Tuning Up the World’s Smallest Violin, Ready to Play ‘My Heart Bleeds for You’

Posted on | October 3, 2011 | 15 Comments

“Little attention is being paid to the way our continuing economic crisis is hitting artists, intellectuals, musicians, and writers, [Scott] Timberg argues. And he suggests that the way those livings are collapsing has put the lie to the idea that the 21st century American economy would be pleasantly post-industrial, an interchange of valuable information by individuals set free by computers and technology to gather in cool places. Reality is harder, and poorer, he writes.”
— Ted Mann, “Is the Creative Class Evaporating?”

Wait a minute, while I think about all the real suffering in the world.

OK, there.

Now, wait a minute (or perhaps longer) while I try to work up some sympathy for members of the “creative class” whose fate Scott Timberg bemoans in what Mann calls a “provocative essay” at Salon:

“It’s sort of like job growth in Texas,” says Joe Donnelly, a former deputy editor at L.A. Weekly, laid off in 2008 and now pouring savings and the money he made from a home sale into a literary magazine. “Gov. Perry created thousands of jobs, but they’re all at McDonald’s. Now everyone has a chance to make 15 cents. People are just pecking, hunting, scratching the dirt for freelance work. Living week to week, month to month.” . . .
A fading creative class — experiencing real pain but less likely to end up in homeless shelters, at least so far, than the very poor — may not offer sufficient drama for novelists, songwriters or photographers.
But journalists themselves have also ignored the human story all around them. In fact, the media — businesses that have been decimated by the Internet and corporate consolidation — have been reticent at telling the tale of this erosion. Good newspapers offer responsible coverage of the mortgage meltdown and the political wars over taxes and the deficit. But it’s easier to find a story about a plucky worker who’s risen from layoff to an inspiring Plan B than it is the more typical stories: People who lose their livelihood, their homes, their marriages, their children’s schooling because of the hollowing-out of the creative class and the shredded social safety net. Meanwhile, luxury coverage of homes, fashions, watches and wine continue to be a big part of magazines and newspapers.

Timberg’s essay is “provocative” only if you consider laughably misguided to be an acceptable definition of “provocative.”

Stipulate that a bad economy is bad for musicians, artists, writers and other “creative” types. This is why we never speak of, say, a “world-acclaimed Eritrean novelist” or a “multimillionaire Cambodian rock star.” People in impoverished nations are too busy scratching out a bare subsistence to pursue careers as dancers, poets and sculptors, nor is there enough surplus wealth in such societies to support a “creative class.” Economic prosperity is therefore a prerequisite to the flourishing of a cultural elite.

Timberg references Richard Florida’s much-discussed theory about the “creative class,” which was supposed to be the driving force of a 21st-century economy, but fails to see what was wrong with Florida’s argument: The clustering of “creatives” in certain locales was an effect, not a cause. Artists and musicians flock to these places because they seek markets for their goods and services. Demand creates supply, and not the other way around. No matter how wonderful you are as a composer of sonnets, if nobody’s buying sonnets you will be poor.

So if young poetic types are writing rock lyrics instead of sonnets, this is because the customer is always right. Whether aspiring poets are writing sonnets, rock lyrics or advertising jingles, however, their ability to earn a living by their talents is dependent upon the economic success of those who pay for their services.

What Timberg offers is an appeal to the narcissistic self-pity of the “creative class” itself. The readership of Salon includes many such people, and once can imagine how Timberg’s chronicling of the woes of the “creative class” resonates with these readers: The would-be novelist working as a busboy, the aspiring artist who can’t sell his paintings, the young actor who didn’t get a callback after the last audition. Yes, these people’s dreams are being crushed, but they are not suffering worse than out-of-work carpenters and accountants. A fitting headline for Timberg’s article might be:

OBAMA’S ECONOMIC POLICIES FAIL;
ARTISTS, MUSICIANS HARDEST HIT

But that headline doesn’t fit the narrative that the “creative class” wants to hear, in which the plight of downtrodden playwrights and out-of-work ballerinas is blamed on corporate greed or some other familiar bogeyman. Timberg solicits our pity for these Victims of Society, as if there were something more tragic in the misfortune of a laid-off writer for L.A. Weekly than for a laid-off forklift driver.

So I’m trying to feel some sympathy here.

Trying really hard.

Just give me a few minutes and I’m sure I’ll get there . . .

Category: Art, Culture, Economics

Comments

15 Responses to “Tuning Up the World’s Smallest Violin, Ready to Play ‘My Heart Bleeds for You’”

Joe
October 3rd, 2011 @ 2:47 pm

Back before Bill Maher got completely addled on progressive politics and way too much dope, he said that you don’t need a government grant to make a collage.
Joe
October 3rd, 2011 @ 2:56 pm

Yeah the current depression we are in are tough on artists. There is this myth that the government sponsored artists through the previous depression. Now the WPA made a few nice National Park lodges, but guess what, most of the classic public lodges we love (Old Faithful Lodge, etc.) were built by private corporate interests (mostly railroads) trying to make a buck. The Empire State Building and Rockerfeller Center, both built in the middle of the depression, both built with private money.

