The Creative Economy: Views from Abroad

Place, culture, creativity and economic livelihood are pretty powerful and important elements in daily life. What happens when they intersect in a variety of imaginative ways? The prospects in these combinations, and my experience with these elements during 30 years, are why ideas around “Creative Economy” fascinate me. Ingredients I believe are central to the Creative Economy equation include the role of artists, respect for indigenous/multiple cultures and equity (both economic and cultural). Unfortunately, they are not always present in the mix.

As a field of practice, Creative Economy is very much in formation. Its concepts resemble many of the ideas and approaches common in the community-based arts field, and it could learn and benefit by incorporating some of them into its architecture.

In November 2008, I attended an international conference on Creative Economy in Glasgow, Scotland. An annual gathering since 2002, known as Creative Clusters, the conference drew people from over 40 countries from every region of the world. I found it stimulating, as much for what was discussed, as for what was not.

“Why are you here?” demanded the gravelly-voiced Finnish woman after I revealed I was from the U.S. Anticipating I was in for a tongue-lashing, the Canadian acquaintances I was sitting with jumped to my defense. They explained that I worked on a local level and was known for terrific “bottom-up” cultural work.

Her scowl switched to a smile. “We’re proud of you,” she beamed, poking my shoulder with her finger. (She didn’t mean me, she meant my country.) “Europe is excited about Obama,” she went on. “Did you know that in Kenya they celebrated for three days and declared a national holiday?” she asked with delight.

After a few minutes discussing the U.S. election and how she felt Europe wouldn’t elect a leader of Obama’s complexion for decades, her expression switched again. “How do you feel that we in Europe and people everywhere have lost their savings and can’t fund their projects because your banks loaned money to people who they knew couldn’t pay it back?” she demanded to know.

The election of Obama didn’t completely get me off the hook as a U.S. citizen at this international conference in mid-November 2008. As with most conferences, the real meaty content took shape in the corridors and during coffee breaks, and hotel bar conversations. The old City Centre area of Glasgow provided a reflective setting.

Explaining my disgust for bankers, regulators and politicians — and pointing out the complicity of banks and governments around the world — didn’t seem to satisfy my Finnish interrogator.

She switched the conversation again and began to inquire about my identity. After many questions and answers about my family history, places I’ve lived and how I see my connections to several European countries where I claim ancestry, she revealed the reason for her line of questions. “In Europe we’re just beginning to think about who we are. You in America have been mixed up for a long time.” (She meant racially and culturally integrated — I think.) She pointed out there are 25 languages spoken in the European Union and complained that the only people who speak their own language in official EU functions are the British, and they won’t even accept the Euro!

Conversations about the politics of place, economics and cultural identity were common threads in this three-day conference on the role of creativity in economic “regeneration” (a.k.a. revitalization or local economic empowerment). Missing from the official conference program was substantive talk about culture itself, the role of artists and the idea of equity — both economic and cultural — well-worn topics at community-based arts gatherings. What I’ll attempt in this article is to share some stories and ideas from the conference and to explore some of the meanings and values behind the emerging Creative Economy phenomenon.

Creative Clusters — a.k.a. The International Creative Economy Network and Conference — is a seven-year-old Great Britain-based effort at gathering practitioners, policy makers, academics and others involved in Creative Economy work and policy. The 2008 convening took place during a gray November in Western Scotland during what most there agreed was only the beginning of a global economic meltdown. This provided both backdrop and bonding experience. Fortunately for me, animosity towards the U.S. did not appear to be the glue.

Of the nearly 450 participants, only three others hailed from the U.S., but I never ran into them. In addition, delegates were present from Singapore, Japan, China, Mongolia, New Zealand, Australia, the Philippines, South Africa, Kenya, Nigeria, Kuwait, Malta, Mauritius, Jamaica, Barbados, Canada, Bosnia, Latvia, Estonia, Croatia, Lithuania, Greece, Brazil, Bulgaria, all parts of the U.K. and Ireland, and every northern and western European country, except France. While expressing her frustration with the English language, my Finnish interrogator filled me in on the French. She said they won’t go to conferences where they can’t speak their own language and by so doing, she said, they cut themselves off from important dialogues. Americans, on the other hand, won’t attend conferences where they can’t speak their own language either, but for a different reason: Few of us have ability to speak other languages.

