JAM Magazine: August/September 1999 Issue: NEA- Government-approved Art A Scary Concept

Government-approved Art:
A Scary Concept

by Bob Blount

(Ed. note: A petition soliciting support for the NEA has been making the rounds on the Internet. It inspired the following commentary.)

My view of the National Endowment for the Arts may seem an odd position for a musician to take. But I'd like to offer some food for thought, knowing that I am in the minority among my peers.

Government funding of art is nothing new. Read the history of various societies that have tried it and you find the same result over and over: such government funding of art inevitably leads to government control of art. Details may vary from case to case, but not the results.

The very phrase "government-approved art" scares the daylights out of me. Would a bunch of Washington bureaucrats have approved of Miles or Monk or Bird? Those drug-addicted perverts?! Or, would Miles and his friends have ended up on the dreaded "non-government approved artist" list instead?

We all know better than the spin being put out about "artists running the NEA," because we all know exactly what kind of "artist" would rather work in a D.C bureaucracy than play gigs or paint pictures of (heaven forbid) unclothed women. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want that kind of "artist" deciding whether or not my music will be "approved." The cold, cruel marketplace seems like heaven on earth by comparison!

When Uncle Sam funds music (with criteria established by the likes of Jesse Helms and Ted Kennedy, but that's another story), the mechanism is quite simple: the IRS takes money from people who prefer not to pay to own and/or observe a given composition or performance, and forces them to pay for it anyway -- under threat of fines and/or imprisonment if they fail to deliver the specified amounts of cash.

As a musician, if I have any pride or integrity whatsoever, should I be willing to accept that kind of money for my latest CD? I don't want my music bought by people who were forced by the government to buy it! I'd rather have one willing customer buy my music because he likes it, instead of unwilling "customers" who fund my music because they have to.

The claim is often made that musicians "deserve" such support, which brings up another question: Does the musician truly "deserve" that money more than the people who actually earned it? I find myself unwilling to engage in such a blanket condemnation of 150 million or so taxpayers, most of whom I believe earn their livings fairly and honestly. I am also unwilling to grant that kind of carte blanche to an unknown number of self-proclaimed musicians whom I've never met.

(An exception: I have nothing against those who obtain NEA grants for "one-time" projects. I mean, the money's there so it might as well be used constructively. But not as a primary means of support!)

The counter-argument to this line of reasoning is usually the reduction to the absurd: "Well, then, what would you do with all of these artists? Let them starve in the streets?"

A clever try, but it is an argument built on false premises and doomed to fail. First, we all know musicians who receive no government subsidy but aren't starving in the streets. The bigger premise is that there is some omniscient "us" or "them" who is supposed to "do things" for musicians; that somehow this entity determines the fate of creative people (and those who claim to be creative) in one way or another.

"What would you do with all of these artists?" is a question addressed to no one, and therefore unanswerable, since there's no one in charge of running the lives and careers of all artists. And thank God! Enough government involvement in art would change everything, of course. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

There's yet another angle to the story. Examine the history of government-subsidized industries and you will find one specific thing every time: inflation. This applies to every government-subsidized industry, whether it's a manufacturing industry, service industry or even farming.

Increased demand for an item creates scarcity and higher prices. If government buys more and more "music that needs support," I can think of one immediate example of a "scarcity item": recording studio time. Do you want to pay $300 an hour for your next studio project so that a few folks can release vanity albums funded by you and me and all the other taxpayers? That probably seems like a stretch, but do your homework and you'll discover that it's not. (The book Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt is a great place to start.)

As government becomes a larger and larger "customer" for art, we'll see the same thing that happens whenever it becomes a large customer for anything: prices rise, leaving low-income and middle-income folks unable to afford it. Clearly, no government agency has any incentive to reduce expenditures, but they all have many incentives to increase them.

One last thought. We all need to pay our bills, and of course NEA money can help us do that. But if, as a musician, the government is my best customer, well, then maybe I need to improve my product a bit!

Bob Blount is a bassist, music teacher and composer who lives in Kansas City.

RETURN TO AUGUST 1999 MAIN INDEX

------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Kansas City Jazz Ambassadors 1996-2001. All rights reserved.






