Assessing the Urban Impact of Cultural Capital

This post is part of our Re-imagining Cities discussion series, following the third edition of the NewCities Summit in Dallas in June 2014.

One could argue that arts and culture are bound up with the city as their incubator. Yet when a city is looking to transform itself, authorities are often pushed to ask, how much of an engine of change are arts and culture? How do we assess the impact of cultural capital? We are also led to question whether some cities are better nurturing a vibrant cultural scene than others.

The discussion on Cultural Capital ranged from the universal, as Rip Rapson explored the notion of a city’s “cultural ecology”, to the specific, as Michael Eissenhauer enumerated Berlin’s 15 varied museum collections that are clustered into two areas: Museum Island and Kultureforum.

Meanwhile, Huang Rui referred to China’s complex arts scene and its relationship with urban areas. In China, according to Rui, two situations co-exist: a wholly artificial arts scene backed by the government, and a parallel, organic arts culture that has evolved underground and gained enormous street-level credibility.

Catherine Cuellar provided examples from her perch at the Dallas Arts District, officially recognized as the largest contiguous arts district in the entire United States, as it reaches the culmination of a 30-year period of near non-stop philanthropy. At the same time, Cuellar noted, Dallas has larger ambitions, including sending out Dallas’ homegrown artistic talent to the rest of the world, while simultaneously becoming an incubator of more artists.

Both Rapson and Eissenhauer fully agreed that while varying funding schemes and systems are taking root in different cities worldwide, there is still a common challenge of how to raise more and more money.

If a city is to nurture homegrown talent, it must support not only the major institutions but also alternative centers for creativity – Rip Rapson

Rapson argued that if a city is to nurture homegrown talent, it must support not only the major institutions but also alternative centers for creativity. “The big institutions are definitely the city’s mansion on the hill,” said Rapson. “But it shouldn’t make us forget about the other institutions – the gardens, greenhouses, and the wilds producing the local, individual artists, the ones who give us so much street vitality – and all of which contribute greatly to a city’s cultural scene. The problem with the occasional temptation of supporting and patronizing only those higher institutions of culture is that you would progressively lose all the vital connective tissue a city derives from smaller arts groups.”

Catherine Cuellar developed upon this metaphor, agreeing that it is the city’s role to “move the artist from the obscure wilds through the garden, the greenhouse, and, perhaps, all the way to the artistic mansion on the hill.” A city like Dallas needs to be a place that also inspires art, she argued, suggesting that a radio station could be set up for the Dallas Arts District to recognize and develop new talent.

An ensuing discussion treated the of major arts institutions in a city. Panelists questioned the often-underappreciated role, if not obligation, that larger cultural players have in bringing along their smaller artistic brethren.

Speakers

• Catherine Cuellar, Executive Director, Dallas Arts District – @ccuellar
• Michael Eissenhauer, Director General, National Museums of Berlin
• Rip Rapson, President and Chief Executive Officer, The Kresge Foundation – @RipRapson
• Huang Rui, Contemporary Artist and Co-Founder, The Stars Group

Moderator: Maxwell Anderson, Eugene McDermott Director, Dallas Museum of Art and Member of the Board, Global Cultural Districts Network – @MaxAndersonUSA