Across all disciplines this expanse of core arts activity sets the tone for the creative city and may well provide the momentum for its ongoing vitality. If we are serious about our creative city investment, I would suggest that closing the gap between the external and internal creative city is a priority. Furthermore spending time on this topic leads to greater differentiation of each urban cultural experience (increasingly important as the Creative City has reached a zeitgeist type moment in popularity) and a broader dispersal of the positive impact gained. At the very least it would be a plus if visitors who come looking for the urban arts scene could meaningfully plug into the full expanse of what a creative city has to offer.
Delicate context surrounding the outside-inside creative city gap Even with the boom of cultural tourism, there are inherent differences between the arts sector and tourism industry that are critical understand. To appreciate how these sector perspectives can be diametrically opposed, one need only look at the macro framework for each. It’s fair to say that tourism exists to present and package the best a city offers to large numbers of people and is held to economic outcomes, while a city’s arts scene is diverse, dispersed and encompasses multiple visions for success (such as having the time and freedom to create, community dialogue and impact, affordable quality of life, opportunities to exhibit, etc.) My interviews with arts stakeholders aired specific concerns arising from the difference between cultural tourism and their world. Interviewees overwhelmingly felt that their city’s authentic arts scene is too far off the beaten path for actual tourism activity. Individuals also pointed out how funding and in some cases their organization’s mission do not afford them the resources or mandate for broader outreach to the general public. On top of these concrete concerns hovers an overarching reluctance towards “Tourism”. I always asked about this point outright because I knew it could be a source of particular sensitivity. What I found across all of conversations shows an evolution of sorts. A fair amount of arts stakeholders debunked this reluctance towards tourism citing a growing openness and entrepreneurial spirit amongst artists in their cities. Others spoke of artist aversion to outside interests (both tourism and developers) as an ongoing factor to be approached thoughtfully. Indeed what we have as context for efforts to close the inside-outside urban culture gap is a long-standing Tourism impasse. To prompt discussions that may move us through this status quo my work has drawn inspiration from the models of civic and eco-tourism.
Margie Butler, Brown University ‐ June 2008 page |
3
These practices place great value on the sanctity of the inside community and its sustainability. While I have seen such insider-centric approaches at work in community arts events and more rural artisan trails, I have not found anywhere near as much insideout thinking in urban cultural tourism. Certainly there is a lot of dialogue taking place and several examples of bold experimentation (Philadelphia’s UWishUNu campaign stands out and will be discussed), yet the majority of visitors to creative cities still experience a top down, outside-in proposition. This is to say that visitors may notice local artists to some extent in established cultural venues, but truly getting a feel for the city’s urban arts scene, its distinct qualities, and collective talents probably requires huge individual effort. My own views about inviting visitors into the arts scene and navigating what can be a delicate context have been helped by two goals. The first goal is that for the creative core establishing new points of audience connection must allow for positive exchange that benefits the artists and venues directly. The second goal is that for the culturally curious public the creative scene does not have to be watered down. With these goals in the forefront of our thinking, let’s proceed to explore the opportunities around arts scene audience engagement.
A Framework for Core Arts Scene Audience Engagement As my work aims to prompt discussion and foster innovation around bridging the insideoutside urban arts scene gap, I have chosen to organize my research into a thematic framework of opportunities. More than replicating what I’ve found to exist, I hope this framework will support further local thinking around the following five areas: 1) Open Studios & Gallery Nights – Leveraging these event platforms to invite more off the beaten path exploration 2) BUY ART! – Emphasizing the local marketplace for original art and establishing enthusiasm about local art collecting 3) Serving Specific Audiences – Piloting tailored efforts that cater to creatively inclined visitors seeking up-close engagement with a city’s arts scene 4) Creative City Immersion – Inviting groups and individuals for creative exchange involving the city’s most innovative spaces, models and dialogue 5) Celebrating Local Creative Capital – Valuing and generating awareness about a city’s unique artistic assets and enclaves Each platform is discussed in detail in the body of this article.
