Put Stars’ Earnings to Good Use

What is lost in the current debate about the National Endowment for the Arts and tax-supported funding in general for the arts is the fact that not just path-breaking, public-alienating artists go hungry these days. Many first-rate artists whose work probably wouldn’t offend a soul--and whose talent is just as great as that of the stars of their field--also have to give up their art for lack of patronage.

Why are so many artists unable to find work or, if they do, at only meager wages? The reason is that the stars increasingly have more than their due share of followers, leaving the also-rans with too few.

There is little doubt that the success of many stars is fueled by their . . . well, success: Americans bought millions of copies of Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf’s autobiography because of his fame, not his prose. Thousands went to see David Helfgott perform not because he’s a great pianist but because of the fame brought by “Shine,” the movie inspired by his life. The millions who went to see the three tenors perform in huge sports arenas went because of the triple-star billing and the publicity surrounding it. In the consumption of art, fame in itself is a virtue.

There is nothing wrong with our attraction to artists who are covered by the media. Arguably this preference may even be functional: It is easier to find book reviews of bestsellers than of unknown books. And it is easier to see interviews with actors of movies that are hits than with actors of movies that have only a small audience. But “local fame” would produce exactly the same benefits to art patrons as global fame; as it is, the boundaries of our common culture have become too wide, our community too global.

Of course, a widely based common culture has advantages. It is wonderful to have something in common with people across the nation or across the world, even if this does not carry any tangible benefit. But the cost of this commonality--the elimination of the opportunity for large numbers of artists to practice art and a reduction in artistic diversity--may be too high. The star system produces fewer but bigger winners and greater and greater numbers of losers, and consumers are no better for it.

The absence of public support for the arts would leave it to the market to determine how many artists are able to practice art and how much artistic diversity our culture has to offer. But the need of artists for self-realization or the desire of consumers for diversity are not typical economic goods. Self-realization is not a typical economic good because artists cannot buy it and patrons cannot sell it; the market cannot handle goods that cannot be bought and sold. Artistic diversity is not a typical economic good because patrons’ private choices cannot bring it about. It depends on a concerted effort by all patrons.

Devastation of artistic opportunities and of cultural diversity are not merely the byproducts of an expanding stardom system. They are the fuel that propels it. While a common culture will emerge spontaneously, its absolute reign is the result of massive promotions by book publishers and film and music studios. And the profits the entertainment industry expects to reap are precisely the incomes transferred from the artists who would be displaced. Current public funding of the arts ignores this essential fact.

Instead of having arts subsidies provided by the general tax fund, funding ought to come directly from the taxation of the earnings of the stars and the corporations behind them. Such taxation would serve two purposes: It would provide a reliable, uncapricious source of arts funding and it would reduce the funds available for the creation and promotion of global stars. The end result would be that more artists would practice art and audiences would be less removed from their artists. And perhaps best of all, when traveling far to experience a different culture, you will no longer find yourself at home.