September 1, 2015 Reading Time: 3 minutes

The economic benefit of the creative arts has gotten a lot of attention of late.  This issue is almost always couched in terms of jobs and income generated by people induced to spend money to experience, purchase, perform or produce creative art. 

Here in the Berkshires, efforts have been underway for some time to quantify the economic return from all the tourists drawn to the region by our museums, theaters and concert venues, and the income and jobs created by creative arts exported beyond the region through art galleries in New York City, and sales by local producers of art works to individuals and companies across the globe.

This spring, a debate raged in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts about the value to the state of the nearly $80 million in tax breaks doled out to the film industry.  Supporters have argued that the movie productions in Massachusetts create jobs in Massachusetts.  Whether the math works, the Legislature squashed the Governor’s attempt to kill the subsidy.

And Steven Johnson created a stir with his cover story in the New York Times Magazine, “The Creative Apocalypse That Wasn’t,” in which he presented data that suggested that the creative talent in the music industry was doing better economically in the new digital age than is often reported.  Criticism from the Future of Music Coalition raises the question of whether it’s even possible to measure the health of the creative economy.

Here at AIER we have been immersed in the creative arts over the last fortnight. Partnering with the Ensemble for the Romantic Century and the Clark Art Institute, we hosted a 12-show run of “Van Gogh’s Ear.” This extraordinary theatrical concert portrayed the artist’s final years through his letters to his brother, Theo, through dialogue, drama and music.

Between shows we talked with the ERC artists about arts and economics. They didn’t advocate for more theaters or subsidized work for performers.  Instead, they argued passionately that the creative arts should be a core component of every child’s education.  They made a strong case that the discipline and mind broadening benefits of creative art study make children better students and better citizens.

I found the strongest case for wide and early dissemination of the creative arts – quite indirectly — from Fordham University Professor Dominick Salvatore, who presented a pre-show lecture on the global economy. He made the case that innovation was the key to economic vitality. He was bemoaning the loss of manufacturing activity in the U.S., and said that to be able to innovate, you must be able to make things.  He said that the next iPad would not come from America, but probably China.

As the show developed, I saw innovation at work. I witnessed the ERC team transform the AIER ballroom into a theater, and turn the words of Van Gogh’s letters into compelling dialogue and evocative acting, meshing seamlessly with classical music and lyrics of the era performed with passion and skill. I saw the power of those trained in the creative arts to innovate and inspire.  It is one thing to build a better mousetrap, or circuit board. It is quite another to infuse products or services with the qualities that humans value. 

Rather than wait for the rest of us to catch up, artists are leading efforts to bring creative arts to children, like the Opportunity Music Project, which brings private music lessons to kids from families of modest means.

What I learned from “Van Gogh’s Ear” was that if our economic future depends on America’s ability to innovate, we could do no better than to make the creative arts a part of every child and adult’s ongoing education.

Steve Adams

Get notified of new articles from Steve Adams and AIER.