A Note on methodology: The main content for this article stems from interviews and online research regarding existing initiatives in Chicago, Denver, Indianapolis, Philadelphia, Providence, and Minneapolis. In addition local Providence and New Bedford peers engaged in further brainstorming about these approaches and areas of potential opportunity.
Margie Butler, Brown University ‐ June 2008 page |
4
1. OPEN STUDIOS & GALLERY NIGHTS: Leveraging these successful event platforms When a visit to a creative city coincides with open studios or a robust monthly arts night the gap between the inside creative scene and outside cultural audiences is greatly narrowed. Yet as discussed previously, this only takes place on a monthly or annual basis, leaving the majority of the calendar year with too few days when the public is invited into the core urban arts scene. The question then becomes how have cities further innovated upon these types of arts events? Before discussing specific examples the elements that drive the popularity of Open Studios and Gallery Nights are worth considering. When cities and organizations successfully extend these event models they pay close attention to these qualities: • the power of collective efforts to present a “critical mass” of artists and spaces • a welcoming path with maps that clearly show the dispersed arts scene • the first-hand interaction gained from visiting working artist spaces and grassroots artist centers • the inclusion of many artist levels and arts disciplines • local touches that spotlight a community’s unique assets and add personality MonthLong Events The first approach I will discuss is that of extending the event to run across a month or even an entire season. While this practice of offering a months devoted to specific humanities topics is well used (poetry month, black history month), artists and their open studio events provide a very deliberate schedule of events that knits weekends together as it also connects the dispersed neighborhoods. Examples of such events include an annual Chicago Artists’ Month, and New Haven’s City-Wide Open Studios. Each of these events presents a season of access to the artist scene garnering greater awareness and opening up the timeframe in which tourists and the local public can participate. The tradeoff here is the greater resources that are required to organize such extended multi-weekend events. The upside of presenting a season is that the artist community is given a significant platform and taps into more press and tourism calendars. One way to succeed at this elongated event approach may be for nonprofit organizations, galleries and city offices of culture to work collaboratively. Such is the case in Chicago
A local event newspaper listing in Chicago Reader, Oct. 2005
Margie Butler, Brown University ‐ June 2008 page |
5
where the month platform is given a purposeful theme each year and hundreds of independent events in addition to an art fair take place. The 2008 October Chicago Artists’ Month theme will be “Artists and Issues that Matter”. As I have witnessed with other themes, participants are encouraged yet not required to offer programming related to this topic. The model in New Haven is a bit different as it rests solely on the shoulders of one arts nonprofit, ARTSPACE, who organizes several contiguous weekends of open studios in various neighborhoods, a month-long collaborative exhibition and an all artists under one roof art fair in a large vacant space. From what I have witnessed in other cities approaches evolve and are always subject to change. With the dispersed and individual nature of artist communities, organizational efforts can be significant and that along with overall funding realities may make communities ebb and flow between doing these broader coordinated events and a more straightforward single Open Studios weekend. It would be fruitful to gather feedback around the various approaches in order to know if greater effort and resources establish more audience-artist connections and make a greater impact. In Chicago one arts organizer spoke about the word-of-mouth that develops around the Artists’ Month. What has happened is that “art friendly” audiences from one city neighborhood tend to circulate to another. This idea of cross-pollinating existing arts audiences throughout the dispersed arts scene is powerful. Plus cross-pollination can happen in many ways -- sharing audiences across neighborhoods, cultural niches or an entire region of cities and towns. Urban development scholars buoy this cross-pollination notion with their conclusions that audience growth for all but the largest sized cultural cities is more viable within a local region as opposed to further afield tourism.2 A large reason for these conclusion is the dispersed nature of the core cultural scene.