Supporting the arts starts locally. If you support the arts do so, at home. Do you go see a choir, or theater group, or like what local artists do in your community? Support them. Make donations, go to their shows, buy the art you like.

Keep the government out of it.
Daniel K
October 3rd, 2011 @ 3:30 pm

Art requires leisure. Leisure requires excess. Excess requires efficient, competitive productivity. Therefore, art requires efficient, competitive productivity. What part of that simple formula does the artistic class not understand?

Daniel
Anonymous
October 3rd, 2011 @ 3:33 pm

This is a way too restrictive definition of “creative class.” As one who writes software (for a living and for fun), over time I’ve come to the conclusion that to do it well takes a lot of creativity. Sure, there’s plenty of logic, etc involved (in fact, the activity itself is a lot like my undergrad math major days, which is one reason I love it).

I suspect that people like architects and engineers would feel the same way about a lot of the stuff they do. Just because our output is useful as something other than a luxury good does not make it any less a product of creativity.

Anyways, I thought Obamacare was gonna allow these slackers to do what they loved, or whatever.
Daily Pundit » The Naked Creative Emperors
October 3rd, 2011 @ 11:38 am

[…] Tuning Up the World’s Smallest Violin, Ready to Play ‘My Heart Bleeds for You’ : The Other McC… Stipulate that a bad economy is bad for musicians, artists, writers and other “creative” types. This is why we never speak of, say, a “world-acclaimed Eritrean novelist” or a “multimillionaire Cambodian rock star.” People in impoverished nations are too busy scratching out a bare subsistence to pursue careers as dancers, poets and sculptors, nor is there enough surplus wealth in such societies to support a “creative class.” Economic prosperity is therefore a prerequisite to the flourishing of a cultural elite. […]
Richard Mcenroe
October 3rd, 2011 @ 3:39 pm

“that the 21st century American economy would be pleasantly post-industrial, an interchange of valuable information by individuals set free by computers and technology to gather in cool places. ”

Hey, if CB radio couldn’t do that, nothing can…

Scarymatt — absolutely, creativity extends beyond the arts. My mechanic who keeps my 90′ Old Cutlass running is creative; the guy who runs my office, not an artistic bone in his body, despite his pretentions.
DaveO
October 3rd, 2011 @ 3:46 pm

Creativity doesn’t just disappear – but the venues for demonstrating creativity are disappearing. Whether through hyper-regulation, such as ensuring all toys for children are lead-free (except for Mattel, which pays Obama very very generously for its exemption), or changes through technology such as ebooks replacing printed books.

We can fix the hyper-regulation. The market can fix technological and cultural adaptation.
Dave
October 3rd, 2011 @ 3:54 pm

I thought suffering was supposed to be good for the artist. Don’t consider it a recession, consider it post graduate training!
Richard Mcenroe
October 3rd, 2011 @ 3:58 pm

You know what? If you’re an artist, you’ll create art. You’ll take a shitty job, you’ll live in a dump, you’ll eat the store-brand generics, but you’ll write, you’ll paint, you’ll audition, you’ll perform. Regardless. It would be nice if that led to fame and fortune but there are no guarantees, no more for you than for some assembly line worker or farm hand.

If you’re an artist, that won’t matter. If you’re the kind of artist who has to demand grants, live in an ‘artistic’ community, or wallow in fannish acclaim, then your stuff probably lacks the insight to make it interesting.

Steinbeck had to pour cement to make ends meet. Faulkner had to sweat to support a family and extended circle of dependents. Patrick O’Brian didn’t write his first bestseller until his seventies.

Get over yourself and do the work.
Joe
October 3rd, 2011 @ 4:27 pm

No Medicis, no art patrons.
Christy Waters
October 3rd, 2011 @ 5:12 pm

This is the same Govt. that funded smut pictures that would’ve been called porn if you’d found them on the internet, but put them in a fancy frame and hang them on the wall of the Smithsonian, and all of a sudden they’re called “art.” Well, trez chick!

Don’t forget, we have to raise taxes to fund stuff like this, because we certainly can’t cut any spending! Think about that the next time you need new tires for your car, or your roof needs repair. You don’t need that money. Your all-powerful, omnipresent Govt knows much better than you, how to spend it!

If I had my way, the National Endowment for the Arts would be completely shuttered. If someone is talented in artistic endeavors, the market will reward them. Otherwise, they need to find another line of work.
Bob Belvedere
October 3rd, 2011 @ 5:29 pm

I believe that was Nancy Pelosi’s dream:

Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance…

And I say to myself, what a wonderful world……….

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/pelosi-health-care-reform-will-finally-allow-artists-focus-being-unemployed-comfortably
Anonymous
October 3rd, 2011 @ 5:32 pm

What, are you saying she was wrong?!

Yeah, that was my inspiration for the sentiment. So many liberal dreams could be solved by the elimination of scarcity. You’d think we’d have figured that out by now…
David
October 3rd, 2011 @ 8:44 pm

‘Seventies?!’

Boy, I feel better now!
Anonymous
October 4th, 2011 @ 3:04 am

Joe Donelly is so full of shit his eyes are brown…..

And as for the “creative class”, I think Jo Dee Messina got it right….