This conference is one of the few opportunities for people involved in Creative Economy work to gather on an international level, and I found it attracted an eclectic mix of people for different reasons. Some were concerned first and foremost with place — revitalizing or strengthening the culture and economy of their communities, cities and/or countries. Some, concerned with cultural production, had little connection to place but were seeking environments supportive of their pursuits. Others were concerned with the theories, concepts, latest information and discourse on the practice to apply in their work as consultants, academics or policy wonks. Still others came seeking answers to persistent issues of poverty in parts of the world rich in indigenous culture.

The most encouraging exchanges emerged on occasions when presenters drew three overlapping circles with variations of: Environment/Place, Creativity/Culture and Economy/Economic Empowerment. This Venn diagram proves useful in considering the components and the potential power of the model. However, like most models, it can play out differently depending on the values injected into it. One presenter suggested that the future of the planet and the economy depended on creative enterprises and solutions that are applied to environmental remediation. I believe empowering people to prosper from engaging in cultural practice and enjoy their communities is no less noble.

The gathering made it evident that the world is ever more connected economically, and that creativity and culture are more highly valued around the globe than ever — although for different reasons.

In most areas of the U.S., thinking about the Creative Economy is a little-known pastime of academics (some in the cultural sector) and policy-makers in Massachusetts, Maine and Michigan, among a handful of other places. It seems a more robust and widespread practice in Canada. Leading U.S. cultural advocacy groups, such as Americans for the Arts, continue simplistically to emphasize the economic impact of mainstream arts institutions. This has little to do with the real significance of creativity and its impact on the economy, social capital and capacity building for communities. With his book, “The Rise of the Creative Class,” at the beginning of the century, Richard Florida brought some new ways of thinking about arts and the economy to the conversation. He began a buzz that unfortunately motivated planners and city officials in the U.S. to be more concerned with attracting the hip and well-paid than with understanding how to nurture creative entrepreneurs and artists for building social capital, infrastructure or sustainable economies.

I was surprised when conference presenters from several other nations cited the common U.S. definition of Creative Economy:

Also in common use at this gathering was language around cultural assets and the assets of place, as well as the practice of employing them in development of strategies for community building and regeneration.

The European Union has established a framework for creative industries quite similar to that defined by the New England Foundation for the Arts, a leader in the Creative Economy movement in the U.S. It includes: Core Creative Fields, Cultural Industries, Creative Industries and Activities, and Related Industries. While there is much similarity in specific industry types under the first two categories, there is also general agreement that they should be regionally specific and that no hard and fast list of industry types can be universally applied.

As listed by Swedish presenters the Core Fields are broadly considered to be: architecture, art, design, experience-based learning, fashion, film, literature, marketing communications, music, performing arts, photography, the media, tourism and video games. Meanwhile, the economic-development director of rural Prince Edward County, Ontario, ascribed to the same set of Core Fields, but has developed a different cluster of industries and activities based on agricultural products, the natural environment and outdoor recreation along with industries that support a quality of life that attracts tele-commuting entrepreneurs from the core fields.

As community-based arts are to the mainstream cultural sector, Creative Economy is to the larger economic-development world — outsider or stepchild and still struggling to demonstrate its merits. Creative Economy efforts would benefit from the values, techniques, involvement and values of the community-based arts. And there are cases where community arts are a productive part of the mix. Likewise community-based arts practitioners can benefit from Creative Economy efforts. And there are cases where their work has advanced hand in hand. I see enormous benefit in the marriage, although, as in any such union, some letting go and taking more time to make it work results in greater equity and sustainability.