New Haven City‐Wide Open Studios once used the former Pirelli Tire headquarters (owned by IKEA) as its alternative (shared artist) space. The building’s top floors are vacant and its façade is highly visible from interstate 95. Photo credit: Juliette Cezzar
As open studio events expand a noteworthy factor is whether the working studio visit is preserved or foregone. In Chicago and New Haven one event within their multi-weekend schedules is a many artists under one roof art fair where local artists exhibit in a shared space (a large tent, vacant building, etc.). I’ve been to New Haven’s 2005 Open Studios combined artist space that was held in a vacant laboratory building. While the volume of artists and energy was high, and I did purchase a painting, I missed the intimate experience of seeing each studio space. (I could have seen New Haven studios if I had
Margie Butler, Brown University ‐ June 2008 page |
6
attended another weekend of the event.) Conversations around the issue of combined spaces versus open studio buildings break both ways. Visiting studios complements the sales side of the events with a greater sense of discovery and understanding as well as the fact that it brings people physically into the buildings and city neighborhoods where artists work. The latter can be vital to a city where creative economy strategies my benefit from having the public see these spaces and understand artists as a sector. On the other side, the difficulty of locating studio buildings and time it takes to get from one to the next can be a hurdle to visitors. So each experience has its distinct advantages. Within the overall Chicago and New Haven events the public has its choice of both a fair-like program as well as the actual open studios. An event that solely pursues the all artists under one roof model is Artomatic in Washington D.C. This annual event involved upwards of 1,500 individual artists in 2008 and spanned 28 days. Since the event requires the use of a vacant building (Artomatic’s 2008 building site is pictured below) the venue varies yearly based on space availability. One wonders what would 1200 First Street, NE Washington – Artomatic’s 2008 home in the city’s NoMa business improvement district. happen when and if all Photo credit: Tracy Lee amply sized spaces are occupied? Artomatic makes the most of the under one roof strategy by providing multidisciplinary programming, lounges and eateries within the space. While I have not been to this event, it does seem to present a compelling blockbuster art proposition. Their June 2008 event attracted 52,500 visitors.3
Art Neighborhood Maps & Listings Another way to build on the path forged by open studios and gallery nights is to provide these art neighborhood maps and building listings on an ongoing basis. The challenging aspect is to do so in a way that works with the actual access and patterns of the artists and buildings. Denver is one city that publishes such a guide. The “Denver Gallery Guide” lists city arts “districts” (not necessarily tax or official districts),
Partial listing of Denver’s art neighborhoods. Full listing and map at Denvergov.org
Margie Butler, Brown University ‐ June 2008 page |
7
corridors and neighborhoods. Perhaps Denver’s innovation is in how these informal arts enclaves are listed alongside the city’s more formal cultural “points of interest” (museums, performing arts venues, botanical gardens, etc.). What results is a uniquely comprehensive view of city culture that presents everything from “by appointment” studios to major museums and performing arts venues. This piece provides the macro view and then refers visitors to individual arts neighborhood/organization websites for specific hours and events. In cases where cities do not have this kind of guide, I have observed how gallery night and open studios maps live on and are used between events as default resources to the arts scene. Listing emerging and established arts enclaves in this way can help present a more complete spectrum of city arts. Translating the experience of open studios to more of the everyday can also take the form of building-specific propositions. The best-known example of such may be Virginia’s Torpedo Factory Art Center in Alexandria. This center is set up as a public-friendly studio building and keeps daily 9-5 hours (achieved by studios agreeing to be open a certain amount of days per week). This more public framework for the Torpedo Factory likely self selects for artists that wish to have their doors open and may set up their spaces for sales. A middle-range approach might be that of Minneapolis’ Northrup King Building. This building has over 150 artists, small businesses and nonprofits. Though the building does not have daily open hours, Northrup King positions itself more broadly than its monthly First Thursdays and bi-annual open studio events.
Northrup King’s site makes the following invitation to the public “…opportunities throughout the year to shop at the various warehouse sales for apparel, furniture, etc. While some art studios have regular full-time hours, others are used as primarily production studios with limited event hours. Simply check our directory and call the particular artist or business directly for hours and information.”
Striking the right balance between a working studio building and “open to the public” format can be challenging. One idea a peer offered was for individual artists to voluntarily sign up their “open studio days” at a central visitor hub. Effectively this would rotate the onus of artists being open to the public while still putting artist studios on the tourist radar. This may only make sense during a “high season” for visitors and could also work efficiently with online studio sign-up. What all of these efforts do is to put the dispersed arts scene on the map and to begin building ways for the public to visit and experience artist studios and more remote gallery spaces on a regular basis.
