Artists Face a Faustian Choice

An artist’s life is difficult, nigh impossible.

Creative art alone can rarely support a budding painter, dancer, or singer. Artists are often forced to choose between raising a family or the possessive zeal to create.

Wealthy patrons spend multiple millions of dollars at lavish art markets such as the Venice Biennale and Art Basel on a few “superstar” artists. But the vast majority of artists struggle to make a living. Just read this RAND study.

States subsidize sports stadiums with our tax dollars, but spend precious few funds on art. In fact, they abandon it: Michigan may auction off its prized collections in the Detroit Institute of the Arts. The National Endowment for the Arts last year cut grant funding by about 55 million.

Government has neglected its role in education (see University of California) and private donors have had to fill the gap. Isn’t it time for philanthropists and collectors to focus on art?

Artists interpret the world for us—enlighten us—entertain and astonish us. They give meaning to lives lived in blind acceptance. They teach us and inspire us.

If Bill Gates can spend billions on medical cures, and the Robin Hood foundation can raise 1.5 billion for NYC’s poor, why not funds for artists? In schools, arts education is closely linked to academic achievement, social and emotional development, civic engagement, and economic opportunity.

If we create funding sources for artists, we offer the barest hope that a life of love and creative expression is possible.

If not, we force artists to make a Faustian choice: to live a life of poverty in pursuit of art; or to toil away in a “day” job that leaves the soul unfulfilled, left only to dream of—but not live—life’s possibilities.