ID: 110016598 Everyone is an artist (Joseph Beuys).

Critically assess this claim in relation to theories and policy-making associated with the creative city. The script [of a creative city] may be characterized as follows: to compete in the new creative economy, cities should seek to implement particular initiatives: encourage creative industry clusters, incubate learning and knowledge economies, maximize networks with other successful places and companies, value and reward innovation and aggressively campaign to attract the creative class as residents. (Kong et al. 2006: 173)

The works of Richard Florida (2003) and Charles Landry (2005) have had powerful influence over policies that wish to pursue the creative city, especially in an age where creativity has become a mantra.. endowed almost exclusively with positive values (Landry 2005:1). The two theorists have posited that by completing a checklist of policies, with attracting the right people the creative class at its core, policy-makers will find success in cultivating a creative city. This pursuit of quick-fix solutions have often overlooked many possibilities for cultivating artists who can truly set a city apart from its other competitors. In this essay, I will show that the ease of following the script has caused policy-makers to use the above two theorists work blindly, often overlooking the everyday artist, and the value that he brings to the creative city. Hence, I would propose that instead of actively seeking out the creative class, which is exclusionary, we should take a leaf out of Beuys inclusionary view that everyone is an artist, and empower the everyday person to become the artist that he can, even though this might necessitate thousands of changes in mindset (Landry 2005:3). Firstly, when Joseph Beuys first mentioned his catch-phrase everyone is an artist, he had envisioned a world where people from all walks of life could contribute to their own 1

areas of specialization using their own creativity, instead of limiting artists to the narrow sense of producers of traditional artworks (Walker Art Center 2012). He had imagined that with this broader application of human creativity, evolutionary-revolutionary power will follow in creating a social sculpture a new social order in which every individual has a part in contributing creatively (Walker Art Center 2012). Hence, we can define the term artist in Beuys catch-phrase as anyone who is willing to participate and contribute to society and societal change using their creativity. This idea of social change can be manifested in his 7000 Oaks project, whose primary aim is to raise ecological consciousness (Walker Art Center 2012). The project involves planting seven thousand oaks, each paired with a basaltic rock in Kassel, Germany, over several years. Oaks are planted by volunteers, who can be considered an artist in their own creative ways of planting the tree. It is with the hope that the symbolic growing of the oak tree, a slow regenerative process, will soon find a balance with the basaltic rock, which is complementary to the oak tree (Walker Art Center 2012). Through this project, Beuys demonstrates that social change can be effected through any individual or groups of individuals, as long as they are willing to participate (Walker Art Center 2012). This bottom-up inclusionary idea of effecting change is vastly different from the present theories of cultivating the creative city today. As the quote by Kong et al suggests in the beginning, the prevailing script is all about a top-down approach in pursuing whom policy-makers believe as the creative class, which is exclusionary in nature because it excludes the majority of the population and does not consider them as creative. The idea

about the creative class was first made popular by Richard Florida in 2003, who was concerned about how economic fortunes of cities are intricately linked with their ability to attract creative people and thus spur economic growth (Florida 2003:7). Hence in order to attract these creative people, a group he calls the creative class, there is first a need to identify who these people are, and then cultivate factors that would ultimately attract them. So who is this creative class? It is not the everyday person as Beuys envisioned. In Floridas mind, the creative class is characterized by ones ability to create meaningful new forms, either in the form of creative products or solutions (Florida 2003:8). This distinction can be made between the super-creative core, people who produce new forms or designs that are readily transferable and broadly useful; and the creative professionals, people who engage in creative problem-solving (Florida 2003:8). Together, the creative class supposedly accounts for 30% of all employment in the US workforce (Florida 2003:8). Despite such an exclusionary classification of needing to contribute either in the form of transferable products or problem-solving, Florida further explains that all human beings are potentially members of the creative class since creativity is an intrinsic human characteristic (Florida 2003:8). This claim is similar to Beuys ideal world, where everyone can be that artist, if they were to apply their creativity. The only difference in Floridas world is that you are only considered an artist whom policy-makers seek if you are paid to use creativity in your work (Florida 2003:8). We can see once again how one is considered useful only if his works are connected to the main economy, leaving no room for culture and creativity to exist in a vacuum. This echoes Allen Scotts works who feels that