2. “BUY ART!” – Can commerce drive greater connection with the urban creative core? A key question for the Creative City model is whether a robust art market can be developed in secondary and tertiary cities. If we believe this is possible, then focusing
Margie Butler, Brown University ‐ June 2008 page |
8
directly on commerce is another highly plausible way to bridge the outside and inside creative city experiences. The beauty of this area is that people, especially tourists, look for opportunities to buy art and artists enjoy making sales. The challenging part is to match the style and price point with the demand and/or to educate and evolve the demand to appreciate the significant local original art available. One of the factors that many secondary city urban art gallerists point to is that of their top selling artists working locally but selling elsewhere (New York, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles). This “created here -- sold there” phenomenon also affects where active collectors look for and make their purchases. While there is a gallery scene in each of the cities I researched arts stakeholders agree that there is not enough activity considering the amount and caliber of the local artist population. One of the fundamental ways artists and administrators are responding to this challenge is through collective art sales and “open markets”. Distinct from Open Studios and more similar to farmers’ markets and warm weather art fairs, these sales can be about advocacy as well as commerce. In cities where numerous sales occur a smart practice could be to establish and publish a master list. This way buying original art can become a more consistent option. Sales may be sponsored by organizations or be very much artist-run. Whatever the case it is important to match the sale style/artist participants with the desired audience. Many of these sales gravitate towards accessible price points and often include functional as well as fine art and art objects. Importantly, these sales need to be well-run to establish the kind of ongoing artist participation and audience that can stimulate the local art market. It would also be interesting to explore ways to involve galleries or to cross promote the existence of galleries. In recent years original art sales have increased in number and cache spanning all seasons of the calendar. The key with Open Markets and artist sales is that people come expressly to buy art. In contrast there are situations where event organizers ask artists to set up booths to complement performances or other programming. Often when the artists are not the main focal point the end result is that the sales and interest are low. Messaging around art sales can focus on variety of benefits with a popular slant being accessibility. Philadelphia’s “Art for the Cash Poor” is noteworthy as it addresses both the art market’s stigma of expense and exclusivity. This annual sale presents art priced no higher than $199 and takes on the atmosphere of a block party with live music. The draw of this event may be its ability to attract the city’s established artists into the mix (organizers work hard to do this) and its fun accessible atmosphere. InLiquid, a nonprofit funded mostly by
An annual art sale held in Philadelphia’s Northern Liberties neighborhood.
Margie Butler, Brown University ‐ June 2008 page |
9
earned income from art sales, runs the event and has been dedicated to offline and online ways to be a conduit for art sales since 1999. InLiquid’s staff is attune to the fact that Philadelphia obviously has art collectors, but they articulate their aim as that of encouraging collectors to invest in the local art market as opposed to always going to New York. Other city-wide models that focus on Communications from Indianapolis’ buy local art campaign that has a website, online artist database and guides for beginners and commerce dovetail with today’s popular (mildly) seasoned art buyers. “buy local ” movement. Portland Maine has a robust cross-category “buy local” movement with fine art as one part of their larger message. By placing art in the mix of its broader “buy local” campaign Portland may help art be recognized by a broader non-gallery audience. An alternate “buy local” approach is that of Indianapolis. “Be Indypendent” is their city’s buy local campaign dedicated specifically to fine arts. The campaign launched on July 4th 2007 and is presented by the Arts Council of Indianapolis with input from city arts organizations and artists. Stakeholders arrived at this buy local art campaign after determining that four years of an online artist database and monthly First Friday gallery walks were not advancing arts sales to the degree desired. As one organizer put it “Artists need to make a living”. While an impact survey is now underway, anecdotal evidence from Indianapolis artists and gallery owners is positive. Certain pieces of the campaign profile mainstream local collectors to directly address the idea of educating people on how to collect. The peer discussion I ran raised concerns about transactional versus education tacts towards stimulating the art market; this campaign may show how both objectives can be combined. One last “BUY ART” initiative to share is something I read on a Chelsea gallerist’s blog. The idea, which seemed in its nascent stage, is about emerging artist studio tours where the gallerist takes collectors to outlying artist neighborhoods and retains a small percentage of commission for sales made. My reaction to this is that the approach could work in NY but may be even more suited to the dispersed and under-known artist scenes in emerging creative cities. Whether at the grassroots or collector level, building a local art market seems to be tied to individuals or organizations stepping into the role of being a conduit. I have seen many YouTube tours of galleries as well showing how technology is also an apt conduit for bringing people into the physical art-buying scene.
