A paper published in March by Olivier Gergaud revealed a positive correlation between the number of entrepreneurs in a city and its economic growth and, more interestingly, the number of artists in a city and its economic growth. These results are striking because while entrepreneurs tangibly add to local economies by contributing concrete products and services, artists contribute to city growth in much more subtle ways — ways that are often ignored. Musicians, painters, sculptors and photographers add cultural value, making their neighborhoods and cities more attractive to potential future residents and establishing progressive thinking communities.
The paper, however, doesn’t address what happens next. Rising prices inevitably follow economic development, and many artists aren’t equipped financially to adjust to the price rises they are partly responsible for, putting them in a difficult position. Specifically within New York City, artists have been forced from areas like Greenwich Village and relocated to Brooklyn. And now artists are getting priced out of Brooklyn and New York City all together.
Art critic James McAnally notes an advantage that artists experience upon resettling to places like St. Louis. “In the absence of hype, ideas gather, connections build, jagged at first, inarticulate,” McAnalley writes. “Then, all of a sudden, worlds emerge.” On one hand, I’d like to think of artists as cultural worker bees moving from neighborhood to neighborhood and city to city pollinating each with creativity and personality. Yet, on the other, this cycle of relocation seems like a roadblock for artists — especially musicians.
Located in Seattle, Macklemore & Ryan Lewis are one of today’s most successful independent music groups. For them to remain independent and remain in Seattle has required a full staff and office space of their own. Not many independent artists have the resources to do that because the bureaucracy around the music business makes it a geographically constraining industry — existing almost exclusively in New York City and Los Angeles. Despite being two of the most expensive cities in the country, these two music hubs artificially sustain artistic communities merely because the resources of major record labels, publishers and management companies are clustered there. Without such infrastructure, skyrocketing housing prices could decimate New York and Los Angeles’ music scenes — such has been the case in San Francisco.
To a lesser extent, Nashville is the third-largest music hub in the United States — mostly a breeding ground for country music. I imagine Nashville’s future could be much more than just country, however. It already has the infrastructure of major labels and publishers, lacking only the exorbitant prices of NYC or L.A. For musicians looking to escape financial constraints without losing the resources needed to thrive, Nashville could be the answer. It’s the center of the country music world, but who says it can’t be more than that?
We value art, no doubt. We spend hundreds of dollars on festival experiences. We spend our time in new cities visiting their museums. But to truly appreciate the ways in which artists, venues, galleries or museums affect our cities, we need to further quantify their impact. Gergaud’s study, which recognizes a correlation between artists and economic growth, is promising. Now let’s build upon that. Further research may help us recognize specifically the ways in which artists yield city-level growth or how pricing out artists may be detrimental to local economies. As we learn more, perhaps people will be more invested in keeping artists close by.
Zach Brown can be reached at zmbrown@umich.edu.