| Preface |
|
11 | (6) |
|
|
|
|
Who Has the Power to Define Art? |
|
|
17 | (1) |
|
Art is What People Call Art |
|
|
18 | (2) |
|
Cultural Inferiority and Superiority Color the Economy of the Arts |
|
|
20 | (3) |
|
|
|
23 | (2) |
|
|
|
25 | (2) |
|
`Art is Superfluous and Remote' |
|
|
27 | (1) |
|
`Art Goes Against the Rules and so Adds to Cognition' (Goodman) |
|
|
28 | (1) |
|
'Artists Resemble Magicians' (A personal view) |
|
|
29 | (1) |
|
The Mythology of the Arts Influences the Economy of the Arts |
|
|
30 | (2) |
|
|
|
32 | (6) |
|
The Denial of the Economy |
|
|
|
Why Are Gifts to the Arts Praised, While Market Incomes Remain Suspect? |
|
|
34 | (4) |
|
The Arts Depend on Gifts and Trade |
|
|
38 | (2) |
|
The Amount of Donations and Subsidies is Exceptional |
|
|
40 | (2) |
|
`Art that is Given Must not be Sold' |
|
|
42 | (2) |
|
`The Market Devalues Art' |
|
|
44 | (2) |
|
The Arts Need the High Status of the Gift Sphere |
|
|
46 | (1) |
|
The Economy in the Arts Is Denied and Veiled |
|
|
47 | (1) |
|
A Dual Economy Requires Special Skills |
|
|
48 | (2) |
|
|
|
50 | (5) |
|
Economic Value Versus Aesthetic Value |
|
|
|
Is There Any Financial Reward for Quality? |
|
|
52 | (3) |
|
Aesthetic Value and Market Value Differ in Definition |
|
|
55 | (1) |
|
`In the Market there is no Reward for Quality' |
|
|
56 | (2) |
|
|
|
58 | (2) |
|
There is No Such Thing as a Pure Work of Art |
|
|
60 | (2) |
|
Buyers Influence Market Value and Experts Aesthetic Value |
|
|
62 | (2) |
|
Power Differences Rest on Economic, Cultural and Social Capital |
|
|
64 | (2) |
|
In Mass Markets Quality and Sales Easily Diverge |
|
|
66 | (1) |
|
The Strife for Cultural Superiority in the Visual Arts (An Example) |
|
|
67 | (2) |
|
The Power of Words Challenges the Power of Money |
|
|
69 | (1) |
|
The Government Transforms Cultural Power into Purchasing Power |
|
|
70 | (3) |
|
Donors and Governments Know Best |
|
|
73 | (1) |
|
Market Value and Aesthetic Value Tend to Converge in the Long Run |
|
|
74 | (2) |
|
|
|
76 | (5) |
|
The Selflessly Devoted Artist |
|
|
|
Are Artists Reward-Oriented? |
|
|
78 | (3) |
|
The Selfless Artist is Intrinsically Motivated |
|
|
81 | (2) |
|
|
|
83 | (2) |
|
Artists are Faced with a Survival Constraint |
|
|
85 | (2) |
|
Autonomy is Always Relative |
|
|
87 | (1) |
|
Intrinsic Motivation Stems from Internalization |
|
|
88 | (2) |
|
|
|
90 | (2) |
|
Selfless Devotion and the Pursuit of Gain Coincide |
|
|
92 | (2) |
|
Artists Differ in Their Reward-Orientation |
|
|
94 | (2) |
|
Types and Sources of Rewards Matter to Artists |
|
|
96 | (3) |
|
Three Examples of Orientation Towards Government Rewards in the Netherlands |
|
|
99 | (2) |
|
|
|
101 | (5) |
|
|
|
|
Are Artists Just Ill-Informed Gamblers? |
|
|
103 | (3) |
|
Incomes in the Arts are Exceptionally High |
|
|
106 | (1) |
|
Art Markets are Winner-Takes-All Markets |
|
|
107 | (3) |
|
People Prefer Authenticity and are Willing to Pay for It |
|
|
110 | (1) |
|
Incomes in the Arts are Exceptionally Low |
|
|
111 | (2) |
|
Five Explanations for the Low Incomes Earned in the Arts |
|
|
113 | (2) |
|
Artists are Unfit for `Normal' Jobs |
|
|
115 | (1) |
|
Artists are Willing to Forsake Monetary Rewards |
|
|
116 | (1) |
|
Artists are Over-Confident and Inclined to Take Risks |
