Richard Florida, author of The Rise of the Creative Class, recently drove around the DC area with a Washington Post reporter, commenting on which neighborhoods exhibited signs of creative life, and the nature of DC’s “creative class.”
According to the reporter, Annys Shin, Florida’s work “argues that cities that attract highly educated “creative class” workers fare better economically.”
So what exactly is the “creative class”?
“(Florida) defines the creative class by occupation, rather than by traditional measures such as employer or education. It includes not only the stereotypical bohemians, such as artists, dancers, and writers — classified as “super creatives” — but also accountants, lawyers, mathematicians and computer programmers.All told, the definition covers about 47 percent of the Washington workforce…”
I’m not sure what to make of this. On the one hand, I love a definition of creativity that doesn’t stop with artists, and I love calling attention to how creativity in various forms helps cities and communities thrive.
On the other hand, I don’t like the idea of defining creativity and its value solely in economic terms. If it helps creative people and work get funded to emphasize how creativity fuels the economy, then great; but I worry if, culturally, we come to measure creativity solely by economic output.
I also take issue with using someone’s source of income as the sole measure of their creativity; this issue came up in an online discussion of the Post article I’ve been describing (the discussion was with Steven Pedigo, one of Florida’s former students and now the research manager at the Greater Washington Initiative):
Silver Spring, MD: …Would a waitress who draws or does standup comedy in her precious moments away from the paying job count as “creative class” member, and if not, why not?
Steven W. Pedigo: Technically, no, well maybe, yes you’ve nailed one of the limitations of measuring the creative economy. While the waitress doing stand-up comedy is extremely creative, she is counted by her fulltime job.
If someone who is extremely creative isn’t considered a member of the “creative class,” then “creative class” is a catchy but inaccurate name for a probably astute economic concept. (I say “probably astute” because (a) I haven’t read the book, and (b) I’m no economist.)
New headline: we’re all creative. Economic constructs come and go, but our innate creativity remains.
RELATED RESOURCES
- Read the Post article, “The City as Modern Muse”
- Read a transcript of the washingtonpost.com discussion
- Learn about The Rise of the Creative Class
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
Fortunately, I am a trained economist… :)
One of the big problems with anything along these lines is you’re taking shortcuts in order to measure something that’s tough to measure… or in this case, taking liberties with your assumptions and definitions that lead to flawed results. (Garbage in, Garbage out.)
I understand where the guy is coming from… from an economic perspective, “creativity” is an excellent luxury that indicates how well an economy is doing. I wrote an interesting (well, I thought) paper in an Economics of Developing Nations class focusing on the measure of creative jobs as a good indicator of an upward-bound economy. Put simply, if you’re society can support someone who is a full time poet or musician, you’ve acheived enough economic momentum to show you’re past subsistance living and probably doing ok.
But classifying jobs that are oriented primarily towards commerce, like accountants, lawyers, mathematicians and computer programmers, tells a different story. That may have more value analyzing the baseline economy of sub-Saharan Africa, but the US has reached a different standard for measurement. It’s like basing the consumer price index on a 15″ Black and White TV, and then talking about how cheap televisions are these days.
Anyway, go creative economics.
The “Creative Class” is about the niche filled with full time professionals.
There have always been creative people in every society, but there isn’t a creative class everywhere.
I think thats the difference. Its how the existence of a creative class changes society, not the existnece of creative people.
Its how the existence of a creative class changes society, not the existnece of creative people.
Very much agreed… I’m always interested in seeing how aspects of that creativity can assert themselves in our essentially corporate lifestyle. (That probably sounded more Marxist than I meant it to.)
One of the more interesting examples of what I would consider the “new creative class” is Jonathan Ive, one of the main aesthetic guys at Apple, and the father of the iPod design.
http://www.designmuseum.org/design/jonathan-ive
You could argue whether or not the iPod changed society, but it’s certainly an instance where creativity coexisting with commerce lead to a success where others failed.
I don’t think we’re in a world anymore where art, music or theater – in isolation – can change the world. (Gee, that’s not an inflammmatory statement, is it? :)
But combined with commerce, it’s power is magnified beyond what it can reach on its own.
Or; If I play a chord in the forest and no one hears it, what’s the impact?
(And yes, obviously it fills a valid and important space, but this is a thread about the economics of creativity. :)
is there a time when art did/could change the world?
Did rock and roll change the world? or is art merely an expression of the undercurrents?
I think art gives form to what is already happening but has been given voice yet.
I think art changes the world every day.
And re: creative people versus “creative class” – you guys make good points. My main concern is in co-opting the word “creative.” I want us to use it to describe true creativity – in the creative people sense. Having something called a “creative class” just strengthens the false notion that creativity is only accessible to a select few.
You must log in to post a comment.