While Creative Economy development appears to be a more appreciated strategy across many parts of the world than in the U.S., the stories and challenges at this conference were greatly similar to those I find in my work in the U.S. Unfortunately there was a similar lack of critical discourse around economic and cultural equity. When Richard Florida’s creative-class ideas were first embraced around the world, communities of every size decided that media makers and software developers should take up residence in their place. Some subsequently developed more sophisticated approaches to integrating creativity and the arts into their homegrown economic development, education and public-investment strategies. One critical participant — Romeo de la Cruz, a scholar and community arts practitioner from the Philippines — wrote to me in an e-mail after the conference:

What I find fascinating and valuable in the best practice of Creative Economy thinking is its grounding in local assets. In theory, it places high value on creativity, community identity and local culture(s), and sees these as integral to the way of life and economic well being of communities. It’s about distinctiveness of place versus the homogenization that has taken root during the past 40 years in the U.S. and many parts of the world. It’s about openness to learning and to reinvention and acceptance of new ideas from unlikely places. That openness can serve as a common bond between those involved in local cultural practice and those involved in trying to improve the economic livelihood of their communities.

In my consulting work across the U.S., I’ve often found that building partnerships between the cultural community and the chamber of commerce is one of the most valuable and productive steps toward maximizing community potential. Sometimes, however, local cultural communities are fractured, inward looking and resistant to change, making it hard to even start those conversations. Of course the same may sometimes be said for business communities.

Among other things, Creative Economy proponents are attempting to position communities within competitive — and ever-more global — economic and cultural constructs. This means finding the authenticity and valuing the unique nature of a place. To do this requires an interrogation of its identity and ultimately building ownership in that identity in ways that forge bonds and the capacity to collaborate within communities, as well as to access resources and ideas from outside them. These are all things for which community-based arts practitioners have built a huge toolbox, and in which they can offer leadership that benefits their communities in ways both cultural and economic.

Longstanding principles defined by Project Row Houses in Houston, Texas, demonstrate some of these overlaps:

As I saw at this conference, current Creative Economy thinking doesn’t always play out as well as it could. Often absent are central roles for artists, values based in cultural and economic equity, and a true belief in the importance of authentic local identity. Some of the Creative Economy experiences shared in Glasgow followed the pattern of seeking to import solutions and trying to first attract outside talent, investment and values before affirming what was unique and important about what they already had.

The Glasgow conference presented a mixed bag of models — partly reflecting different value systems or levels of sophistication, or simply different goals. A few presenters advocated integrated approaches in which they valued artists, cultural organizations, creative entrepreneurs and more sustainable economic-empowerment models emerging from indigenous values, resources and distinctiveness of place. Unfortunately, technocrats and policy makers who preferred dissecting Creative Economy mechanics ruled the day. Their presentations tended to treat culture, artists, creativity and place as commodities factored into an equation, adding up to wealth generation.

One of the sweetest stories I heard was of the Croatian city of Ogulin. Leaders there counted along their assets its beautiful landscapes, its numerous old castles and its history as the birthplace of Ivana Brli-Mazurani, a famous Croatian fairytale writer. They branded the city “The Homeland of Fairy Tales,” and developed a tourism strategy around an annual festival, a fairytale theme route and the development of “Ivana’s House of Fairy Tales,” a multimedia visitor, education and research center. They set out to increase the GDP of the town, create new jobs, motivate youth to stay, and upgrade the quality of local cultural production. The festival leveraged ongoing work within schools, interest from international scholars and the development of new theater work based on the fairytales. After just three years, they cite considerable success on all fronts. Tourism won’t likely be enough to sustain this community, but it can lead to a more attractive destination and source for new ideas and new industries that attract investment and produce goods for a broader market. Ogulin’s renewed energy, cooperative spirit, interaction with the world and self-image will serve to generate greater change and development.