	Search our site:		Government-approved Art: A Scary Concept by Bob Blount (Ed. note: A petition soliciting support for the NEA has been making the rounds on the Internet. It inspired the following commentary.) My view of the National Endowment for the Arts may seem an odd position for a musician to take. But I'd like to offer some food for thought, knowing that I am in the minority among my peers. Government funding of art is nothing new. Read the history of various societies that have tried it and you find the same result over and over: such government funding of art inevitably leads to government control of art. Details may vary from case to case, but not the results. The very phrase "government-approved art" scares the daylights out of me. Would a bunch of Washington bureaucrats have approved of Miles or Monk or Bird? Those drug-addicted perverts?! Or, would Miles and his friends have ended up on the dreaded "non-government approved artist" list instead? We all know better than the spin being put out about "artists running the NEA," because we all know exactly what kind of "artist" would rather work in a D.C bureaucracy than play gigs or paint pictures of (heaven forbid) unclothed women. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want that kind of "artist" deciding whether or not my music will be "approved." The cold, cruel marketplace seems like heaven on earth by comparison! When Uncle Sam funds music (with criteria established by the likes of Jesse Helms and Ted Kennedy, but that's another story), the mechanism is quite simple: the IRS takes money from people who prefer not to pay to own and/or observe a given composition or performance, and forces them to pay for it anyway -- under threat of fines and/or imprisonment if they fail to deliver the specified amounts of cash. As a musician, if I have any pride or integrity whatsoever, should I be willing to accept that kind of money for my latest CD? I don't want my music bought by people who were forced by the government to buy it! I'd rather have one willing customer buy my music because he likes it, instead of unwilling "customers" who fund my music because they have to. The claim is often made that musicians "deserve" such support, which brings up another question: Does the musician truly "deserve" that money more than the people who actually earned it? I find myself unwilling to engage in such a blanket condemnation of 150 million or so taxpayers, most of whom I believe earn their livings fairly and honestly. I am also unwilling to grant that kind of carte blanche to an unknown number of self-proclaimed musicians whom I've never met. (An exception: I have nothing against those who obtain NEA grants for "one-time" projects. I mean, the money's there so it might as well be used constructively. But not as a primary means of support!) The counter-argument to this line of reasoning is usually the reduction to the absurd: "Well, then, what would you do with all of these artists? Let them starve in the streets?" A clever try, but it is an argument built on false premises and doomed to fail. First, we all know musicians who receive no government subsidy but aren't starving in the streets. The bigger premise is that there is some omniscient "us" or "them" who is supposed to "do things" for musicians; that somehow this entity determines the fate of creative people (and those who claim to be creative) in one way or another. "What would you do with all of these artists?" is a question addressed to no one, and therefore unanswerable, since there's no one in charge of running the lives and careers of all artists. And thank God! Enough government involvement in art would change everything, of course. Let's hope it doesn't come to that. There's yet another angle to the story. Examine the history of government-subsidized industries and you will find one specific thing every time: inflation. This applies to every government-subsidized industry, whether it's a manufacturing industry, service industry or even farming. Increased demand for an item creates scarcity and higher prices. If government buys more and more "music that needs support," I can think of one immediate example of a "scarcity item": recording studio time. Do you want to pay $300 an hour for your next studio project so that a few folks can release vanity albums funded by you and me and all the other taxpayers? That probably seems like a stretch, but do your homework and you'll discover that it's not. (The book Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt is a great place to start.) As government becomes a larger and larger "customer" for art, we'll see the same thing that happens whenever it becomes a large customer for anything: prices rise, leaving low-income and middle-income folks unable to afford it. Clearly, no government agency has any incentive to reduce expenditures, but they all have many incentives to increase them. One last thought. We all need to pay our bills, and of course NEA money can help us do that. But if, as a musician, the government is my best customer, well, then maybe I need to improve my product a bit! Bob Blount is a bassist, music teacher and composer who lives in Kansas City. RETURN TO AUGUST 1999 MAIN INDEX ------------------------------------------------------------------------ © Kansas City Jazz Ambassadors 1996-2001. All rights reserved.