Cities for Artists

**notdavidlynch** · 08-13-2014, 08:44 AM

So, I set out to dismiss New York as the go to destination for artists (of all types). I did so by gathering a bunch of statistics & data and devising a crude metric that's roughly based on 1) total population of a combined statistical area, 2) number of art grads who live there (based on survey response, but N is well beyond significant), 3) number of those art grads who are working artists, and 4) their subjective interpretation of how good where they live is for working artists...

I thought there would be plenty of places in the country that were over-performing relative to their population but, in reality, there was only one (it should be obvious). The results were sobering.

The top 10 (I will not reveal my sources or methods) - keep in mind that each represents a combined statistical area rather than a city proper:

1. New York
2. Twin Cities
3. Los Angeles
4. Bay Area
5. Chicago
6. DC - Baltimore
7. Boston
8. Philadelphia
9. Denver
10. Seattle

KM · 08-13-2014, 10:42 AM

Where is New Orleans on that list? That place is brimming with artists.

I'd be curious to see a comparison of U.S. cities with European ones. I think artists in Europe have it much easier than in the U.S. (This is gut talking, not brain.)

**ACow** · 08-13-2014, 12:21 PM

I thought there would be plenty of places in the country that were over-performing relative to their population but, in reality, there was only one (it should be obvious)

Can you share the one for the ignorant amongst us?

**Thoth** · 08-13-2014, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by notdavidlynch

So, I set out to dismiss New York as the go to destination for artists (of all types). I did so by gathering a bunch of statistics & data and devising a crude metric that's roughly based on 1) total population of a combined statistical area, 2) number of art grads who live there (based on survey response, but N is well beyond significant), 3) number of those art grads who are working artists, and 4) their subjective interpretation of how good where they live is for working artists...

I thought there would be plenty of places in the country that were over-performing relative to their population but, in reality, there was only one (it should be obvious). The results were sobering.

The top 10 (I will not reveal my sources or methods) - keep in mind that each represents a combined statistical area rather than a city proper:

1. New York
2. Twin Cities
3. Los Angeles
4. Bay Area
5. Chicago
6. DC - Baltimore
7. Boston
8. Philadelphia
9. Denver
10. Seattle

As a professional working artist for more than a decade I can say that is pretty damn accurate. NY will likely always be THE artistic center, but with Hollywood fleeing LA, it's position at number 3 is a little more shaky. I could see the Bay Area moving to LA's spot within the next few years.

The Twin Cities lives at 2 entirely off it's ability to undercut Chicago, NY and LA's higher taxes and cost of living. Regionally speaking between Chicago and the Twin Cities, I'd have to say it all depends on what you are looking for besides working and selling art. If you want to live cheaply, go Twin Cities. If you want a much larger cultural experience, go Chicago.

I am admittedly not as familiar with the bottom half as I always deal in the top five myself.

**Perdix** · 08-13-2014, 06:40 PM

Originally Posted by ACow

Can you share the one for the ignorant amongst us?

My money is on LA...

**LowIQLogan** · 08-13-2014, 09:16 PM

Ill try my luck at deciphering the meaning in this artist's statement.
The same list of cities in terms of population:

1. New York
2. LA
3. Chicago
4. DC
5. Bay area
6. Philadelphia
7. Boston
8. Seattle
9. Twin cities
10. Denver

So there it is obvious. (Twin cities) Although I don't know exactly why that would be significant to an artist living there. I guess it being cheaper being the main thing.

**notdavidlynch** · 08-13-2014, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by kitsune

Where is New Orleans on that list? That place is brimming with artists.

New Orleans would actually make it if I considered it, but I only considered the places with an N* of at least 1000.

If you're curious, NO would beat out Denver & Seattle.

* And these are educated artists.

**notdavidlynch** · 08-13-2014, 11:11 PM

Originally Posted by notdavidlynch

If you're curious, NO would beat out Denver & Seattle.

It would beat out those areas but would also be passed and driven out of the top 10 by others. So, just to be fair, here's a second, more inclusive list:

1. New York
2. Twin Cities
3. Los Angeles
4. Bay Area
5. Chicago
6. DC - Baltimore
7. Boston
8. Cincinnati
9. Kansas City
10. Philadelphia
11. Columbus
12. Breaking Bad
13. New Orleans
14. Denver
15. Seattle
16. Portland

4 major areas have no data: Phoenix, San Diego, Tampa, and San Antonio.

But, otherwise, you can rest assured that if an area isn't on the list above, then it's a shitty place for an artist to be (if they want to be paid). But, honestly, things will probably suck for you if you're not in the top 6 or 7. That is unless you're already well established and have decided to move to Sante Fe.

**Starjots** · 08-13-2014, 11:16 PM

Did Santa Fe make any sort of blip on the radar? There are a zillion art galleries there and in surrounding areas and I wonder how the heck so many manage to make enough money to eat. It's a fairly small place but does qualify as a metropolitan area.