I don't buy this art-begets-economic growth one little bit, even though
it's been fashionable in the UK for some years. We have had quite a rash of
literary and music festivals, avant-garde museums, strange edifices and
grotesquely large statuary (such as Angel of the North) but there's no
evidence that any permanent economic residue remains.
Historically, the great periods of artistic development have always
followed economic prosperity. In pre-industrial times, the great cities
where the arts and sciences flourished were all convenient dispersal points
on trade routes (particularly sea ports). In the heyday of the industrial
revolution in this country, art and music flourished exuberantly in the big
manufacturing cities of the north of England -- Birmingham, Manchester,
Leeds, Liverpool -- at the expense of London. Even in pre-historic times
the evidence points to the vast development of much more effective hunting
tools at around 40,000BC, some thousands of years before the appearance of
arts such as cave painting, music and figurines.
Keith
At 23:04 09/07/2010 -0400, you wrote:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001C_01CB1FBB.044FB8B0"
Content-Language: en-us
Thanks Barry,
I remembered his first name, Harry. Googled Harry, Canadian Economist
and the National Endowment of the Arts and up it popped. Harry Hillman
Chartrand. It was from the Reagan era. Americans for the Arts have
also done similar studies and the Port Authority of New York documented
what I was telling about the size of the Arts sector. They include all
of the jobs stimulated by the arts as well as the performance jobs
themselves. Someone told me it was now up to 14 billion but I havent
been able to corroborate that. Thanks again.
REH
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Robert Stennett
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 11:20 AM
To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION
Subject: Re: [Futurework] A THOUGHT FOR TODAY:
Ray, I don't know the economist you're talking about, but you and Chris
may be interested in the following two links:
<http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410812_culture_and_commerce.pdf>http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410812_culture_and_commerce.pdf
http://www.florida-arts.org/resources/economicimpactofthearts.htm
The Florida paper contains numerous links to fairly localized studies. All
of these studies come to the same conclusion - that artistic efforts in
any area have a strong, positive impact on economic development. I remain
unconvinced about any of the offered causal explanations, but the
observation that the arts and economics are linked is now well established.
Barry
On Jul 9, 2010, at 9:50 AM, Ray Harrell wrote:
Yes Arthur. Thank you for that. I would add that if the Artist is paid
for his work eleven dollars go back into the economy for every one dollar
invested in the Artist. It goes back as stimulus. It was a Canadian
economist who proved this to our NEA and to Reagan and stopped him cold in
his tracks when he was trying to disband our NEA. I forget the
economists name. Anyone on the list know who that would be?
REH
From:
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
[<mailto:[email protected]>mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf Of Arthur Cordell
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 9:20 AM
To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION'
Subject: [Futurework] A THOUGHT FOR TODAY:
A THOUGHT FOR TODAY:
The artist brings something into the world that didn't exist before, and
he does it without destroying something else. -John Updike, writer (1932-2009)
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