Margie Butler, Brown University ‐ June 2008 page |
10
3. SERVING SPECIFIC AUDIENCES – the Creative Core meets the Creative Public Finding ways to celebrate and connect audiences with the diverse creative core of a city tends to be a niche proposition at least for the present time. I knew this when I began my project, and thus was encouraged to find tourism models that spoke about the practice of catering to specific audiences. What I began to understand is that the current iteration of cultural tourism in creative cities is relatively new. The longer-standing industry context for “cultural tourism” refers to visiting foreign destinations and experiencing local cultural heritage. Discussions about this form of cultural tourism have a lot to do with identity and how tourism needs to be cognizant about the potential to disrupt the local community. Within this context cultural tourism becomes about thoughtfully serving specific audiences.3 In contrast, Creative City tourism as I have experienced it takes an “all audience” approach typically focusing on festivals or larger ticketed events. While this article does not propose abandoning larger creative city tourism efforts, I do think there is an argument to be made for adding niche strategies. Niche tourism efforts can highlight the most local assets, involve a more comprehensive cross-section of the city’s creative landscape, and provide new energy to the overall creative city experience. Innovating in this direction leads me to wonder, how creative can cultural tourism for the urban arts scene get? The most visible response to this call to creatively engage audiences with the core arts scene comes in the form of online cultural portals. These sites present creative city activity with a mixture of event calendars, ticket sales and cultural commentary about the art. They are designed as the allimportant hubs to what’s really going on in certain creative cities. Prime examples include uwishunu.com (“you wish you knew Philly from the inside” developed by Greater Philadelphia Tourism Marketing Corporation) and arttixri.com (the online box office and cultural calendar of the Providencebased Rhode Island Arts and Business Council). On these sites grassroots venues are presented alongside formal attractions or as the primary focal point. In the case of “UWishUNu”, the portal’s artist blogs provide access to a slice of the creative scene participants in addition to event listings. While cultural portals are a huge step forward, they are not without their challenges. If they are developed by tourism the site may not be seen as authentic to the core arts community. In the case of UWishUNu.com I got the chance to ask artist collaborators about this issue. Their response is that even though the tourism sector benefits, UWishUNu also provides good opportunities for artists to reach a broader audience. And “opportunity” seems to be the emphasized point, rather than tourism, when these artists ask peers to be involved. An artist who creates video content for UWishUNu noted that
Margie Butler, Brown University ‐ June 2008 page |
11
the initiative helps fill the content gap relating to the local arts scene and supported that aspect. I did hear one local artist refer to site content as “faux informal”. This comment is a reminder that creative city tourism “from the inside” is up against stiff criteria from the arts sector itself. With 45% of UWishUNu’s audience visiting their blog on a weekly basis, this initiative most certainly is a resource to both local as well as visitor communities.4 I wonder next whether there is a way to complement these city portals with something that involves creativity being applied even more directly to the visitor experience. A place to start would be to develop initiatives with artists. My brainstorming and searching for examples in this area unearthed the following possibilities: • • • • Downloadable artist narratives (pod casts) on the city’s creative wonders Artist staffed “arts concierges” that are just a call or email away Art Bikes, or other original works of art transportation, that can be rented/logged out at any one arts venue and peddled to the others (Tate Modern had visitors ride bikes between its two London locations when it opened.) Artist designed hotel rooms (UWishUNu has Room 414 at The Westin)
Though none of these ideas is the solution, the idea is to attract creative minded visitors by being as authentically creative as possible. The potential to pilot tourism approaches that build in the city’s creative voices is vast if support for niche approaches can be developed. While working on this article I attended a talk by Boston-based artist Kianga Ford. Her podcast audio walking tours created most recently for The Contemporary Museum of Baltimore relate nicely to this challenge of nudging tourism into a more creative sphere. Ford’s work entitled “The Story of this Place: Charm City Remix” weaves a narrative from conversations with local people, the physical cityscape and music by a local composer. Ford’s piece is both art and the experience of place. It is an interesting touch point for exploring the intersection of place-based tourism and original artwork. My last point on this theme is about raw fun and direct interaction with artists. Here inspiration comes from the Whitney Museum’s family guide that accompanied their 2008 Biennial. The guide got youth to think about what art is (very apt to do at this exhibition) and to send a question to any artist in the exhibition. While it’s hard to know what happened with the questions each response card mailed in (including mine) got a small print of “Mixed Nuts” by Matthew Brannon, an artist from the biennial and the designer of the guide. At a time when adults are clamoring for creativity and play, to infuse that into the visitor experience. (I do not know if Brannon was paid for the piece.)
