Artistic parasites

Recently, while attending a crafts show, I had the pleasure of meeting a regional artist named Andy Sewell. I've admired his work for years, so I broke down and bought a small print and hung it in my office. One of the reasons I admire this particular artist – besides the fact that his paintings are outstanding – is because I see him everywhere. Any time there is a craft fair or sidewalk gallery or any other excuse for artists and crafters to show their work, he'll set up his booth and display his pieces. He works hard to market himself and make a living. Isn't that nice?

This artist honed his talents and created his niche while supporting his family working in the corporate world. Only when he felt he could make an honest living did he launch himself full-time into art.

Since my husband and I are entrepreneurs ourselves, we admire others who pull themselves up by their bootstraps and make it on their own through talent, grit and business smarts.

Now contrast this with a statement by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who said that "thanks to the new health-care reform law, musicians and other creative types could quit their jobs and focus on developing their talents because taxpayers would fund their health-care coverage."

"We see it as an entrepreneurial bill," Pelosi said, "a bill that says to someone, if you want to be creative and be a musician or whatever, you can leave your work, focus on your talent, your skill, your passion, your aspirations because you will have health care."

"Creative types" in this case merely signify those members of society who produce pointless things at government expense.

This means all of us – you and me and Cousin Mabel down the street – are forced to support artists. But wait, there's more. What happens if an artist doesn't produce art you like? What if he douses a crucifix in urine and calls it art? It doesn't matter. You're forced to support him regardless. Isn't that nice?

So on one hand we have hardworking, talented folks like Mr. Sewell whose livelihood is solely determined by how well people like his artwork and are therefore willing to pay for it. On the other hand we have, let's face it, artistic parasites who are mooching off the rest of us because they can't make a living with their dingbat ideas.

As Joseph Farah pointed out, "In [Pelosi's] dream world, artists and photographers and writers have a right to lead some privileged existence free of the burdens of ordinary working people to support themselves and their families."

And from this kind of subsidization, we get artists who do not have to depend on anyone actually liking their art. This is how urine-soaked crucifixes come about.

Subsidizing artists, I suspect, has its roots back in Victorian Europe when artists found rich patrons to sponsor them while they produced their oeuvre. Let me emphasize those were private rich patrons. If the Duke of Earl wanted to keep an artist in residence, more power to him. It's his money.

But in a weird modern twist, today many artists depend on government money. That means you and me. We're all pitching in to make sure those urine-soaked crucifixes get made.

It's not just the U.S. that is afflicted with the artsy-fartsy crowd. Consider this English sculptor who came up with the brilliant idea of throwing a million handmade clay pebbles into the sea. Clever, isn't it? The aim, he said, was "to create a handmade monument to the people by the people for the people." How lofty.

He spent 16 years making these things and estimates "it has so far cost tens of thousands of pounds, with funding from the Arts Council, local authorities and sponsors." But with no more money coming in, the artist will "trudge down to the beach tomorrow and throw the last few buckets of his pebbles into the sea."

Ah shucks. My heart bleeds. (Sniff.)

He said it was "disappointing" to fail to reach his target, but insisted the project had achieved what it set out to do.

And what, precisely, is that? What did it achieve?

Look, if Mr. Codling had spent the last decade and a half investing his own "tens of thousands of pounds" into clay pebbles, I wouldn't have a problem. But he didn't. He used public funds. Most of us poor struggling Joe Sixpacks, English or American, are too damned busy scraping to make a living to feel a whole lot of sympathy for such enterprises.

Art, like any other entrepreneurial endeavor, should be subject to free-market pressures if an artist wants to make a living by it. My husband and I are not asking anyone else to subsidize our dream of working at home by producing woodcraft items. Mr. Sewell is not asking anyone to pay for his health care while he paints. A million and a half other struggling artists and craftspeople are sinking or swimming on their own merit as they answer the call of their muse … and it's almost guaranteed they're producing beautiful, sophisticated pieces that people actually want to buy. Not a urine-soaked crucifix among them.

Look, I realize some artistic and athletic ventures require public support to exist, most notably dance or non-professional sports teams, operas, etc. But these fit within the mainstream acceptance of taste and culture. If you had a sports team dedicated to deflowering sheep or a ballet company that celebrated child abuse, the public would not tolerate its financial support.

But on an individual level, the artists I most admire are those whose art is honed in the crucible of the free market, not artificially propped up by your tax dollars. When Nancy encourages would-be artists to "leave your work, focus on your talent, your skill, your passion, your aspirations because you will have health care," she is virtually guaranteeing the output will be inferior to those who aren't subsidized. The art world as a whole is dragged down.

But hey, maybe that's her intention. After all, she's dragging everything else down, too.