Withtime, arts have come to be crucial strategy devices formunicipalities especially in relation to district plan as well asredevelopment. Galligan argues that art and cultural districts alsoserve as a “strategy for revitalizing as well as reinvigoratinglocal economies” (Cherboet al., 2008). This is very apparent since the latter is verysignificant in attracting tourists not to mention increasing thenumber of visitors and in the process positively boosting theeconomies of their respective municipalities. The policy tools forthe arts in this case include tax breaks and rent controls amongothers.
Accordingto Galligan, one of the benefits of designating an area as a culturaldistrict is that it boosts the failing sections of a down town orcommercial area that is no longer vibrant. Two approaches may beconsidered when dealing with this the first being thedown town focused districts.This approach works by capitalizing on centralizing business andentertainment in an area that was previously deserted so as torevitalize it by increasing traffic. The result is a boosted economy.
Thealternative approach is Frost Krumpf’s culturalproduction focused district.In this approach, art and crafts are sold right where they areproduced. This is because artists tend to cluster in a singleneighborhood. The author sites the contemporary art center as anexample of this where revelers view the creation process as part ofthe overall experience. Second wave cultural districts on the otherhand, strives to view a cultural district less as an institutionalphenomenon and more as an individual one.
Whenit comes to artists, concepts of money, capital and commerce neverseem to make much sense. However, Vogel argues that it is critical tobe aware of them all as an artist as they are very significant indecision making. “Money and capital and commerce-subjects that aretypically seen, especially by young artists, as being from a foreignand alien world- will affect decisions at all stages of an artist’slife…” (Cherboet al., 2008).The author argues that the relationship between artistsand patrons always involve a give and take relationship and thepotential of conflict is ever real. The availability of newtechnologies does not change these dynamics as art always needs tomarket itself.
Theonly change which has taken place over time is who gets to sell theart and the price at which it is sold. In addition, the degree offreedom by which the artist must operate within the restrictions setby budgets, cultural as well as political considerations may also besubject to change. When dealing with art, the author points out that,demand is highly uncertain as it depends on how consumers value newproducts and services. This by itself accounts for one of the forcesat play in the life of an artist. Other than that some creativeventure for instance film need diverse skills as well as specializedworkers hence more pressure on the artist and the value to be placedfor his work.
Also,worth noting is that rent payments and royalties are usuallycollected in small lump sum dues stretched over long time periodsusually termed as arslonga.In order to counter such hitches, option contract forms that grantthe right but not obligation to sell or buy at fixed prices forcertain limited time periods prevail. This is because many costsincurred are fixed but also irrecoverable at various stages ofproduction.
ProfessorLawrence Lessig describes the value of the internet as the key thatfacilitates the conversion of literally and artistic appearance tofree information. He perceives the decentralized planning of theinternet as a room for the freeing of culture. This way, he observesthat the holders of networks cannot manage the creative strengths atwork at edges. According to the author, digital archives encourage ageneral environment of imaginative creation by benefiting authors aswell as users.
Theauthor points out that users as well benefit greatly from the newtechnologies specifically the internet as they get access to enormousamounts of artistic expression free of charge or at very low costs.“Users gain free or low cost access to vast amounts of expressionthat would otherwise be unavailable or difficult to obtain, oftenbecoming authors themselves through exposure to creative output”(Cherboet al., 2008). On the part of the authors, the internet has broughtsignificant progress too. Authors have the chance of availing theirefforts to the public very cost effectively. At times, it is actuallyat no cost at all.
Theauthor is sharp to settle in a disclaimer too that digitalization ofthe creative works cannot and must not be perceived as an absolutebenefit to authors. He argues that patent regimes, in theory, offeran inducement structure for encouragement of imaginative output. Thisallows authors to garner a financial return for their labor (Cherboet al., 2008). Therefore, it is important to understand that takingthe principal rights for reproduction and distribution of artisticworks in the author’s hands reduces the economic gains of originalinvention. This in return, negates the incentives for the works’initial production.
Cherbo,J. M., Stewart, R. A., & Wyszomirski, M. J. (2008). Understandingthe arts and creative sector in the United States.New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University Press.