I think it is fairly obvious that Hollywood is one of the greatest beneficiaries of the blend of free markets and free speech. I also think it is amazing that movies are routinely made demonizing recent Presidents, trashing the very economic mechanism that allows a director to successfully produce his film, and glorifying racists, genocidal maniacs, and homophobes without even the slightest apology or hint of irony. No one associated with these films gets jailed, stoned, or hung and the only form of censorship (to my knowledge*) is a role played freely by individual market actors by withholding their entertainment dollars, or having freedom to speak out against movies they disapprove of. (*Although, the history of the NEA clearly demonstrates the government actively censors art of all kinds when public dollars are allocated for their creation and consumption.)

Of course, many artists are not likely to share my rosy view of artistic freedom for a variety of reasons, but I maintain we have it pretty good in the free world compared to many other countries.

Economist Alex Tabarrok wrote a recent essay in the Wall Street Journal about how often Big Business is cast as the villian in movies and rarely are entrepreneurs and businessmen shown in a positive light,

Capitalism hasn’t had much good press lately, and when it comes to the movies capitalism never seems to get a fair shake. In the movies, capitalists are almost invariably cast as villains. Has someone been murdered? Are the residents of a small town dying of cancer? Is an environment being despoiled? Look no further than the CEO of some large corporation. Quick, name as many movies as you can that feature capitalists as heroes. “Batman Forever” and “Iron Man” do not count. There are a few (“The Edge,” “You’ve Got Mail”), but it’s a short list. Now name as many movies as you can that feature mass-murdering corporations and corporate villains? That one is easy: “The Fugitive,” “Syriana,” “Mission Impossible II,” “Erin Brockovich,” “The China Syndrome” and “Avatar,” to name only a few.

Most moviegoers can’t get enough of these storylines, but they are so hackneyed for my taste that I have a hard time keeping from laughing out loud in otherwise serious films where the villian is revealed as some Big Business operator where the scandal goes “all the way to the top” sometimes to the White House for extra added punch, depending on which party is portrayed in office.

Tabarrok correctly points out that,

In the big picture, art and capitalism work well together. The greatest periods of art history were often times of relative wealth and economic growth, as economist Tyler Cowen discusses in his book “In Praise of Commercial Culture.” It’s capitalism that creates the wealth that supports artistic creation, and it’s capitalism that provides artists with new technologies and media to work with. But when it comes to making particular movies, capitalism and art stand in conflict.

I find artists are often loathe to admit the benefits of the free market, though are happy to silently reap those benefits to line their pockets when their particular art is in favor with mass culture. In my opinion, this truth is one of life’s little ironies that deserves being uncovered and made fun of a bit, to shake artists from their holier-than-thou attitudes about art and business. The fact of the matter is, all successful artists (defined for purposes of this post as those who are able to earn a decent living off their art), whether they like to admit it or not, are successful business people and that means being part of the capitalistic mechanism.

I saw this quote from Mick Jagger at least 5 times in different blogs in my Google Reader,

…people only made money out of records for a very, very small time. When The Rolling Stones started out, we didn’t make any money out of records because record companies wouldn’t pay you! They didn’t pay anyone!

Then, there was a small period from 1970 to 1997, where people did get paid, and they got paid very handsomely and everyone made money. But now that period has gone.

So if you look at the history of recorded music from 1900 to now, there was a 25 year period where artists did very well, but the rest of the time they didn’t.

I think people are fascinated about what Jagger has to say since he is one of the most wildly successful and no doubt wealthy recording musicians of all time with career longevity most artists envy. Plus, he’s rich, right? Is he saying it was just good timing? (Nah, I’m certain some of that musical genius and epic charisma had something to do with it.) However, despite Tyler Cowen’s friendly rib that Jagger is no economist, the phenomenon Jagger is talking about is no less true and is explained further by Daniel Wolf of Renewable Music,

That date [Jagger is referring to] in the late 90′s coincides rather precisely with the mass introduction of cheap digital recording equipment and media as well as the widespread use of portable digital players.  The old model of radio advertising paying royalties for recorded music which was licensed cheaply for broadcast with the idea that randomly-heard broadcasts of songs were advertisements for the purchase of albums — which allowed the listener to select particular songs on their own — pretty much collapsed at that point in time.  The technological innovations leading to ever-cheaper and ever-more accurate recording and storage capacity were inevitable but the whole thing gets ugly when one considers that the firms selling the new recording technologies were, in many cases, also publishers of the music that was inevitably going to be recorded.