|
|
117 | (2) |
|
|
|
119 | (3) |
|
|
|
122 | (4) |
|
|
|
|
Do Subsidies and Donations Increase Poverty? |
|
|
124 | (2) |
|
Artists Have Not Always Been Poor |
|
|
126 | (2) |
|
The Desire to Relieve Poverty in the Arts Led to the Emergence of Large-Scale Subsidization |
|
|
128 | (1) |
|
Low Incomes are Inherent to the Arts |
|
|
129 | (2) |
|
The Number of Artists Adjusts to Subsidy Levels |
|
|
131 | (1) |
|
Subsidies in the Netherlands Have Increased the Number of Artists Without Reducing Poverty |
|
|
132 | (4) |
|
Subsidies Are a Signal that Governments Take Care of Artists |
|
|
136 | (1) |
|
Subsidies and Donations Intended to Alleviate Poverty Actually Exacerbate Poverty |
|
|
137 | (3) |
|
Low-priced Education Signals that it is Safe to Become an Artist |
|
|
140 | (1) |
|
Social Benefits Signal that it is Safe to Become an Artist |
|
|
141 | (2) |
|
Artists Supplement Incomes with Family Wealth and Second Jobs |
|
|
143 | (1) |
|
Artists Reduce Risks by Multiple Jobholding |
|
|
144 | (2) |
|
Artists Could be Consumers rather than Producers |
|
|
146 | (1) |
|
Is there an Artist `Oversupply' or are Low Incomes Compensated For? |
|
|
147 | (2) |
|
|
|
149 | (5) |
|
|
|
|
Do Rising Costs in the Arts Make Subsidization Necessary? |
|
|
152 | (2) |
|
`Artistic Quality Should Remain the Aspiration, Regardless of the Costs' |
|
|
154 | (2) |
|
`The Arts are Stricken by a Cost Disease' |
|
|
156 | (2) |
|
Technical Progress has Always been a Part of the Arts |
|
|
158 | (2) |
|
There is no True Performance |
|
|
160 | (2) |
|
The Taboo on Technical Innovation in Classical Music is a Product of the Times |
|
|
162 | (2) |
|
The Cost Disease Contributes to Low Incomes while Internal Subsidization Contains the Cost Disease |
|
|
164 | (3) |
|
There is no Limit to the Demand for Works of Art |
|
|
167 | (2) |
|
Changing Tastes Can Also Cause Financial Problems |
|
|
169 | (2) |
|
Pop Music has Attractive Qualities that Classical Music Lacks |
|
|
171 | (3) |
|
Subsidies and Donations Exacerbate the Cost Disease |
|
|
174 | (4) |
|
|
|
178 | (5) |
|
The Power and the Duty to Give |
|
|
|
|
|
181 | (2) |
|
|
|
183 | (3) |
|
Donors Have Influence and are Necessarily Paternalistic |
|
|
186 | (2) |
|
Art Sublimates Power and Legitimizes the Donor's Activities |
|
|
188 | (3) |
|
|
|
191 | (2) |
|
Donations and Subsidies are Embedded in Rituals |
|
|
193 | (1) |
|
Artists Give and Pay Tribute |
|
|
194 | (3) |
|
Family and Friends Subsidize Artists |
|
|
197 | (2) |
|
Private Donors Give to Street Artists as well as to Prestigious Art Institutions |
|
|
199 | (1) |
|
Corporations and Private Foundations Support Art |
|
|
200 | (1) |
|
|
|
201 | (5) |
|
The Government Serves Art |
|
|
|
Do Art Subsidies Serve the Public Interest or Group Interests? |
|
|
203 | (3) |
|
Art Subsidies Need Reasons |
|
|
206 | (2) |
|
`Art Subsidies are Necessary to Offset Market Failures' |
|
|
208 | (2) |
|
`Art has Special Merits and must be Accessible to Everyone' |
|
|
210 | (1) |
|
The Merit Argument has been Used Successfully |
|
|
211 | (2) |
|
`Government Must Help Poor Artists' |
|
|
213 | (2) |
|
`Art is Public and the Government Must Intervene to Prevent Under-production' |
|
|
215 | (3) |
|