urban culture is rarely immune from at least some partial form of absorption into the general system of commodity production because of the marked convergence between the spheres of cultural and economic development (Scott 1997:323). Landry, on the other hand, seems to have ideas that are more similar to Beuys inclusionary sentiments of everyone being an artist as he feels that the creative class includes anyone who addresses issues in an inventive way (Landry 2005:2). This seems to cast the net wider as it may include anyone ranging from a social worker to a business person as long as they harness their creativity to solve urban problems (Landry 2005:2). However, Landry then qualifies that the creative class needs to have qualities that chime well with the needs of the ideas driven economy and also hint at the creative class having to be highly skilled and flexible, as this is a necessary condition for creating a creative city (Landry 2005:2). This suggests that he is again excluding the lower-skilled segment of the population in his discussion who might not be plugged into the main ideas driven economy that he describes as the prevailing system. Hence, echoing Floridas sentiments, Landry thinks that not everyone is an artist, as your worth is only tied to the contributions you make to the economy. However, this raises questions of who has the right to define who the creative class is and more importantly, what creativity is. Is it theorists, or policy-makers, or can it just be the voice of the majority? This question has been raised by Edensor and Millington, who wrote that the purported existence of a creative class brings into question who gets to define what creativity is (Edensor & Millington 2010:174).

As we examine the policies that pursue the creative class in the following section, it seems that policy-makers, who are influenced by renown theorists such as Florida and Landry, have the last say in defining who the creative class is. Hence, it is imperative to first understand what the prevailing theories are behind the policies that pursue the creative class. For Florida, three factors are imperative for places that want to attract and retain the creative class: technology, talent and tolerance (Florida 2003:10). Florida defines technology as the agglomeration of high-technology clusters and presence of innovation, talent as people with at least a bachelors degree, and finally tolerance as the openness to embrace diversity to all kinds of people (Florida 2003:10). These policies have struck a chord with many policy-makers, as they seem to offer quick-fix solutions for what seems like an elusive goal to attain that of a creative city. For example, in order to increase diversity and thereby increase tolerance in a society, all you need is to open up your city to homosexuals and there will be a correlated growth in your high-technology concentration, thus increasing tolerance and technology with just one move (Florida 2003:10). Such a policy again reveals the stereotypical profile of the creative class in Floridas mind. It seems that it is not only about what you do, but also who you are that makes you the esteemed artist that any creative city would like to attract. It seems rather deterministic then to label someone as creative just by their sexual orientation or their level of education. After all, Steve Jobs, one of the most creative people in our generation, never graduated with a bachelors degree and was heterosexual, yet

helped start up one of the most influential companies in the creative industry. Would he not be someone that a creative city like to attract? However, there are many cities who buy into this idea simply because it is easy to just implement quick-fix solutions, such as attracting homosexuals. For Landry, the creative city script is about advocating the need for a culture of creativity to be embedded into how the urban stakeholders operate (Landry 2005:2). For this to happen, both hard (the built environment) and soft infrastructure are needed (Landry 2005:2). The soft infrastructure is again revelatory of who Landry thinks can contribute to the creative city highly skilled and flexible people who are well-connected to both the society they are in, as well as the external world (Landry 2005:2). Noteworthy is that he includes people who contribute to both social and economic ends, showing that ones worth is not only dictated by his economic contributions there is room to appreciate those that contribute to a social end (Landry 2005:3). However, he did not elaborate further as to what a social contribution would look like, or if people might be paid for this, hence leaving policy-makers clueless as to how this might happen or what it would look like. This can be seen when Landry mentions how the creative city needs to identify, nurture, attract and sustain talent, and opens Pandoras box of questions as to who these people are (Landry 2005:3). Yes, in order to progress to a creative city, there needs to be thousands of changes in mindset, creating the conditions for people to become agents of change rather than victims of change, but who should we identify as those who need to be empowered to become the agents of change (Landry 2005:3)?