At least in the abstract, Gateshead, England, produced an inspirational story. Its iconic public art piece, Angel of the North, infused the community with a renewed sense of purpose and importance. However, credit for the transformation of this gritty and downtrodden industrial hub was given to its focused, consistent and creative civic leadership and hard-working partners. The local Councilor pointed out that early surveys indicated the public was decidedly against the proposed Angel of the North. Leaders went ahead anyway with the privately commissioned public artwork that resembles a rusty giant with airplane wings, now a universally loved community icon.

New technology, media, design firms and medical enterprises were grown locally and attracted to Gateshead. “We want to create a borough of achievement, driven by aspiration, with communities that celebrate their past but look to the future, where all are enabled to take advantage of new technologies, and where innovative solutions are found to local problems by local people.” This introduction by the Gateshead civic leader sounded downright Obamesque. A panoply of iconic structures including a bridge, contemporary art center, stadium and other civic as well as residential structures, were built through its Creative Economy plan, but our presenter labeled these as merely symbols of prosperity. He focused on “building sustainable creative places” and “harnessing the talents of local people.” Creating greater open-mindedness was also a focused goal, something he claimed has been achieved. Data on how widely the newfound prosperity has spread was not part of the presentation, nor did we learn how engaged were the city’s various communities and cultures.

A one-day preconference session was held in Edinburgh, a most appropriate site to focus on the value and best practices of organizing festivals. According to the official history of the Edinburgh International Festival, it was …

Interesting questions were posed at the conference about the sustainability of many festivals, given global changes in energy costs and travel patterns, as well as trends towards commercialization. The potential of festivals to assert identity of place as well as to build community capacity and provide meaningful revenue for local artists and organizations was stressed.

A festival director from Manchester, U.K., entitled his presentation, “A Festival Matters in the World … if it is doing something that matters to the world.” Synching festival theme and purpose with larger community regeneration goals, and with local natural and cultural assets, was presented as best practice, along with creating multilevel participatory and collaborative environments. A Croatian festival director stressed the importance of “festivalization” in building his nation’s cultural identity.

Festivals are complex economically. They can bring outside wealth into a community and they can keep wealth circulating locally, as opposed to sending it elsewhere. They can also strengthen capacity and social capital through the infrastructure required to make them work, and they can reinforce community identity — if in fact they are truly products of local culture. They can also support the creation of new and productive goods if they enable artists, craftspeople, inventors and other entrepreneurs to develop new markets for their work.

Copenhagen, a city known for progressive social values, was described as having some success with Creative Economy development but with an unfinished edge. While creativity and culture were fueling an urban revival, new international connections through a newly constructed bridge and the new political links through the EU had presented both opportunities and challenges. A changing demographic, where 40 percent of the population is not of Danish descent, has challenged the traditional culture. The Danish presenter complained that this growing segment of the populus is not considered an asset by the powers that be. Some in the country, he pointed out, have come to realize that the core culture of Copenhagen is not friendly or welcoming, a trait that is essential to success in the emerging creative economy, and one that is limiting Copenhagen’s regeneration.

The representative reporting on a Hamilton, New Zealand, regeneration program (“From Cowtown to Wowtown”) launched her presentation with a greeting from traditional Maori culture, explaining its words and meaning. She proudly declared her cultural identity as Irish and went on to describe a Creative Economy plan generated through a think-tank process, one designed to spark innovation and growth of “ag-bio” research and the high-tech manufacturing and engineering industries. A “seismic attitudinal change” helped in the ongoing transformation, she claimed. However, in spite of her Maori greeting, the plan appeared to have no connection to the indigenous people or culture. When challenged by a former culture official-turned academic from the Philippines, she confessed that the Maori were not part of the planning or the implementation of Hamilton’s revival. One would assume they aren’t likely to partake in the benefit, either.

