Income inequality and the artist

The old belief was that college was the ticket to the fabled middle class American Dream. In this belief system, a four-year college diploma was worth more than a diploma from a two-year college.

The belief did deliver for a while. A great number attended state schools in their regions, graduated, and went on to own homes in the suburbs.

Over the recent years, however, this belief system has stopped delivering.

Students are now graduating with debts that are beyond most of our imaginations, and graduates often end up in jobs for which it seems like college degrees are not required and the pay isn't great either. The dream of owning a home and having kids gets postponed. Sometimes the dreams are simply that.

It is not that the "value" of college education itself has changed. The political economy in the world outside the college campus has changed--radically. Average wages have not kept up with the times. There is plenty of money being made by a few, while the vast middle struggles. Increasingly, the money is made by a very few in the rapidly shape-shifting technology world, while the rest are left behind in the silicon dust.

In this structure, it has become a nightmare for those who majored in order to become writers, musicians, dancers, painters, playwrights, and anything else in such a grouping. In The Death of the Artist, William Deresiewicz writes in detail about how conditions have changed in this group that interprets the human condition through their creative talents. And it is one hell of a depressing portrayal of how much things have changed for the worse.

Based on an intuitive understanding derived from reading about the changing trends, I have cautioned many students, like "R" who was passionate about a career in dancing, about the kinds of red flags that Deresiewicz writes about. I have always warned them about the myth of the "starving artist" who does "not sell out." Of course, money is not everything, but the lack of money is one awful existence. Should more students like "R" approach me, I now have a better approach: I will tell them to first read The Death of the Artist.

As Deresiewicz writes, it is not that there is no money in the arts "industry." Consider, for instance, that "Salvator Mundi," a 600-year-old painting by Leonardo da Vinci, sold for almost half-a-billion dollars. There are people who are THAT wealthy in order to afford to buy paintings valued at multiple millions. The fact that there are such ultra-wealthy is the real problem. Deresiewicz writes:

The devastation of the arts economy, like the degradation of the college experience, is rooted in the great besetting sin of contemporary American society: extreme and growing inequality.

Why does this matter?

The growing inequality leaves very little in the bank accounts of the middle class. This then means that the middle class is less able to spend on non-essentials. They then do not spend money on the local community theatre; the local indie band; the local writers' books; etc. Meanwhile, the tech world continues its brainwashing that you, too, can become a music millionaire right from your basement. You fall for it, and the tech giants add a few more billion dollars in market capitalization.

So, what can be done?

You as a consumer have a choice. For example, you could stop patronizing the algorithm-driven services like Pandora and Spotify. Instead, spend that money on art and the artists in your own community.

You as a citizen have a choice. You could vote for candidates and parties that promise to address the growing income and wealth inequality, and who truly want to make the American Dream possible for many more.

You don't have to take my word for it--read William Deresiewicz's The Death of the Artist.