Let us take the example of Banksy, probably Britains most famous street artist. Banksy may not be the most politically correct person, nor does his ideas align with most mainstream policy-makers. His works often consist of provocative stenciled graffiti on the streets of big cities, ranging from London to the West Bank barrier, and usually made up of iconography rather than words (Dickens 2008:474). His message is often against capitalism, with the image of the rat representing the oppressed in the capitalistic world (Dickens 2008:474). With a distinct style of using stencils and his common refrain of being against capitalism, each of Banksys graffiti has not only reinforced his fight against capitalism, but also created a strong branding for his other works. This has resulted in his works being commercialized and widely accepted as art by the general public, with some of them even fetching hundreds of thousands of pounds. Despite producing work that is commercialized and somewhat plugged into the economy, policy-makers still view his work as they view other types of graffiti something that defaces the public space, and are hence constantly painting over his graffiti, just as they are over the other graffiti that exists. The reasons for why graffiti is cracked down range from issues of graffiti being a signal urban decline, a form of resistance against the authorities, or simply a transgression on public space (Dickens 2008:472). The issue of public space raises many interesting questions because to whom does the public space belong to? If it is a space that belongs to everyone, why cant anyone take the initiative to do what he thinks could enhance it, rather than leave it as a blank wall? Why does it have to be that policy-makers allow large advertising billboards to exist (that the general public might not necessarily appreciate), while cracking down on graffiti artists like Banksy (whose works are appreciated by a vast

audience)? In a direct retort to this question, Banksy remarks that the people who run our cities dont understand graffiti because they think that nothing has the right to exist unless it makes a profit, which makes their opinion worthless. (Reportage 2010:1). This brings us back to Floridas identification of who the creative class is. Advertisers and graphic designers who work on advertisements want to put forth the idea of consumerism and to support the capitalistic market through the marketing of certain products and using advertisements that are usually repeated and put across various locations in a city. This makes their products readily transferable and broadly useful as Florida would have it (Florida 2003:8). On the other hand, graffiti artists do not add economic value to the walls when they spray paint over them. In fact, policy-makers would have it that graffiti seems to be a signal of economic decline in an area, and would in fact depress property values in the area, hence even having a negative economic effect. Hence, graffiti artists are not only excluded from the creative class, but are treated as criminals to be cracked down on. In doing this, many policy-makers destroy the very vernacular creativity that come out of graffiti art, which might actually be a major selling point for a creative city. We need not look further than the graffiti that adorns the Berlin Wall to prove this point. Today, the Berlin wall can be considered the largest canvas of graffiti art in the world, and attracts thousands of tourists every year to appreciate the artwork there. Because of its strategic position of separating East and West Berlin during the Cold War, where tensions were high and opinions were manifold, it has been an important site of social, political and

artistic expression (Berlin Wall Art 2011). This is because on the West Berlin side, people could openly express their opinions since the wall was open to everyone and there was no prohibition on who could use the wall or what could be put on the wall. Much of the artwork remains to be claimed by anyone today, reinforcing the claim that anyone could be that artist. Although much of the wall has been removed now, along with its most controversial pieces, it is still an important site of vernacular creativity and to celebrate peoples struggles during that difficult period of time. With Berlin being one of the venerated creative cities today, perhaps policy-makers need to view graffiti artists in a different light. They might consider including them in the creative class, thus empowering them to be agents of change instead of making them victims of change because of the shifting discourse on how graffiti artists should be viewed (Landry 2005:3). However, how possible is it to empower these potentially creative people to be agents of change as Landry proposes instead of being victims in todays capitalist world? Morell and Duncan-Andrade shed light on how education can be used as a powerful inclusionary tool to empower individuals. They decided to engage groups urban youths in an English Literature education program through the examination of hip-hop music, which is something close to the youths hearts. These urban youths are likely to be largely influenced by the hip-hop culture in the United States, and are also likely to experience the same issues as the artists did, ranging from joblessness, poverty, rage to alienation (Morell et al 2002:90). This is because many hip-hop artists were found to be stereotypically youths from minority groups the same demographics that attend urban high schools that this education program was targeted at.

The goals of incorporating the hip-hop culture into English Literature were manifold. The first goal was to facilitate the development of critical consciousness in urban youths (Morrell et al 2002:89). This was done through critically engaging the youths in a series of discussion on the social commentary that hip-hop lyrics offered, ranging from issues dealing with power to esteem, after giving them the background of how hip-hop evolved a response to a situation of joblessness and poverty in face of post-industrialization (Morrell et al 2002:89). The second goal was to allow students to critique the messages sent to them through the popular cultural media that permeate their everyday lives (Morrell et al 2002:90). This was done in order for students to critically examine the messages that the media sends and also understand the social critique that goes on within their own youth culture (Morrell et al 2002:90). The third goal was more technical, to equip students with critical oral and written skills that would prove to be a valuable asset when they enter the workforce (Morrell et al 2002:90). This is a good example of how education can be used to empower individuals who might otherwise be marginalized in mainstream society, and their creativity ignored. This is important because these youths are most likely to be engaging in creative work when they leave school, such as that of the hip-hop music scene or in graffiti art. Hence, meaningful engagement with these youths from such urban high schools may equip them with skills that might allow them to hone their creativity and express it in different ways. Of course, some might argue that this may destroy the authenticity of the trade whose artists have experienced real poverty and joblessness. However, education is a first real step of empowerment. This is because it gives these youths more opportunities beyond just than