Margie Butler, Brown University ‐ June 2008 page |
12
The Whitney Museum 2008 family guide cover (previous page), inside response post card and the original print received with a thank you note from artist Matthew .Brannon.
4. CREATIVE IMMERSION – Invite groups and individuals for creative exchange If general tourism practices in creative cities often omit the grassroots content, it can be helpful to migrate away from the vacation headset to one of professional creative exchange. Specifically I am thinking about instances where groups visit a creative city to learn about its venues and inner-workings. I found that organizations in my own city that are national arts models, Providence’s Steelyard and AS220, have hosted interested arts groups from other cities and found the experience positive. Again this may be a place where a pooled resource would be needed as arranging exchanges on any significant level would stretch grassroots staffs beyond their capacity. This could be a place for another conduit-type role potentially funded by arts councils, economic development offices or private foundations and reaching across the full expanse of a city’s creative scene. Welcoming more exchange about the content and context of a city’s creative scene may do two things – bring visiting thought-leaders to experience the city and be a small scale way to experiment with how outside creative visitors can positively engage in the local scene. The previous city visit I heard about was based on one organization mentoring another. In addition to this approach there could also be opportunity to setting up a creative sister city exchange where the immersion may be ongoing or over a period of time. While such practices step far afield from tourism this approach could share qualities with that of artist residencies and continuing education travel.
5. LOCAL CREATIVE CAPITAL – Valuing and presenting a city’s distinct strengths Every creative city has its own artistic strengths and unique arts discourse. These strengths gravitate out of a strong department at a local arts school or the presence of an
Margie Butler, Brown University ‐ June 2008 page |
13
individual artist who attracts others. However they emerge, city-specific arts enclaves and movements provide opportunities for engaging the public in the local art making conversation. Museums are a prime space for the public to be introduced to local creative capital and can be a gateway of sorts to the local art scene. In the Fall of 2006 the RISD Museum mounted “Wunderground: Providence 1995 to the Present”. The exhibit presented the city’s distinctive printmaking and alternative art scene encompassing silkscreened posters, installation and performance art. Wunderground broke the mold in many ways. During the exhibition’s four-month run visitors to the city came into contact with a key segment of the city’s core arts scene. While the complexity of organizing such an exhibit was likely intense, the critical success of this exhibit demonstrated that local content can be on par with the museum’s other pursuits of exhibiting internationally known art icons. My question here would be —Can Wunderground live on, either as local art content or a strategy for how museums can be a gateway to a thriving arts scene? Additional art museum local program examples are that of the Institute of Contemporary Art Boston and The Museum of Contemporary Art Chicago. Boston’s ICA recognizes four Boston-area artists with a biennial award and exhibition. Jill Medvedow, Director of the ICA Boston speaks to their program’s global and local value, "This program is an opportunity not only for the artists to advance in the field, but for audiences in Boston and beyond to appreciate the artistic innovation happening in our community."5 Chicago’s local exhibition initiative is their 12 x 12 gallery that is dedicated full time to emerging local artists. Yet even as Chicago’s MCA extends itself to local emerging artists in this way it is often criticized for leaving out other segments of mid and late career Chicago artists. Like the push and pull associated with UWishUNu, it is challenging for the larger venues to meet all the criteria of the core arts scene participants. Another way to provide a gateway to local creative capital is to build initiatives that advocate for/present a specific discipline such as fashion or printmaking and are welcoming to the general public. Chicago’s local fashion industry has a website that lists the city’s designers and boutiques by neighborhood and provides tangible access points for both the industry and the general public. This site’s “industry” pages include comprehensive resource and job listings. That combined with the self directed fashion “excursions” in five city neighborhoods and listings of organized tours and public events causes one to think that this site really does serve the inside industry as well as the fashion-interested outside community. The Philadelphia-based Philagrafika organization is another interesting model for presenting a single creative enclave to the public. In fact this print collaborative founded in 2000 states that it is dedicated to initiatives that have broad public exposure. The organization is currently planning their first international printmaking festival Philagrafika 2010. While in its early stage the event seems poised to dovetail local and international content and gain exposure for this creative city’s community of printmakers and thus a slice of their core arts scene.
