Arts Policy Library: Investing in Creativity

Katherine Gressel, who has just completed her stint as a Writing Fellow for the blog Createquity, published last week a deep-dive review and analysis of the Urban Institute report from 2003, Investing in Creativity: A Study of the Support Structures for U.S. Artists (full report is here). The research and publication of the report, as Katherine explains in her review, led to the formation of the 10-year national initiative Leveraging Investments in Creativity (LINC) that is in its final stages now, as well as the expansion of NYFA Source into the online database we know today.

Investing in Creativity provides a comprehensive summary of previous research on artists, new findings, and current gaps in our knowledge. It also suggests new ways to approach researching individual artists. Investing is thorough because of its research not only on what artists think, but on how artists are perceived by others. Because it was a multi-city study, encompassing not just diverse urban communities but rural regions, Investing has the capacity to highlight similarities and distinctions between different regions, and identify nationwide trends. As I will discuss shortly, Investing also led to the development of some concrete initiatives to help artists.

Despite these strengths, one of my main critiques of Investing is its failure to provide more detail on how the research was carried out. For example, while the report describes “fieldwork through more than 450 extended interviews with artists, arts administrators, arts funders, critics and media representatives, and selected persons outside the cultural sector, and in 17 focus group discussions around the country,” it does not provide any information on the selection of these groups. Similarly, the report lacks detail on how the national poll on attitudes about artists was distributed, and who actually filled it out (and whether the respondents can be considered a representative sample). At the least, appendices in the report showing the poll and focus group questions would have been helpful. Instead, the figures and charts from NYFA Source data are the most comprehensive quantitative information provided.

Read the full review at Createquity.