The “gets ugly” Wolf is referring to is the loss of revenue to individual artists. (Check out this scary graphic re: distribution of profits in the music world via NewsObserver TechJunkie.) This is admittedly a problem for most artists aiming to have a recording and performing career. Wolf further notes, and correctly in my opinion,

Although recordings and webcasts may have some advertising function, in the end, the grand experiment [of commodifying music] may leave us back where we started, with live performance the most important — and in many cases, only — opportunity for a musician to earn money.

While I will only mention the can of worms that is the issue of Baumol’s cost disease in live performance, I think Wolf is correct in that performance is likely to be the most lucrative way to make money. It is undeniable that the business model for artists is subject to rapid change, in particular when technology is introduced and dramatically alters the landscape artists have to work with.

However, I find it curious that despite the fact that individual artists are likely to have low(er?) chances of making it big financially in music, introduction of technology has helped achieve what has long been considered one of the most troubling aspects of becoming and artist and disseminating work: access to distribution channels. Never before in history have so many people been able to access A) ways to make and distribute their own music cheaply B) ways to hear music of all kinds cheaply. This is an undoubted improvement, as far as egalitarian ideals of access to the arts are concerned.

So, are we dealing with trade-offs (sacrifices) between access and profitability? Are there other business models that could evolve to put even more control of revenues into individual artist’s hands? Is what is “wrong” with the music industry the big labels in charge promoting watered down music, or the poor tastes (and thus, demands) of mass consumer culture?

This is a huge topic that deserves its own blog, so I offer few answers, but hopefully some fodder. Via Edward_Winkleman, an open thread about “whether or not art should be special.” Winkleman quotes a commenter who is fed up with the US art collector scene, ostensibly having found “better opportunities” outside the US,

On a personal level I feel that the object-based model (artist makes object, collector buys object), leaves something away from the experience. Art needs to re-enter life and to affect people at large as gestures, as life choices, NOT just as objects. “Art” is too concentrated in the small confines of the artworld and let’s face it, not everyone will fit that mold. “Art” needs to step out of its specialness and to re-enter the world as something more mundane.

Winkleman captures my ambivalence about this oft-repeated argument: art needs to be accessible, less elite, more inclusive, etc.

I’ve been hearing sentiments like this for some time…But somehow, I resist it. Not sure why. One knee-jerk (meaning, taking no time to consider seriously) answer would be that it’s not profitable, but very little about many of the projects we support are profitable, so I sincerely don’t think that’s it.

But the part of that statement I keep coming back to when thinking about it (and I do appreciate the commenter’s sharing it) is this:

“Art” needs to step out of its specialness and to re-enter the world as something more mundane.I’m truthfully not sure what that means.

If I can put words in his mouth, Winkleman goes on to describe how art is not, almost by definition, mundane. I’m inclined to agree with him. Art is distinct from mundane things and experiences,” or in other words “stuff that we take for granted”. I mean, who ever gushes to their friends about how they must go see the latest opera or gallery opening because of how “mundane and accessible” it was?

Of course mundane and accessible are two different things, and depending on how are we defining accessible – the issue is confused further. Do we mean accessible in the most literal sense of more people having more access to the arts in general? Then, congratulations! Never before in history have so many people had so much access to so much art via the wonders of reproductive technology. See Tyler Cowen’s “In Praise of Commercial Culture” for a thorough exploration of this topic.

Despite Walter Benjamin’s famous assertion that reproduction destroys the soul of art – I’d argue one would have to make a strong case against what I consider the clear advantage of technological advancement as far as accessibility is concerned. For example – what is being able to hear a high quality recording of a music performance, in the event that price, time, or location does not allow one access to the live performance  if not, accessibility?

If we mean accessibility as in “widespread comprehension and appreciation of art for art’s sake such that the majority of people can effectively commune with art,” then good luck, and I have more questions than answers there.

Winkleman continues,

And yet, I hear echoes…all the time. “Art is too elite. Art needs to be accessible to more people. Art should be something everyone can afford.” But that sounds like previous calls for wider television or internet access to my ear. That sounds like we’re attempting to reduce art to just another channel for information distribution, rather than some vessel for a hard-fought battle to transcend the mundane.

I don’t know…I guess I have enough mundaneness in my life already. Consider this an open thread on whether or not art should be special.