New York: New Kathmandu
Both before and after the 9/11, New York has had the reputation of being the world financial capital. It is also one of the most important cultural capitals around the world. In a new book The Warhol Economy, Elizabeth Currid from Columbia University argues that creative industries like fashion, art and music drive the economy of New York as much as – if not more than – finance, real estate and law.
Andy Warhol was a central figure in the pop art movement who redefined the meaning of what it meant to be an artist. His ‘factory’ in midtown Manhattan, which buzzed with shoulder to shoulder proximity of peer artists and thinkers, was referred as the ‘assembly line’ of silk-screens. Dr. Currid picks up on this theme to argue that cultural, spatially confined, and historical cities like New York have bigger potentials for creative economy independently of the fact that it is a world trade centre.
Underrating of the economics of art, culture, and history over the economics of manufacturing and trading is a phenomenon worldwide. Everywhere we are witnessing a giant meta-economy that flourishes from the diagnoses, forecasts and strategies of what is referred to as the ‘hard core production.’ Dr. Currid makes a persuasive point that the world of abstract expressionists, beat writers, rappers, gods of graffiti—what is often dismissed as ‘leisure’ – is not that leisurely after all. For example, culture ranks only slightly behind the securities industry of New York in its share of the workforce and the wealth generated. Urban policymakers and economists have seriously underestimated the importance of art economy and politicians will do almost anything to keep the brokerages and investment banks happy. Dr. Currid argues that this fixation is misdirected and it has led policymakers to neglect the city’s most vital and distinctive economic sector or the culture industry. In other words, it is SoHo and Chelsea – not Wall Street – that make New York what it is and these are what the politicians should really be more concerned about.
The implications of Currid’s arguments are far-reaching, and not just for New York. Creative activities and historical legacies are continually pushed aside everywhere in the world to make way for dry commerce and production even when the city demonstrates lesser potentials in the latter. The argument is that employment, profit and hence prosperity would come from the latter, and the former is seen a burden that has to be done away with. Anything that gives any sense of art and history is said to distract entrepreneurs and policymakers from their core business.
Currid’s book breaks the myth of superiority of mundane economy over creative. A New Yorker’s assertion that her global cultural capital is as important as her global financial capital makes way for a renewed debate on behalf of cultural economy. Several other cities whose cultural and historical potentials are far more superior to their mundane economies may find this new wisdom appealing.