Absent from the organized presentations, but injected by audience members were similar questions about the place of indigenous cultures in Creative Economy projects, and the multitude of under-represented stories and histories in multicultural urban environments. Presenters generally met these questions with little substantive response. Hardly a question was raised about the income disparities in the creative sector or the ethnic enclaves excluded from — or exploited by — cultural tourism.

Many voices were critical, during an open plenary session at the end of day two, of the depth of discussion. The conference director, in a defensive posture, expressed his frustration with session submissions, complaining that he couldn’t prevent presenters from showcasing their projects rather than opening a critical dialogue as their proposals promised. At least I got a sense that many at this conference wanted a more robust discussion of values and the pros and cons of Creative Economy strategies, and more stories of principles and best practice.

Glasgow itself provided an interesting counterpoint to the conference assertions. Conference Director Simon Evans claimed that “Glasgow has put culture at the heart of its regeneration for a generation now.” And John Swinney, Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, proclaimed that Scotland wants to be recognized as one of the world’s most creative nations. New and old architecture are well blended. Major cultural institutions and facilities are widely heralded and the traditional culture of Scotland is proudly on display. Truth be told, it is no longer a homogeneous population, if it ever was. Roman conquests, the Irish potato famine, American tobacco trade and the historic need for an enormous industrial labor force, among other factors, have brought immigrants and other cultures to Scotland for a long time.

The pre-Christmas shopping season gave no hint of the current recession and, as a city of just over 600,000, it showed off world-class dining, shopping and entertainment venues. Indeed, as a tourist, one is impressed with evident prosperity inhabiting a grand and well-built city substantially constructed more than 150 years ago. Glasgow continued as one of Europe’s wealthiest cities through most of the industrial age. A high portion of the world’s ships and locomotives were built there before World War I, and it was a primary European port for goods from America beginning in the mid 1700s, when its population mushroomed from 40,000 to over 1 million within a mere couple of decades. Its decline was nearly as legendary as its rise. The middle of the last century saw a nearly 50 percent reduction in population. It suffered from suburban flight, which some attribute to government policy and infrastructure investment favoring suburbs — just like in the U.S.

By the late 1980s, a significant economic and cultural resurgence was underway. A government-sponsored plan, launched in 1983, fostered the city’s new role as a European center for business services and finance. Arts, tourism, and inward investment were promoted. Each year the European Union competitively selects a “European Capital of Culture,” and Glasgow was among the early designees in 1990. Concerted attempts to diversify the city's economy and promote cultural heritage and creativity continue. More affluent people have moved back to the older center of Glasgow, rehabbing most of its substantial stone structures, and infilling with new.

As in any such rapid transformation, gentrification has been in evidence. While the city is listed among the 50 safest cities in the world and is considered to be one of the world's top-ten tourist destinations, its East End remains the focus of severe unemployment and poverty. An economic report published in 2007 showed a widening gap between prosperous and deprived areas of the city. In 2006, 47 percent of Glasgow's population lived in what are considered the most deprived areas of Scotland. The Centre for Social Justice reported nearly 30 percent of the city's working-age residents to be "economically inactive." Although marginally below the U.K. average, Glasgow still has a higher employment rate than Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester.

So, does the Capital of Culture bring with it a disparity of capital? Creative Economy promoters need to address this question to shape a field that has meaning to the world.

In addition to the question of what happened to culture in culturally led regeneration, what about the artist? One less than satisfying discussion was a one-person session given over to a former advertising executive. More of a rant with a power point, his presentation painted a black-and-white picture of genius versus ordinary creativity, and chastised practices such as CPS (creative problem solving), the notion of group brainstorming as a creative practice, and the idea that everyone has potential to be creative. Genius, he advocated, should not be burdened with petty issues such as equity, inclusiveness or critique, and cannot be managed or nurtured. He expressed a personal sense of exclusion as a straight white male — the source, he implied, of most genius.

Otherwise, the place of the creative artist was not central — at least to the sessions I chose to attend; artists were viewed as commodities, as desired inhabitants of retrofitted industrial-era buildings. The value of creative individuals — their work, their lifestyles, their contribution to communities on multiple levels — were either taken for granted, discounted or not fully understood.

