Artists in the Workforce: 1990-2005 was released by the National Endowment for the Arts in June. As a statistics geek who loves putting research into action, I am interested to see where—and how—this influences arts funding and programming.
NEA Chairman Dana Gioia’s introduction to the report extolls the virtues of artists as hardworking (albeit underemployed) Americans, citing the following facts:
-Nearly 2 million Americans describe their primary occupation as artist, a larger group than agricultural workers, the legal profession or medical doctors. Of this number, many work in the for-profit field.
-The size of the artistic community gives the group enormous aggregate income—approximately $70 billion annually.
-Compared to other U.S. workers, American artists tend to be better educated and more entrepreneurial.
Overall, the report provides statistical support for many agendas. I was most interested in the data about where artists live. As large corporations consolidate and shift operations from small towns, I fear that we are seeing another post-industrial exodus that will have an impact on rural areas and little cities, making it even more difficult for them to support nonprofit organizations and artists. Already, half of all artists live in 30 metropolitan areas, and more than one-fifth live in the top five.
What does this mean for little cities? It means that they are underrepresented by of a part of the workforce that is educated, entrepreneurial, outspoken and growing in diversity. It means that, 25 or 50 or 100 years from now, the stories of America that are told through art history will be told by artists who lived in Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, DC, and Boston. And it means that, quite often, the best and brightest young artists will move from their hometown to larger, supposedly greener, economic pastures—not because they lack inspiration in their communities, but simply because they cannot find enough work.
Of course, one may correctly argue that the percentage of artists in the workforce of some little cities (Boulder, Santa Cruz, Stamford) is comparable to that of New York City and Los Angeles. But I am sure that artists and administrators in those cities will tell you that: volume matters. Little cities have small and mid-size arts organizations. Little towns outside of major metro areas struggle to build the bridges and partnerships that could attract much-needed state and national funding. And a playwright I know, who lives in the not-so-little city of Seattle, recently wrote me about his struggles there, saying “Overall, opportunities are fewer in number by far by far by far than Chicago. And recognition is that much further from the east coast. Like it or not, [Arthur] Miller was right when he said no writers could ignore New York or risk being ignored by New York.”
What is the answer? I have no idea. But maybe it’s time we put our creative shoulders to the wheel and start thinking about it.
