I’ve had Elizabeth Currid-Halkett’s The Warhol Economy on my wishlist for a while. Today in the NYT she writes on successful art revitalization and that it takes more than just money to make it happen.
The idea that art can be an economic engine is hardly new, and a walk through SoHo, Venice Beach or Chicago’s Pilsen neighborhood shows it can work. The N.E.A.’s promotional material makes clear that its goal is to create new SoHo’s in hard-hit cities across the country. But contrary to the N.E.A.’s good intentions, it takes more than grants and tax breaks to make the arts thrive. Too often, art-driven revitalization efforts overlook the mercurial nature of art itself.
Her point is that there are a lot of unknowns in the art world and that money should flow toward areas that are already working. I think she doesn’t talk enough about other location factors of successful arts districts, from density and population to being near a larger world of art consumption and presentation — gallerists, collectors, museums, schools.
