The Cost of Culture

Musician/Composer Survey published by the McKnight Foundation

Philip Blackburn Ê

War was being waged and Winston ChurchillÕs advisors ventured to suggest that BritainÕs arts budget might need to be cut back. "Of course not.," he replied. "ThatÕs what weÕre fighting for."

In the absence of similarly ringing endorsements from our nationÕs leaders in recent years, it is high time to ask again just who is paying for this thing called culture. And the obvious ranking is not guv, not the State of Minnesota, not even the McKnight Foundation, but the artists themselves, followed closely by their spouses. Reading the musiciansÕ responses to the Cost of Culture survey one gains the impression that the artists have not only borne the financial costs but also the emotional brunt. In what other industry have the laws of supply and demand, career development, job security, labor strikes, and achievement standards been so spectacularly disproved? These labors of love are tricky to measure and harder to unionize.

The elegance of this survey in an age of dry statistical polls is its personal touch; it uses words that cannot be scored by machine. The responses are not censored (though I wish you could see the original handwritten version, each so individual). We have been given a chance to go on record, for our voice to be heard. And even if nothing comes of it, I hear a chorus behind these responses, saying "Thanks for asking."

Self-proposed annual income for the field ranges from $10,000 to $100,000 but it is hard to tell if this represents wishful thinking or obscene reality. At any rate it seems artists have plenty to teach the world about frugality and the art of survival. We have also pioneered the field of job insecurity; in these days of mergers, layoffs and takeovers, everyone can now enjoy the lifestyle with which artists have been familiar for years. Pluralism is back, and having several jobs to support the art and family is not uncommon, although having pro-rated health benefits certainly is. One suggests becoming a stripper while another cautions us not to become a construction worker.

It surprises me how many artists claim their music suffers when they are faced with having to do a second job. IÕd have thought we were isolated enough. Perhaps there is an ideal ratio of life-enriching experience to music, or perhaps it is simply seen as a drain on time and energy. As one put it, "If you can at least get a good song out of the experience, itÕs not a complete loss."

Likewise most respondents are eager for the welfare State to do more, yet few seem concerned about the responsibilities that would entail. We in the U.S. may have freedom of speech but freedom of art, especially when guv is paying for it, seems altogether too enlightened just yet. While serving as an agent of the propaganda machine (or of the marketplace, for that matter) may have its rewards, it jeopardizes one of the joys of being a creative artist; self-determination. As hobo composer Harry Partch once said: "To be an American? One has the right to pursue an ideal sedulously, to go hungry if necessary."

If poverty and neglect have not stopped our artistic efforts, nothing will. More time, money and attention would do no harm. Sharing these stories might help too. We will continue the subversive activity of composing our lives, bringing useless beauty and the mysterious benefits of culture to an uncomprehending public. The real cost of culture is the human toll, and that is measured in aspirins not dollars.

Home CV Compositions Articles Instruments Shoji Gallery Contact