Money, money, money, must be funny, in a rich man’s world.
Money, money, money, always sunny, in a rich man’s world.
~ ABBA
It’s become distressingly common (in my experience) to meet young people in the U.S. nowadays and hear about their plans to become a multi-millionaire. This has happened to me way more often than I would have thought normal or possible, and has made me wonder: what has changed since I was a young person, when what I thought about was planning out my degree and job opportunities, what I was going to do with my life?
Part of the answer is that young people are becoming more insecure about their futures, having watched their parents become less secure. With safety net programs like Social Security being threatened in the U.S., it feels like the source of that threat is all around us.
There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with becoming a multi-millionaire, but should that in itself be a goal and measure of one’s life success? What are we losing in someone’s creative contribution if their only focus is to churn money? We already know that we pay a high price in lost creativity when it comes to poverty. But what about the alternative other end of the spectrum, fabulous wealth?
Research shows that a higher percentage of people will go into the arts if they come from a wealthier situation. Wealth allows children to choose a career that interests them. Budding artists from U.S. households with an annual income of one million are ten times more likely to become artists than those from families with a $100,000 income. A long time may pass between training and actually making any money, and those who choose a creative career need to know they will have support until they get established. Here’s a telling statistic: only 1 in 6 artists makes more than $25,000 annually in the U.S.
Since Caucasian families typically have significantly higher personal financial resources than black or hispanic families, this means that we are missing out on a heck of a lot of artistic and creative output from minority groups simply because of personal revenue. In fact, we know that today, only about twenty per cent of self-identified professional creatives are non-white. (This is why most symphony orchestras employ a high percentage - around 85% - of white musicians.)
All the things I could do, if I had a little money. ~ ABBA
Historically, even going as far back as da Vinci, this has always been true. Either your family had the money to support your artistic leanings, or some other patron did. Here are some well-known artists whose work may never have come to fruition, or known to the public, without the support of family or royal/wealthy patrons:
Michelangelo
Da Vinci
Rembrandt
Eduoard Manet
Georges Seurat
Paul Cezanne
Mozart
Beethoven
Shakespeare
But then along comes someone like Van Gogh, one of the world’s bright lights in the historical art world, sold only one work, and passed away at way too young an age (thirty-seven). When I stand in front of one of his luminous masterpieces today, I am moved equally by his genius, as by his tragedy, and what was lost because of the brevity of his life.
All these young people who are planning on becoming, or already are, multi-millionaires are likely not going to do it by becoming artists and musicians, although they may end up supporting artists by buying art or providing patronage. But there is a notable gap in consciousness when it comes to the future of the arts: many potential patrons don’t realize their responsibility, that it’s up to them to keep the art coming with financial support.
When I was working in arts administration in Milwaukee, WI, I was surprised when the corporate person I was assigned to in a fund-raising campaign didn’t realize that the revenue of ticket sales to a symphony concert didn’t begin to cover the operational costs of the institution, and usually only accounts for about half of the budget. His comment, “You mean, I’m sitting in a subsidized seat???”, was a telling indication of the misunderstanding corporate America has with its arts institutions. That’s both a problem of perception and of messaging, and many orchestras have fallen victim to existential threats because of those issues.
So our challenge is twofold: we don’t have enough people choosing art as a career because of lack of resources, which results in a tremendous loss of creative capital, and we don’t have enough people or institutions with wealth choosing to support the arts in a meaningful way, one that ensures the future of art as healthy and thriving.
Here are some fixes, some of which are done in other countries such as Germany and Finland:
Patronage from people and families whose net assets exceed $3 million, or have family incomes greater than $300,000 per year. If the creative output involves things that are for sale, such as artworks, the alternative is to buy and collect these things
Attend events that include, or primarily focus on, forms of creativity
Support scientific studies and/or non-profit institutions that specialize in creative development
Advocate for the U.S. government to provide a lot more subsidies that are common in parts of the rest of the world. These can be especially focused on nonprofits.
Encourage family foundations to provide support, as above.
Advocate or create legislation to make companies donate a small percentage of their net income to the arts and science, but both equally.
Change the national habits regarding matching grants for employees to give away, so that they can serve individual creators, in addition to the nonprofit sector companies.
Make it a necessity that banks and other institutions that shovel money devote a good part of their public goodwill to arts and sciences. Some already do that (e.g. Bank of America has a well thought through program), but others don't, and all together the percentage of their net profit going to creativity is too small.
In this age of AI, many jobs will be taken over by machines. We need to get ahead of that curve by recognizing the invaluable contribution creative people make to our quality of life and to our growth as a species.
Comentários