Likewise, there was no meaningful discussion of intellectual property (IP). Only a reference here and there and more in the form of questions from the audience. It was simply acknowledged as a headache, and the conversation moved on. However, IP has serious and complex implications for artists, a subject of great importance when it comes to the Creative Economy. One presenter pointed out that content isn’t worth much, it’s active engagement people want, going on to say the greater value is in providing opportunities, space and vehicles for people to engage.

The nature of creative enterprises and how they are structured legally and in how content providers and investors related to them was addressed only between the lines. Of course, in an international setting, the great differences in tax structures and government financing schemes make conversation difficult. Some European and Asian countries made little distinction between artists and creative entrepreneurs, providing technical assistance and capital to individuals, nonprofits and for-profits in recognition of their potential benefits, whether economic, social or aesthetic. Glasgow-based Cultural Enterprise Office presented itself as one model serving individuals, organizations and business start-ups.

This approach is lacking in the U.S., in my experience. Recognition and support for creativity in its generic sense is not highly valued. Old-line philanthropy sends the lion’s share of wealth to institutions that protect status-quo culture — hardly sources of new creativity. The line between nonprofit and for-profit is so hard and fast in the U.S. that the tools and ways of thinking about creative enterprise don’t easily cross platforms. We have arts councils with organizational or individual-artist development arms. We have small-business development centers or business incubators, which may be private enterprises or components of Community Development Corporations or public agencies. And we have venture-capital firms that are part of larger financial institutions or independent and driven by visionaries. While there are some conversations questioning the merit in these divisions, evident to me is the need for a new model in the U.S., one that supports creative entrepreneurs and enterprises regardless of their tax status.

A parallel discussion, but at a different starting point, took place among post-Soviet countries attempting to reinvent their cultural institutions in the wake of the socialist model of state support for culture — a model they suggest stifles innovation and entrepreneurship. Due to this history, their cultural institutions are even less likely than those in the U.S. to see themselves as part of an ecosystem that helps to stimulate creativity and spark ideas that translate into enterprises that return benefit to their communities. They see the Western model of corporate and individual support as a solution. They should be careful what they ask for. The one thing the socialist model did not leave them, they painfully pointed out, was a tradition of volunteerism, something they now know is important if they pursue the individual-support model.

Two radically different approaches to culture and local economy were awkwardly presented in different sessions, neither of which spoke directly to any kind of best practice for Creative Economy.

The Jamaican Culture Minister gave what came across as an off-key presentation on the conference’s opening day. It seemed little more than a tourism promotion. Her enthusiasm for the cultural heroes and culinary delights of the island was evident but out of context: more of a sales pitch than an analysis or even exposition of culturally led regeneration. In fact, she was lamenting her country’s position in global economics. Subsequent corridor conversations were unkind but missed the fact that her talk was laced with frustration. She wanted to know why a beautiful tropical island, rich in cultural products, was not at the top of the Creative Economy. The profound history of colonialism and the continuing exploitation of the island’s natural and cultural riches were not acknowledged.

The island nations of Singapore and Mauritius, on the other hand, were present and actively seeking “investors,” promising safe havens for corporate outposts in globally strategic locations. In that same way, Jamaica was not clearly for sale.

The chief executive of Singapore’s National Arts Council provided little more than a sales pitch for his neo-friendly nation but with a highly sophisticated presentation. His economic charts and graphs were stunning, and his top-down “5-C” plan outlined investment strategies that were designed to heighten the creativity of his already prosperous nation. Prosperity, he asserted, was dependent on constant reinvention fueled by creativity. Culture, Competency, Connectivity, Capital and Conditions provided the five-point framework to assure continual reinvention and presumably a perpetual place atop the economic food chain.