`Art Contributes to Economic Welfare and so Must be Supported' |
|
|
218 | (1) |
|
`Society Needs a Reserve Army of Artists and must therefore Support Art' |
|
|
219 | (2) |
|
Government Distorts Competition in the Arts |
|
|
221 | (3) |
|
Self-Interest Hides Behind Arguments for Art Subsidies |
|
|
224 | (1) |
|
The Art world Benefits from Subsidies |
|
|
225 | (2) |
|
The Government is under Pressure to Subsidize the Arts |
|
|
227 | (3) |
|
|
|
230 | (4) |
|
Art Serves the Government |
|
|
|
How Symbiotic Is the Relationship between Art and the State? |
|
|
232 | (2) |
|
Governments Have Interests and Tastes |
|
|
234 | (3) |
|
Art Appears to be Less Serviceable than it was during Monarchical Times |
|
|
237 | (3) |
|
European Governments Carried on the Former Patronage |
|
|
240 | (2) |
|
Veiled Display Serves Social Coherence |
|
|
242 | (2) |
|
The Cultural Superiority of the Nation Needs Display |
|
|
244 | (4) |
|
Government Taste Serves Display |
|
|
248 | (2) |
|
Governments are Willing to Support the Arts |
|
|
250 | (2) |
|
An Arts Experts Regime Harmonizes Government and Art World Interests |
|
|
252 | (2) |
|
|
|
254 | (8) |
|
Appendix: Differences between Government Involvement in the Arts in the US and in Europe |
|
|
255 | (4) |
|
Informal Barriers Structure the Arts |
|
|
|
How Free or Monopolized Are the Arts? |
|
|
259 | (3) |
|
In other Professions Barriers Inform Consumers, Restrain Producers and Limit Competition |
|
|
262 | (1) |
|
The Arts Resist a Formal Control of Numbers of Artists |
|
|
263 | (2) |
|
In the Past Numbers of Artists were Controlled |
|
|
265 | (2) |
|
Granting Certificates to Commercial Galleries in the Netherlands (An Example) |
|
|
267 | (1) |
|
Characteristics of Informal Barriers |
|
|
268 | (3) |
|
Informal Barriers Protect Collective Reputations |
|
|
271 | (1) |
|
Innovations in the Arts are Protected and Indirectly Rewarded |
|
|
272 | (2) |
|
The Arts are Structured and Developments are Controlled |
|
|
274 | (2) |
|
The Risks of Some are Reduced at the Expense of Others |
|
|
276 | (1) |
|
|
|
277 | (5) |
|
Conclusion: a Cruel Economy |
|
|
|
Why Is the Exceptional Economy of the Arts so Persistent? |
|
|
280 | (2) |
|
The Economy of the Arts is an Exceptional Economy |
|
|
282 | (1) |
|
Despite the Many Donations and Subsidies Incomes are Low in the Arts |
|
|
283 | (1) |
|
A Grim Picture has been Drawn |
|
|
284 | (3) |
|
Winners Reproduce the Mystique of the Arts |
|
|
287 | (2) |
|
Society Needs a Sacred Domain |
|
|
289 | (2) |
|
Future Scenarios with More or Less Subsidization |
|
|
291 | (4) |
| Epilogue: the Future Economy of the Arts |
|
|
Is this Book's Representation of the Economy of the Arts Outdated? |
|
|
295 | (1) |
|
Signs of a Less Exceptional Economy of the Arts |
|
|
295 | (3) |
|
Artists with New Attitudes Enter the Scene (1) |
|
|
298 | (2) |
|
Artists with new Attitudes Enter the Scene (2) |
|
|
300 | (1) |
|
`Art Becomes Demystified as Society Becomes More Rational' |
|
|
301 | (2) |
|
`Borders in and Around the Arts Disappear' |
|
|
303 | (3) |
|
`New Techniques, Mass Consumption and Mass Media Help Demystify the Arts' |
|
|
306 | (5) |
| Notes |
|
311 | (38) |
| Literature |
|
349 | (12) |
| Index of Names |
|
361 | (4) |
| Index of Subjects |
|
365 | |
Other versions by this Author
