Columbus generally concerns itself with the question of city identity only when money is on the table, developer chum floating above our public discourse. In the most recent version of public square haggling, a regular target has risen to the surface: the Short North Arts District. The question circling recent findings about its usage and economic impacts (thanks to a study paid for by the Short North Alliance) is whether or not the Short North still qualifies as an arts district.
This wasn’t up for debate 25 years ago. The Short North was the area people in Columbus generally thought of when they thought of art galleries and places to see art. You could find art in other parts of town, but the Short North had a concentration of galleries and funky hybrid businesses within which one could interact with art. Its monthly Gallery Hop filled High Street with people off and on for years. Technically, it still does, though almost no one is looking for art these days. And the less than a dozen galleries still located in the neighborhood proves it.
Before we proceed, let’s define an arts district. On paper, it’s an area established for the purpose of generating engagement with cultural offerings, with a focus on art. All of the debates you’ve ever seen concern themselves with where such areas sit, who gets to establish them, how access is implemented, how long the area is generating outcomes in the interest of art, and who is benefiting or losing from its work. There is an entire level of examination that can be done about different types of arts districts – the difference between an arts and cultural district, how many non-art amenities one can roll into the mix before its title changes, and so on – but this definition is perfectly acceptable for 90 percent of the conversations people are having about the Short North at any given moment.
We must collectively do away with the notion that the title “arts district” is anything but self-applied marketing. Arts district designations have more to do with who gets to draw the lines than it does with art. Usually, a neighborhood association, civic group, developer, political force or some combination of the aforementioned comes out and says, “This is an arts area,” and then sets about developing enough cultural touchstones to mock-qualify. Conveniently, the bar is set wherever the people calling it an arts district say it is, so the next time you’re in my art-filled living room, be sure to buy one of my East Side Arts District souvenir T-shirts.
None of what I just said should be interpreted as a scenario without stakes. Quite the opposite. Once you convince everybody you’re an arts district, a lot of things start going your way. Public works money shows up. Businesses want in. Your police coverage changes. Tourism dollars appear. Somewhere in there, a little money gets sprinkled on top for public art. The district label isn’t icing; it’s an investment. This is why, while people may have different definitions of what an arts district is, the only ones that matter are the people who make and spend money in them. How your displaced artist buddy defines it is largely irrelevant.
There is something to be said about what should happen to the resources marked for an arts district once the district isn’t really about art anymore, but by then the people who live in the area (investors) and the city itself (developers, money launderers, and commerce) have no problem with an arts district going overwhelmingly retail or corporate. So go ahead: Move your art somewhere else. They’re probably already making more money without you.
Responses to the report have been predictable, mostly because people don’t care about data. They care about how things seem. Half of the people who comment on the Short North’s cultural bona fides admit they haven’t been to the area in years. And look, if you got rid of my favorite watering hole, my favorite food cart and several art-looking things I used to hit about once a month during Gallery Hop, I’d be less inclined to go there, too. I’m not here to debate people’s arm-length impressions, but let’s agree that it’s anecdotal. Data says 42 percent of businesses in the Short North moved there for the area’s arts orientation and history, but only 5 percent of the businesses in the neighborhood are actually art galleries.
How much art does an area have to have to qualify as an arts district? It depends on who’s asking. If you’re asking this of developers and civic agendas, the answer is not much. The Short North doesn’t have to have the same number of galleries it did 30 years ago for the label to stick. There may be little consensus on what percentage of an arts district must contain actual art, but one would think 5 percent has to be a disqualifying number. In any other industry you wouldn’t be able to say you do 5 percent of anything and then put that on the letterhead. And while you can find other arts districts that have similarly abysmal ratios, using them to shore up your low bar is like patting yourself on the back for winning one football game all season while standing next to a team that went 0-17.
Ohio State University recently announced its plan to cut the ribbon on an arts district, though half of it is stuff the school already had, and due to its insular nature, it shouldn’t count. I don’t know if this is an in-house rebrand or if there’s a City Hall-shaped checkmark attached to it. What I do know is that there are areas of town that have a bigger artistic footprint physically and historically that we aren’t having this conversation about, such as the King-Lincoln/Bronzeville area. (Someone other than former Mayor Michael Coleman please pick a side on this.)
The King-Lincoln neighborhood has two cultural complexes – Lincoln Theater and King Arts Complex – located a mere two blocks apart, an outdoor performance space, public art, artistic education programs, and several other cultural touchstones. I’ll plant that flag right now: I dub thee the King-Lincoln Arts District. Congratulations! You laugh, but arts districts have been built on less.
Considering how little art actually lives in the Short North these days, it may be time to switch its title from “arts district” to “cultural district.” This would please a lot of people looking to get paid off of the neighborhood, as “culture” can be more broadly applied. Most of the non-art things that people complain about taking over the area would fit more comfortably under the banner of culture district. And it would have the negligible benefit of changing the discourse from fighting over the arts to fighting over what culture we might contain. Personally, I’m campaigning for “Buckeye consumerism.”
Is the Short North an arts district? I have to say yes, but mostly because I’m not one of the people in the room who gets to make that determination. But then, the people who are in that room aren’t very good at developing art, so we’re (almost) even.
