New ideas so often come from the darnedest places, as Marcus Westbury notes in the latest Griffith Review.

Cultures emerge from the spontaneous, temporary nature of human motivations, passions, interactions and enthusiasms. They often form in rebellion and opposition rather than by deliberation and design. They are unique and idiosyncratic. They result from adaptation and evolution, and they have a tendency to be strongest in the places where no one is looking or particularly wants them to be.

I completely agree. It’s the niche, the thrill of creativity reacting against whoever that needs support. But how - given the focus shifts so easily - and how - given the creation so often forms in reaction (to something)?

Global cities increasingly aspire to cultural prestige for its intangible aura and because they believe it will drive economic growth.

Cities invest in this stuff for a bunch of reasons - cultural capital, potential economic return, etc. The big things need that support and they’re easier to support, being institutional like the government.

When Adrienne Goehler, Berlin’s former senator for arts and science, was out late last year she said a relatively small investment in local scenes (for example, local bars/galleries that aren’t priced out of the market and can then experiment with music, art or other performance) is more effective in attracting young, creative scientists, technologists and artists than huge investments in supermarkets, research facilities and so on.

Should the funding model be a little less bureaucratic and a bit more entrepreneurial: e.g. Kiva, Zopa?