Artistic Freedom Requires Economic Freedom; T. Cowen

Beethoven wrote: "I am not out to be a musi cal usurer as you think, who writes only to become rich, by no means! Yet, I love an inde pendent life, and this I cannot have without a small income." Capitalism generates the wealth that enables individuals to support themselves through art. The artistic professions, a rela tively recent development in human history, flourish with economic growth. Increasing levels of wealth and comfort have freed cre ative individuals from tiresome physical labor and have supplied them with the means to pursue their flights of fancy. Wealthy societies usually consume the greatest quantities of nonpecuniary enjoyments. The ability of wealth to fulfill our basic physical needs ele vates our goals and our interest in the aesthet ic. In accord with this mechanism, the number of individuals who can support themselves Tyler Cowen is a professor of economics at George Mason University. This article is taken from In Praise of Commercial Culture, published by Harvard Uni versity Press. Copyright © 1998 by the President and Fellows ofHarvard College. All rights reserved.

18 as full-time creators has risen steadily for centuries. Perhaps ironically, the market economy increases the independence of the artist from the immediate demands of the culture consuming public. Capitalism funds alterna tive sources of financial support, allowing artists to invest in skills, undertake long-term projects, pursue the internal logic of their cho sen genre or niche, and develop their market ing abilities. A commercial society is a pros perous and comfortable society, and offers a rich variety of niches in which artists can find the means to satisfy their creative desires. Many artists cannot make a living from their craft, and require external sources of financial support. Contrary to many other commentators, I do not interpret this as a sign of market failure. Art markets sometimes fail to recognize the merits of great creators, but a wealthy economy, taken as a whole, is more robust to that kind of failure in judgment than is a poor economy. A wealthy economy gives artists a greater number of other sources of potential financial support.

Private foundations, universities, bequests from wealthy relatives, and ordinary jobs, that bane of the artistic impulse, all have support ed budding creators. Jane Austen lived from the wealth of her family, T. S. Eliot worked in Lloyd's bank, James Joyce taught languages, Paul Gauguin accumulated a financial cush ion through his work as a stockbroker, Charles Ives was an insurance executive, Vin cent van Gogh received support from his brother, William Faulkner worked in a power plant and later as a Hollywood screenwriter, and Philip Glass drove a taxi in New York City. William Carlos Williams worked as a physician in Rutherford, New Jersey, and wrote poetry between the visits of his patients. Wallace Stevens, the American poet, pur sued a full-time career in the insurance indus try. "He was a very imaginative claims man," noted one former colleague. When offered an endowed chair to teach and write poetry at Harvard University, Stevens declined. He pre ferred insurance work to lecturing and did not wish to sacrifice his position in the firm. At one point a coworker accused Stevens of working on his poetry during company time.

He replied: "I'm thinking about surety prob lems Saturdays and Sundays when I'm strolling through Elizabeth Park, so it all evens out." Parents and elderly relations have financed many an anti-establishment cultural revolu tion. Most of the leading French artists of the nineteenth century lived off family funds usually generated by mercantile activity-for at least part of their careers. The list includes Delacroix, Corot, Courbet, Seurat, Degas, Manet, Monet, Cezanne, Tou10use-Lautrec, and Moreau. French writers Charles Baude laire, Paul Verlaine, and Gustave Flaubert went even further in their anti-establishment attitudes, again at their parents' expense. Even the most seclusive artists sometimes rely furtively on capitalist wealth. Marcel Proust sequestered himself in a cork-lined room to write, covering himself in blankets and venturing outside no more than 15 min utes a day.Yet he relied on his family's wealth, obtained through the Parisian stock exchange.

Paul Gauguin left the French art world for the tropical island of Tahiti, knowing that his pic tures would appreciate in value in his absence, allowing for a triumphal return. Gauguin never ceased his tireless self-promotion, and during his Pacific stays he constantly moni tored the value of his pictures in France. Wealth and financial security give artists the scope to reject societal values. The bohemian, the avant-garde, and the nihilist are all products of capitalism. They have pursued 19 forms of liberty and inventiveness that are unique to the modern world. Pecuniary Incentives Many artists reject the bohemian lifestyle and pursue profits. The artists of the Italian Renaissance were businessmen first and fore most. They produced for profit, wrote com mercial contracts, and did not hesitate to walk away from a job if the remuneration was not sufficient. Renaissance sculptor Benvenuto Cellini, in his autobiography, remarked, "You poor idiots, I'm a poor goldsmith, and I work for anyone who pays me."

