Yesterday I uploaded two posts explaining the difference between the terms “creative economy” and the “art economy”.  Understanding the difference between the two is important because we are talking about the way we view and measure a growing portion of the US economy.  The sooner those of us that work and promote the creative economy come to an agreement on standardized definitions and ways of measuring this expanding sector the easier it will be to recruit young creatives and entrepreneurs into the movement.

I was admittedly growing frustrated in my search for a standardized definition of the creative economy in the US.  I wondered how could it be that Europe and Asia were so far ahead of the US in the domain?  Well one its due to our federal system.  A lot of the best work is happening at the state level not at the national level.  Every state is burrowing away with their own definition.  Which second means researchers like me have to scan hundreds of websites to find and understand the strategies of states as opposed to digging through one or half a dozen federal websites.

This morning, by chance, a friend found a state creative economy report that addresses the issues I’ve discussed the past couple of days.  Funnily enough the report is on CreativeEconomy.org!  It’s hard to express the joy I had while reading this report.  The Creative Economy: A New Definition , which was release by the New England Foundation for the Arts, makes a clear and concise case for redefining the creative sector in the US.

I have not yet read the full report but I did scan the document for the charts and tables delineating the creative sectors to be redefined.  Happily I found the discussion in Part II of the report.  The author’s equivalent to the European “creative industries” is referred to as a “cultural workforce.”  They define this as “work that directly produces cultural goods, regardless of industry; or, work within an industry that makes cultural goods and/or services, regardless of actual work task.“  This workforce includes “occupations and industries that focus on the production and distribution of cultural goods, services and intellectual property.”

Yes!  Now we are talking.  Now we are looking at a broader definition of the creative sector that is more inclusive than just those “industries that create and distribute art.” The authors of the New England report refer to this cross section as “artistic occupations” and they also make the same point that I made yesterday.  These occupations do belong to the cultural workforce but the cultural workforce is larger than just artistic occupations.

The top ten cultural workforce occupations in New England are designers, librarians, visual artists, architects, writers, editors, library assistants, advertising sales agents, musicians and PR specialists.  The top ten artistic occupations in New England are architects, designers, visual artists, photographers, writers, actors, producers, dancers, musicians, announcers, entertainers and all artistic.  Artistic occupations are an important subset of the cultural workforce but the creative economy depends on a much larger group of workers than just those working in the arts.  I think its time other states start to follow the lead of the New England Foundation for the Arts.

Now that I’ve found this report and feel comfortable that good work is being done on reasonably defining the creative economy in the US, I can move onto something else.  Like trying to get states and economists to agree on this defnition…

Just finished uploading an article where “creative economy”  is being confused with the art economy and I find this.  I’m happy it came up because it illustrates the point I’m trying to make.

The article on Broadway World.com starts, “recently, Americans for the Arts released the 2009 Creative Industries Report, which offers a research-based approach to understanding the scope and economic importance of the arts.”

I think interesting a report on the creative industries.  So far so good.  It goes even further to describe the creative industries as “businesses that create or distribute the arts, including: museums and collections; performing arts; visual arts/photography; film, radio and TV; design and publishing; arts schools and services.”

Wrong!  This is where the confusion begins. The creative industries are much larger than the “industries that create and distribute art“.  Worse on closer inspection of their study, Americans for the Arts only included not for profit agencies in their recent nation wide study.

Their study covered the “art economy” not the creative economy.  The art economy and the industries that create and distribute art are part of the creative economy but the creative economy is much larger than the art economy.  As the creative industries are much larger than the art industries.

I appreciate the work Americans for the Arts are doing to promote a portion of the creative industries but the real potential for an economic turn around lies in advocating the full range of non-profit and for profit creative industries.  The UK and the rest of the European Union use this definition of the creative industries.  The same if not slightly larger definition is being used in Korea, India, China and Hong Kong. The potential for participation in the creative economy is broader than the potential of the art economy as is the potential for investment, change and exporting American creativity.

via Great News For South Florida Arts-Related Businesses.

I’m slowly becoming a fan of Createquity.  Ian David Moss is helping me understand the differences between UK creative industry policy and American cultural policy, if there is one.  He’s uploaded a neat analysis on cultural development and regeneration strategies.  Read the full article when you have time but I’m taking away his concise analysis of two popular regeneration strategies.

Cultural Palaces

Cultural palaces are the top down installation of large art centers usually in city centers.  Ian says “development by way of these “cultural palaces” suffers from significant downsides. For one thing, without further thought and investment toward guiding the surrounding neighborhood in a positive direction, these beautiful monuments to culture can turn into imposing, inaccessible behemoth structures that cater only to the car-driving rich. Since lively pedestrian traffic is the lifeblood of cultural districts, such a result signifies a missed opportunity to bring the investment to its full potential.”

Natural Districts

A second form of regeneration in the United States is based on a naturally occuring theory of subsidies to artists and surrounding  districts.  Ian describes these as “organically-occurring neighborhood hotspots for cultural activity are associated with numerous positive trends in their surrounding communities.”

His analysis raises a few recommendations for both communities that seem plausible.  I’m not a big fan of the interchangeable and confusing use of the terminology “creative economy” when he is really addressing the “art economy” but I do welcome the leads and insights Ian provided.

Thanks Ian.

via Createquity.: On the Arts and Developing Communities.