En Marginal Revolution mantienen una “sección” de posts denominada Markets in Everything donde catalogan ejemplos de la utilidad de los mercados en todo tipo de actividades humanas y sobre todo en situaciones aparentemente poco propicionas a mecanismos económicos de gestión y regulación. El arte y la cultura son uno de esos ámbitos que parecen refractarios a que los mercados actúen como motores de la ceatividad e innovación. Pero, uno de los responsables de MR, Tyler Cowen, es un reputado economista especialista, entre otros ámbitos, en arte y cultura (y en la economía del arte y la cultura). A Cowen lo ha entrevistado Max Borders en TCS Daily con un objetivo muy claro, conocer How to Feed a Starving Artist (podcast disponible aquí). La entrevista gira alrededor del libro que acaba de publicar Cowen (Good and Plenty, the Creative Successes of American Arts Funding) donde revisa los sistemas de financiación del arte en Estados Unidos, que él considera como la razón de su éxito, sobre todo en comparación con la situación europea.En EEUU se aplican incentivos fiscales que apoyan la financiación privada de la creación artística; por el contrario en Europa se utilizan los subsidios públicos (con pequeñas contribuciones privadas, que en los últimos años han crecido).
A pesar de la apariencia, y del chauvinismo europeo, el sistema americano parece funcionar mejor dado que 1) genera mayor competencia y 2) los gobiernos son especialmente malos decidiendo que arte es bueno y que arte “necesitan sus gobernados”:
… the American government does, indirectly encourage our arts by giving tax breaks for donations to non-profits. I think the American system tends to be better because it involves more competition, more commercialism and there's greater room for innovation. Governments are notorious for being quite conservative. And Western Europe now is in a position where its governments face fiscal crisis because of aging populations, and European Union regulations. And they're having to cut arts funding. But Europeans are finding it harder to get private sector support because they're not used to the idea.
If you look at the 20th century, in virtually any area you name, consider only high culture; forget about Hollywood, forget about jazz. Look at areas like contemporary music, contemporary dance, and abstract art. Americans have been among the world leaders. And in part, it's because our institutions and our arts policies have been so effective.
Pero, en Europa el arte tuvo su época de esplendor en el Renacimiento y en esa época buena parte de la financiación era pública. La visión de Cowen es un tanto distinta: efectivamente, los mecenas eran autoridades públicas pero su comportamiento en el campo artístico es muy similar al de los mecenas privados de los siglos XX y XXI.
This dominance of government in European arts funding is a relatively recent development, and it post-dates World War II. If you look at European artistic revolutions from the past, it will vary a great deal with time and place. You mentioned the Renaissance, but private money was extremely important during the Renaissance. And even when it was government funding, it was very different from today's government funding, where you have bureaucracy using taxpayer dollars [or Euros].
Government funding in the Renaissance would typically come from a noble, who was quite competitive and looking to improve his own status. He was really acting more as a private individual. He would keep the art that he bought, for instances, in most cases. So it had a lot of the private incentives, even it happened to be the case that the people paying the bills came from government or worked for government or held positions in government.
If you look at Beethoven, most of his money came from the market. Shakespeare supported himself through the market. French impressionism arose, and supported itself through the market. So Europe, in its most creative times typically relied more on the marketplace, than the European arts have been doing since World War II.
Por tanto, los mercados de arte robustos pueden ser el mejor mecanismo para la creación, que por definicicón debería ser provocadora y poco conformista con el poder. Por el contrario, las subvenciones públicas, en contra de algunas ideas preconcebidas, tiende a generar arte conservador y que beneficia especialmente a las élites.
Borders: Government arts subsidy, whether direct or indirect, tends to benefit elites more than the poor: Does this seem right to you? And if not, what would you change about that?
Cowen: That's absolutely true. Government subsidies to country and western music, or for that matter roller derby, are quite small. If you look at the arts people actually consume -- I give the example in the book -- the art that children consume, for example. Children like colorful toys. To them, that's art. They enjoy it. We don't subsidize children's toys, either.
So I think it's a good reason to be cautious with subsidy. And if we look at subsidies through the tax system; again, this indirect subsidy idea we find that is really not something exclusively benefiting elites. For instance, charities, receive some of the subsidy indirectly, and those charities help the poor. Poor people give to churches in very large numbers; that's about 60 percent of all donations in the U.S. going to churches. And by no means is most of that giving from wealthy people. So those people benefit also. Viewing the regime as a whole, it's really not the case that the elites are benefiting, but rather -- through this decentralization, through this diversity -- many different groups are.
Para terminar una opinión polémica sobre la objetvidad del valor estético del arte, que Tyler Cowen defiende (aunque su selección seguramente desagradará a otros defensores de esta objetividad):
Borders: Do you believe that aesthetic value is both real and transcendent, or subjective?
Cowen: I believe that aesthetic values are real and objective. But when you say transcendent I'm not so sure, because the value of art, I think, is independent of weather we believe in any particular religion. So I very much believe in Art. I believe it's representing some real kind of beauty, or spark, or energy. And this is not just Beethoven or Michelangelo. I think it's true about TV. If you watch the Sopranos or Battlestar Gallatica (those shows are good) or Lost because they're getting at something real in human existence. And it is objective, it is out there ... but I don't think it's beyond the stars. I think, ultimately it's in us. It's nature. It's in the nature of mankind.