Bach, Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven were all obsessed with earning money through their art, as a reading of their letters reveals. Mozart even wrote: "Believe me, my sole pur pose is to make as much money as possible; for after good health it is the best thing to have." When accepting an Academy Award in 1972, Charlie Chaplin remarked: "I went into the business for money and the art grew out of it. If people are disillusioned by that remark, I can't help it. It's the truth." The massive pecu niary rewards available to the most successful creators encourage many individuals to try their hand at entering the market. Profits signal where the artist finds the largest and most enthusiastic audience. British "punk violinist" Nigel Kennedy has written: "I think if you're playing music or doing art you can in some way measure the amount of communication you are achieving by how much money it is bringing in for you and for those around you." Creators desiring to communicate a message to others thus pay heed to market earnings, even if they have lit tle intrinsic interest in material riches. The millions earned by Prince and Bruce Spring steen indicate how successfully they have spread their influence.

Beethoven cared about money as a means of helping others. When approached by a friend in need, he sometimes composed for money: "I have only to sit down at my desk and in a short time help for him is forthcom ing." Money, as a general medium of exchange, serves many different ends, not just greedy or materialistic ones.

20 THE FREEMAN/IDEAS ON LIBERTY • JANUARY 1999 Funding Artistic Materials Artists who chase profits are not always accumulating wealth for its own sake. An artist's income allows him or her to purchase the necessary materials for artistic creation. Budding sculptors must pay for bronze, alu minum, and stone. Writers wish to travel for ideas and background, and musicians need studio time. J. S. Bach used his outside income, obtained from playing at weddings and funerals, to buy himself out of his com mitment to teach Latin, so that he would have more time to compose. Robert Townsend pro duced the hit film Hollywood Shuffle by sell ing the use of his credit cards to his friends. Money is a means to the ends of creative expression and artistic communication. Capitalist wealth supports the accouter ments of artistic production. Elizabethan the aters, the venues for Shakespeare's plays, were run for profit and funded from ticket receipts. For the first time in English history, the theater employed full-time professional actors, production companies, and play wrights. Buildings were designed specifically for dramatic productions. Shakespeare, who wrote for money, earned a good living as an actor and playwright.

Pianos, violins, synthesizers, and mixers have all been falling in price, relative to gener al inflation, since their invention. With the advent of the home camcorder, even rudimen tary movie-making equipment is now widely available. Photography blossomed in the late nineteenth century with technological innova tions. Equipment fell drastically in price and developing pictures became much easier. Pho tographers suddenly were able to work with hand cameras, and no longer needed to process pictures immediately after they were taken. Photographic equipment no longer weighed 50 to 70 pounds, and the expense of maintain ing a traveling darkroom was removed. Falling prices for materials have made the arts affordable to millions of enthusiasts and would-be professionals. In previous eras, even paper was costly, limiting the development of both writing and drawing skills to relatively well-off families. Vincent van Gogh, an ascetic loner who ignored public taste, could not have managed his very poor lifestyle at an earlier time in history. His nonconformism was possible because technological progress had lowered the costs ofpaints and canvas and enabled him to persist as an artist.

Female artists, like Berthe Morisot and Mary Cassatt, also took advantage of falling materials costs to move into the market. In the late nineteenth century women suddenly could paint in their spare time without having to spend exorbitant sums on materials. Artis tic willpower became more important than external financial support. This shift gave vic tims of discrimination greater access to the art world. The presence of women in the visual arts, literature, and music has risen steadily as capitalism has advanced. Falling costs of materials help explain why art has been able to move away from popular taste in the twentieth century. In the early his tory of art, paint and materials were very expensive; artists were constrained by the need to generate immediate commissions and sales. When these costs fell, artists could aim more at innovation and personal expression, and less at pleasing buyers and critics. Mod ern art became possible. The impressionists did not require immediate acceptance from the French Salon, and the abstract expression ists could continue even when Peggy Guggen heim was their only buyer.

The artist's own health and well-being, a form of "human capital," provides an espe cially important asset. Modernity has improved the health and lengthened the lives of artists. John Keats would not have died at age 26 of tuberculosis with access to modern medicine. Paula Modersohn-Becker, one of the most talented painters Germany has pro duced, died from complications following childbirth, at the age of 31. Mozart, Schubert, Emily Bronte, and many others who never even made their start also count as medical tragedies who would have survived in the modern era. The ability of a wealthy society to support life for greater numbers of people, compared to premodern societies, has provid ed significant stimulus to both the supply and demand sides of art markets. Most advances in health and life expectan cy have come quite recently. In the United ARTISTIC FREEDOM REQUIRES ECONOMIC FREEDOM 21 States of 1855, one of the wealthiest and healthiest countries in the world at that time, a newly born male child could expect no more than 39 years of life. Yet many of the greatest composers, writers, and painters peak well after their fortieth year.

