Where the artists are: Introduction

Washington, D.C. is a culturally vibrant, nonprofit saturated city. Seeping through the cracks of our institution is an art scene more widespread and creative than we give it credit for. And yet, there are very few physically assigned spaces for artists to reside and create in Washington, D.C. Space seems to be just as limited for artists as it is for art.

But what does it mean to make space for artists? And why should we care if our artists have affordable, communal areas for production of work?

Cultural district researchers Stern & Seifert (2007) state, "While the arts are commerce, they revitalize cities not through their bottom-line but through their social role. The arts build ties that bind—neighbor-to-neighbor and community-to-community. It is these social networks that translate cultural vitality into economic dynamism."

Artist districts provide the space and environment for non-institution-driven art making, turning the creative process into a small, successful business. They hold incredible, albeit unnoticed, influence in the creative landscape of a city. Furthermore, artist districts provide space for creativity, community for feedback and support, as well as shared resources, and sometimes, subsidized rent. And yet, no one artist district is the same. The benefits of each neighborhood fully depend upon a district's creative context and mission, the physical design of the building, and even the organizational structure used to rally its members.

There is a popular dialogue surrounding the impetus and "right" and "wrong" construction of artist districts in the past few decades because they have notoriously signaled neighborhood regeneration within devalued urban areas and provided a successful counterbalance to gentrification with their artist live and/or work subsidies.

The history of this urban revitalization via culture begins with the first wave of cultural districts: cultural flagships, arts and entertainment-focused districts, downtown improvement districts, and major arts-institution-focused districts. The first wave of urban development tended to prefer the 'new' over the 'old,' where emphasis is placed on the new flagships, new employees, new residents, and new visitors. The second wave of cultural districts, on the other hand, started with corridors like SoHo in New York City, with developers looking for temporary, low-rent artist tenants to occupy real estate until prospective, wealthier, long-term residents moved in.

Today, the relationship between the arts and cities has entered a third stage that is centered more on individual artists. Places like Artspace, Inc. and D.C.'s Cultural Development Corporation allow artists to buy property or partner with rent stabilization groups. Cities are vying for individual artists and small arts businesses to move to cultural districts and spur economic growth and urban renewal and vitality. This obvious evolution in motive behind cultural districts—from the patronage model of the first wave, to the economic development model of the second wave and the small business development model of today—has allowed cities to develop a multidimensional concept of artists and the arts that finally includes the arts as small businesses, yet still recognizes the important role played by traditional nonprofit arts organizations.

My mission in this series is to explore where D.C. artists reside and create when there is so little space allocated for their craft. How do they produce their work? How do they create community? What wave of cultural district do they represent? I spent the past year entering D.C.'s artist districts: artist live/work buildings, artist shared studio buildings, and even artist centers to get to know this creative landscape within greater Washington. What emerged from this network and study was a confidence in the importance of such places and their role in social makeup of a city, as well as the significance of creative community within their walls.

More specifically, I discovered what makes artist districts sustainable, community-centered, and creatively driven.

At first, my intrigue told me that the spark of sustainability and community was driven by the ephemeral notions of 'natural' and 'built' artist neighborhoods. Outgrowths versus organizations. Cultivated versus implemented. What I found, however, was that these concepts of 'organic' and 'constructed' had very little to do with the success or failure of an artist neighborhood. In fact, the significant aspects of these villages have more to do with a balance between the natural and the built, the individual and the infrastructure.

This reality draws from the current third-wave model of cultural district development, whereby the institutional pieces provide important resources for artists, but the social pieces instigate the necessary momentum. So while it is easier for artist districts to sprout up as a saturation and social prerogative of creative types, in order to maintain their existence, they must also embody the same small business management ideals of leadership, management and organizational structure.

My objective for "Where the Artists Are" is to reveal this hidden dynamic of artist districts: what they do for the creatives within their walls, why are they significant to D.C. and our creatives, and why we should pay attention to them.