If a federal official in the U.S. made such a presentation and demonstrated a similar level of investment in a program for the arts, education, social-capital development, physical facilities and supportive conditions for cultural enterprises, we would dance in the streets. Somehow, though, there was something almost sinister about Singapore’s highly efficient approach, unencumbered by democratic bureaucracy, critical inquiry or the need to recognize an indigenous culture. All the contemporary buzzwords were carefully aligned and he minced no words in declaring that his strategy is ultimately designed to create a friendly environment for business.

It may be my cultural bias, but a similar program laid out by a group from pseudo-socialist Sweden seemed more comforting. Their five-point program had many parallels: Arts/Cultural Life, Research, Education and Training, Industry and Business and Collaboration. Their story described how the program was successfully developed on a community level in the small city of Hultsfred and then successfully tested in other communities. It’s based on a holistic approach of stimulating creativity and the arts, providing forums, research and collaborative systems for business and industry to gain from innovations and innovative behaviors. This puts the arts and business in bed together with equitable results and reproduction as a goal.

The Creative Clusters conference demonstrated that Creative Economy is a field that has yet to define its values, frameworks or best practices. Practitioners illustrated approaches resulting in gains for the few, but at the same time showed ways to apply its principles to improve the human condition. While this growing network of practitioners brought assorted values and approaches, they are all endeavoring to build or rebuild vitality into their respective communities employing culture, creativity and local assets. This emerging field needs tools that community-based arts practitioners could bring, and they can be valuable allies to cultural practitioners on a local level. They appreciate culture and creativity as essential ingredients in connecting people with each other and with sustainable and satisfying livelihoods. Their work would benefit from collaborations with community-based artists and organizations, as would the wellbeing of artists and communities.

The Creative Economy at its best, I found, is about communities taking responsibility for their condition and creating meaningful work and a viable economy with the most powerful resources at their disposal. These include the distinct nature and culture of their place, and the creativity of the people — all the while welcoming and learning from those who pass through or who decide to stay.

During the barge tour on the last day of the conference, the towers of Glasgow University, founded in 1451, were pointed out on the opposite hillside. Citing it as the academic home of Adam Smith, the head of the Glasgow Canal Regeneration Partnership referred to him with a touch of distaste as the “founder of capitalism and free-market thinking.” Keenly aware of the looming global recession, the barge guide suggested Smith’s and the institution’s culpability.

I decided to take a closer look the next day. As the student tour guide lead our small group into the grand entrance of the university’s historic main hall, she pointed to the white marble statue of Adam Smith. She described him as the “founder of modern political thought” — too generous a label, I felt. Suddenly, she gasped, “They put his fingers back!” Trying to convince us she was not mistaken, she excitedly went on, “I’ve been here more than three years and his two fingers have always been broken off.”

In pondering Smith’s frozen pose, I wondered if his digits were restored in time to give him the opportunity to point to the limits in his free-market ideas, or if pranksters might have put them up for sale on eBay.

Tom Borrup consults, teaches, and writes about community transformation, cultural infrastructure, and the creative economy. He is based in Minneapolis where he was director of Intermedia Arts from 1980 to 2002. He thanks Erik Takeshita, Romeo dela Cruz, Brendan Rawson and George Sutton for assistance with this article.

Home

About CAN

APInews

Reading Room

Resources

Forums

Site Map

What's New

Search Site

The Creative Economy: Views from Abroad

Comments

Home About CAN Welcome About CAN Community Arts 101 Contact Us APInews APInews Conferences/Events Reading Room Essays Special Projects Bridge Conversations Making Exact Change The CAN Report The Citizen Artist Performing Communities Everybody Say Hallelujah Connecting Californians Spirit of the Northwest The ROOTS Reader Links Page Resources Bookstore CANuniversity Community Arts 101 Community Arts Perspectives Cross-Sector Resources Places to Study Studies and Statistics Weblogs CANblog Guest Blogs CAN Blognet CANtv Forums Forums Home Conversations Opportunities Special Conversations Site Map What's New Search Site