Birth control technologies, generally avail able only for the last few decades, have given female creators greater control over their lives and domestic conditions. Most of the renowned female painters of the past, for var ious intentional or accidental reasons, had either few children or no children at all. Childbearing responsibilities kept most women out of the art world. Today, budding female artists can exercise far greater control over whether and when they wish to have chil dren. The increasing prominence of women in music, literature, and the visual arts provides one of the most compelling arguments for cultural optimism. For much of human histo ry, at least half of the human race has been shut out from many prominent artistic forms, and women are only beginning to redress the balance. Do the Arts Lag in Productivity? William Baumol and William Bowen, two economists who have analyzed the perform ing arts, believe that economic growth impos es a "cost disease" on artistic production.

They claim that rising productivity causes the arts to increase in relative cost, as a share of national income. The arts supposedly do not enjoy the benefits of technical progress to equal degree. It took 40 minutes to produce a Mozart string quartet in 1780, and still takes 40 minutes today. As wages rise in the econo my, the relative cost of supporting the arts will increase, according to this hypothesis. Contrary to Baumol and Bowen, the evi dence suggests that the arts benefit greatly from technological progress. The printing press, innovations in paper production, and now the World Wide Web have increased the availability of the written word. The French impressionists drew their new colors from innovations in the chemical industry. Record ing and radio, both capital technologies, have improved the productivity of the symphony orchestra. Symphonic productions now reach millions of listeners more easily than ever before. These technological improvements are not once-and-for-all events that only postpone the onset of the cost disease. Rather, techno logical progress benefits the arts in an ongo ing and cumulative fashion.

The cost disease argument neglects other beneficial aspects of economic growth. The arts benefit more from technological advances than it may at first appear. Production of a symphonic concert, for instance, involves more than sitting an orchestra in a room and having them play Shostakovich. The players must discover each other's existence, maintain their health and mental composure, arrange transportation for rehearsals and concerts, and receive quality feedback from critics and teachers. In each of these regards the modern world vastly surpasses the productivity of ear lier times, largely because of technological advances. Mechanisms in Support of Artistic Diversity Well-developed markets support cultural diversity. A quick walk through any compact disc or book superstore belies the view that today's musical and literary tastes are becom ing increasingly homogeneous. Retail outlets use product selection and diversity as primary strategies for bringing consumers through the door. Even items that do not turn a direct prof it will help attract business and store visits, thereby supporting the ability of the business to offer a wide variety of products.

The available variety of artistic products should come as no surprise. Adam Smith emphasized that the division of labor, and thus the degree of specialization, is limited by the extent of the market. In the case of art, a large market lowers the costs of creative pur suits and makes market niches easier to find. In the contrary case of a single patron, the artist must meet the tastes of that patron or earn no income. Growing markets in music, literature, and the fine arts have moved creators away from dependence on patronage. A patron, as 22 THE FREEMAN/IDEAS ON LIBERTY • JANUARY 1999 opposed to a customer, supports an artist with his or her own money, without necessarily purchasing the artistic output. Samuel John son, writing in the eighteenth century, referred to a patron as "a wretch who supports with insolence, and is paid with flattery." Even Johnson, however, did not believe that patrons were intrinsically bad; the problem arises only when artists are completely depen dent upon a single patron. Patronage relation ships, which today stand at an all-time high, have become more beneficial to artistic cre ativity over time. The size and diversity of modern funding sources gives artists bargain ing power to create space for their creative freedom.

Growth of the market has liberated artists, not only from the patron, but also from the potential tyranny of mainstream market taste. Unlike in the eighteenth century, today's books need not top the bestseller list to remu nerate their authors handsomely. Artists who believe that they know better than the crowd can indulge their own tastes and lead fashion. Today it is easier than ever before to make a living by marketing to an artistic niche and rejecting mainstream taste. In the realm of culture, market mechanisms do more than simply give consumers what they want. Markets give producers the great est latitude to educate their audiences. Art consists of a continual dialogue between pro ducer and consumer; this dialogue helps both parties decide what they want. The market incentive to conclude a profitable sale simul taneously provides an incentive to engage consumers and producers in a process of want refinement. Economic growth increases our ability to develop sophisticated and special ized tastes. D ARTISTIC FREEDOM REQUIRES ECONOMIC FREEDOM 23 Flags,Flames,and Property by Andrew I. Cohen A constitutional amendment that would forbid the desecration of American flags is again percolating in the nation's capital. As of this writing, the immediate prospects for passage look bleak. But this amendment has a way of never fully going away. Many oppo nents of the measure trot out free speech argu ments. And although concerns about free expression are important, these traditional arguments miss a more central political prin ciple that the amendment and resulting laws against flag burning would jeopardize: prop erty rights. The amendment would undermine key liberties for which the flag stands.