The ‘creative communities’ label entered public discourse in a major way in 2002 following the publication of Richard Florida’s book The Rise of the Creative Class. However, there is more than one way to define a creative community, yet a look at some applications of the term reveals a linear thought process when it comes to understanding people’s place in pre-industrial society.
It has been excessively well documented that countries and cities everywhere have responded positively to Florida’s message that creative communities are vital to attract and retain a skilled middle class – the basis for economically viable and sustainable cities – who enjoy consuming the products and experiences generated by creative types. But the same label can also be applied to another group of people: arts practitioners working with local residents to bring about social, cultural and educational benefits to local communities.
These latter creative communities may not have the prominent economic importance, high paying employment opportunities, or the same cool image as the ‘creative class’ to which Florida refers, yet they represent a vital collaboration between artists and non-artists within a defined geographic area that aims to improve the life-experience of those involved.
The challenge of fostering a nationwide network of such creative communities was taken up by the National Guild of Community Schools of the Arts, with support from National Endowment for the Arts and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Guild’s Creative Communications Initiative (CCI) was established ‘to foster broad access to quality arts education to meet [the] community needs…[of] a population of children in the United States—residents of public housing communities—whose developmental needs are largely overlooked.’
Through CCI, ’20 community schools of the arts in 20 separate states are providing free instruction by professional artists after-school and on weekends for children and youth living in public housing communities.’ An independent evaluation of the scheme, authored by Emc.Arts, reported significant benefits to residents including that the ‘programs are at the center of visions for community change that stress the empowerment of residents and the creation of opportunities for parental involvement, employment, and educational change.’
These creative communities are usually nurtured at a grass roots level but that hasn’t prevented organization such as the UK’s Creative Center for Communities (CCC) from sharing its knowledge at an international level. The thinking behind CCC is that collaboration between citizens is the basis for building successful communities. And it is this same philosophy that underpins the Inter-American Development Bank’s approach to defining and realizing its own version of sustainable creative communities.
IADP’s own Creative Community Initiative (CCI) aims to ‘encourage local communities and citizens to actively involve and participate in creating their own communities by using information and communication technologies that reflect the true needs of communities/citizens.’ IADP’s view dovetails with that of Industry Canada which, according to IADP reports that ‘communities around the world are responding to the needs of their citizens by discovering new ways of using information and communication technologies for economic, social and cultural development. Communities and countries that take advantage of these new technologies will create jobs and economic growth as well as improve the overall quality of life within their communities.’
What we appear to be seeing is the evolution of a thought process that puts the needs and welfare of citizens at the heart of community (and city) development. And given the strength of public support for the arts, that such a process should gain momentum is encouraging for creative communities everywhere.