Margie Butler, Brown University ‐ June 2008 page |
14
Wrapping up ideas about how to present local creative capital is the more abstract notion of linking the impact of local artists who exhibit elsewhere back to their home city. This notion works with (rather than attempts to shift) the reality that major art markets will always be magnets for artists from smaller creative cities. The objective would be to build local awareness and discourse around the caliber of the city’s artist population by covering when resident artists participate in significant events elsewhere. The potential to share these art happenings more broadly can infuse the city’s creative identity back home. It may also have the indirect effect of further engaging these internationally known artists locally. The significant challenge here is the scarcity of local arts coverage.
SUMMARY Because the purpose of this project is to present an initial survey of activity and potential directions there are few conclusions. Instead I encourage further innovation around the thematic framework presented. To begin to look broadly at this topic of connecting outside audiences to a creative city’s inside arts core is really about opening to possibilities and piloting initiatives that are tailored to a city’s specific community and assets. There is much to be curious about when considering how tourism and the organic arts scene can positively engage to align the creative city profile and experience. As this gap is bridged, here are goals that may help: Goals: 1. Invite artists to map out the extent of overlap that could be achieved between local and visitor experiences and develop initiatives jointly with cultural tourism stakeholders. 2. Make getting out into the neighborhoods part of the cultural city experience rather than a hurdle to finding these venues. 3. Think about when it makes sense to gather artists under one roof and when it’s best to invite the public in to experience the studios and spaces first-hand. 4. Provide conduits (resources, events, programs, written content) to introduce and orient people to the core arts scene. 5. Continue to broaden and complement existing tourism thinking by valuing the less packaged, more independent experience. 6. Find ways to encourage openness, innovation and funding so that artist and creative scene collaborations can emerge in creative cities and across regions.
Margie Butler has a background in marketing and audience research. In 2002 she shifted to focus on her own painting and began her involvement in creative economy topics and cultural tourism. She worked as the Director of AHA! New Bedford from 2003-2007 and is now working on creative economy projects and living in Providence, RI. This article was written during a three-month research fellowship at Brown University’s John Nicholas Brown Center for the Public Humanities.
Margie Butler, Brown University ‐ June 2008 page |
15
Notes
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Cultivating “Natural” Cultural Districts Mark J. Stern and Susan C. Seifert January 2007, A collaboration of the Social Impact of the Arts Project (University of Pennsylvania) and The Reinvestment Fund. Cultural Planning and the Creative City Ann October 2006, Project on Regional and Industrial Economics Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota www.hhh.umn.edu/projects/prie Cultural Tourism: Global and Local Perspectives, Greg Richards 2006 Hayworth Press UWishUNu campaign research presented at Americans for the Arts, Philadelphia Artomatic June 23, 2008 press release ICA Boston March 12, 2008 press release
6.
See the separate list of links for further information on all organizations and initiatives mentioned in this article.