Minnesota takes pride in its investment in the arts. At approximately $8.04 per capita (third highest in the nation), it’s a figure we often point to as a signal of leadership and commitment. But it raises a more important question: What are we actually trying to produce?

If the goal is livable wages, economic growth, and long-term industry strength, then our current definition of “the arts” is too narrow. When most people hear “arts,” they think of theater seats, muralists, and museums. And, yes, those matter. They are essential to the cultural fabric of our state. But they are only part of the story.

The data tells us something bigger. Minnesota’s creative sector supports more than 100,000 jobs. It’s one of the state’s top revenue-producing industries. Yet we continue to frame it as a niche,  something adjacent to the economy rather than central to it. In reality, the creative economy is both deep and wide. It spans advertising, design, film, content creation, architecture, software, branding, and more. It powers how companies communicate, how products are built, and how industries grow.

Globally, this sector is projected to account for 10% of GDP by 2030. Name one industry or company that creativity hasn’t touched.

Despite this potential, Minnesota’s national standing in the creative industry has been declining for more than a decade. While the industry itself continues to grow, we are not keeping pace. A healthy industry grows at least at the rate of the broader market. An exceptional one outpaces it. Right now, we are doing neither.

On top of that, when we compare ourselves to states investing significantly less per capita, we see they are producing similar levels of output. That should prompt reflection.

There isn’t a single, perfect solution. What we need first is alignment: a shared definition of what the creative industry actually is and a shared goal for what we want it to become. From there, we can rely on experts across sectors—business leaders, creatives, educators, policymakers—to shape the path forward. Much of Minnesota’s arts investment flows through nonprofit structures, but that model may not be enough to unlock the economic potential of the creative industry. We likely need a portfolio of approaches:

• Expanded or modernized tax credits: These would be similar to film incentives but designed to support a broader range of creative production, from commercial work to digital content.
• Philanthropy playing a more catalytic role: Donations can help de-risk innovation and seed new models.
• Rethinking how public dollars are used: Legislatures could shift from program-based support to outcome-driven investment.
• Rewarding collective action: Subsidies could support for-profit and nonprofit entities working together toward shared industry outcomes.
• Building pipelines for in-state talent—especially young people: A healthy local arts ecosystem could ensure access to careers that are both meaningful and economically viable.

The goal is to build a system, rather than picking one path.

Creative careers represent one of the most accessible and adaptable workforce pathways available today. Many do not require a four-year degree, yet they intersect with the industries Minnesota is actively investing in, such as med tech and ag tech.

Minnesota was once a major hub for creativity, a place that produced campaigns that reached beyond its borders. That success came from alignment of talent, industry, and investment. Minnesota has a concentration of Fortune 500 companies and a startup ecosystem. What’s missing now is a shared approach.

This isn’t about having all the answers today. It’s about asking, what are we trying to produce? Who are we building for? And how do we ensure Minnesota not only participates in the growth of the creative economy but helps lead it?