Creative capital and cultural planning

As someone who has helped cities think about developing a vibrant arts and cultural sector for the last 30 years, I am interested in how the idea of "creative capital" is catching on in so many places.  Since Richard Florida introduced the idea of the importance of a new creative class to the health of cities, many mayors and other city officials seem intent in fostering creative capital to make their cities more competitive.  Somehow, it seems to be a key to economic development, developing a 21st century workforce, and addressing intractable social problems.

Equally interesting to me is how the arts community -- especially those in arts education -- have viewed this development as an opportunity to gain attention and funding for their work.  For decades, arts education has struggled to keep its place in the school curriculum.  Ever since Proposition 13 eroded the tax base for education in California school in the early 1970s, state after state has slashed funding for arts education.

Today, that is changing in many school systems and in many communities. Creative learning (as it is often referred to these days) is gaining in importance. The reason has much to do with how the subject matter is framed.  It is no longer simply about getting more arts to kids but rather stimulating students' imaginations, fostering creativity, and promoting skills that make for more fully educated adults ready to enter a new and challenging work force.

But it is not only the name (arts education) and the advocacy strategy that is changing. So is the content and the approach.  Arts education/creative learning in the 21st century looks very different than it did a quarter century ago in many places.  Some things have been gained in the process, some things have been lost.  But the evolution has been fascinating.

Tom Wolf