10

what they are currently doing. Engaging youths with what they are already familiar with may allow them to think more deeply into the issues that they are facing, and empowering them with skills to break out of the poverty cycle and hopefully use their creativity in a wider range of jobs or work, which may be either in the formal or informal sector. These few examples have just shown how important it is to be as inclusionary as possible and to empower anyone with any slight potential of being creative, thereby harnessing creativity that is already there. This is vastly different from the prevailing discourse of the creative city where certain individuals of the creative class are identified, leaving many others excluded. This new way of thinking is important because creating a creative city often has no set formula of success, as it often depends on the geography and history of a place. Hence, we can think of a creative city as a series of experiments that policy-makers can only sow as Scott proposes (Scott 1997:334). Since Florida agrees that everyone can potentially be an artist because it is such an intrinsic human characteristic, then policy-makers should ought to help cultivate any seed of innovation that might occur, so as to reap from the multiple fruits in the future, rather than weeding out individuals accidentally who might actually be the greatest generators of vernacular creativity. However in reality, attracting the people who already have displayed their creativity is an easier solution than cultivating talents. This is because schemes to cultivate talents, such as education, is an investment that few political bodies are willing to take as there are great risks and the rewards are uncertain. However, as conventional financial knowledge tell us, the greater the risk, the greater the returns. May policy-makers look to cultivating local talent instead of merely using quick-fix methods of attracting talents! [3271 words]

11

Bibliography: Berlin Wall Art, 2011. Accessed 20 April 2012 from http://www.berlinwallart.com/ Dickens, L., 2008. Placing post-graffiti: the journey of the Peckham Rock. Cultural Geographies 15, 471-490. Accessed 2 April 2012 from http://moodle.ucl.ac.uk/file.php/7788/dickens.pdf Edensor, T. and Millington, S. 2010. Christmas light displays and the creative production of spaces of generosity. Spaces of Vernacular Creativity, 170-182. Accessed 2 April 2012 from http://moodle.ucl.ac.uk/file.php/7788/edensor_and_millington.pdf Florida R., 2003. Cities and the Creative Class. City and Community, 2(1), 19, 3. Accessed 13 April 2012 from http://moodle.ucl.ac.uk/file.php/7788/Florida.pdf Kong et al, 2006. Knowledges of the creative economy: Towards a relational geography of diffusion and adaptation in Asia. Asia Pacic Viewpoint, Vol. 47, No. 2, August 2006. Accessed 2 April 2012 from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/j.14678373.2006.00313.x/asset/j.14678373.2006.00313.x.pdf?v=1&t=h17misp8&s=4e4fb7 649c42e09f66766871bf9b7bc6f3ce0a75 Landry C., 2005. Lineages of the Creative City. Creativity and the City, Netherlands Architecture Institute. Accessed 12 April 2012 from http://moodle.ucl.ac.uk/file.php/7788/Landry.pdf

12

Morrell E. & Duncan-Andrade J. M. R., 2002. Promoting Academic Literacy with Urban Youth through Engaging Hip-hop culture. English Journal, July 2002, pp. 88-92. Accessed 20 April 2012 from http://www.craftinc.org/literacy-e-books/promoting-academicliteracy-with-urban-youth-through-engaging-the-hip-hop-culture.pdf Reportage, 2010. Is Banksys film a hoax? Accessed 10 March 2012 from http://www.reportageonline.com/2010/07/is-banksys-film-a-hoax-do-you-care/ Scott A., 1997. The Cultural Economy of Cities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 21(2), 323-339. Accessed 2 April 2012 from http://moodle.ucl.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?inpopup=true&id=313270 Walker Art Center, 2012. Joseph Beuys Multiplies. Accessed 17 April 2012 from http://www.walkerart.org/archive/5/9363C19A950FBFBB6172.htm

13