I thought there was a lot more to the work the Creative Class does than just what you had in parentheses. What about advertising, marketing, graphic design, photography and all the arts? Do you think his argument is really that old? It seemed to make some sense to me.BKM said:Most of the creative class stuff (software, animation, skilled services, movies, electronics design (except weaponry), internet-related activities) can be done far cheaper by Indians and Chinese-who are often as educated and far more dedicated than American (or Canadian) equivalents.
Richard Florida is very 1998.
I don't follow the logic in your proposition. With the exception of Berlin and maybe to a lesser extent Sydney, I don't think Cities that pursue Arts for their economic benefits alone end up with something that satisfies either the capitalists or the artists. Your contention that art assumes high disposable income is illogical. Many undeveloped and poor economies produce art that is highly valued within and beyond their own cultures.BKM said:"Arts" assumes a certain degree of disposable income-which is generated by "real" economic activity. Many of the communities thinking that they are going to replace their real economy with the arts are finding that shiny new landmarks provide a very thin and concentrated economy (see Gateshead/Newcastle Upon Tyne).
See the movie the Canadian Invasion (I think that is the title). it is a doumentary on how we plan on taking over the US through the exporting of stars such as Lorne Greene, William Shatner, Lorne Micvhaels, Eugene Levy and others.what about all those Canadians who are in tv and movies?
The problem is in my comprehension - we actually agree.BKM said:Maybe I am minsinterpreting his arguments, or yours (mea culpa), but I'm not dismissing the arts per se. Just saying that the fine arts alone are not an economic base for a community. I still remain unconvinced that a country with a huge population can run its economy on a few "creative class" "industries