By Anjali Nayak
I have always been a creative person. From a young age, I have grappled onto music, film, and literature, hoping to one day succeed in a field where my work both succeeds and is acknowledged.
But now I’m applying to college.
Studying a particular subject at university usually gives others the implication that you intend to make money out of it. The reality for artists of today is that many will work second jobs to support themselves financially. I never imagined using compositions as a means to make ends meet, but the statistic does reflect how a deeply consumerist society views its artists.
It does not matter whether or not a piece of art holds any actual value, but whether or not it will sell. Consumerism actively changes artistic output and reason for creating, as having something to sell is essentially the bottom line. If there is no product with a monetary value as a result of an artistic project—or degree—it may as well not have happened. This results in bland pieces of art: Soundcloud mixtapes with one minute songs and forty-length tracklists, unnecessary spin-offs or sequels, the ultimate harrows of NFTS. It no longer matters whether or not something is worthwhile enough for appreciation, but instead if it is bland enough to appeal to the masses. Oftentimes, studios choose to focus on whatever is working in their respective fields, and attempt to create the same piece at a lower budget—thus maximizing profits. Leaving art to private industry leaves art to rot into a shallow husk of itself.
History shows that the United States is well aware of the importance of art. FDR’s New Deal provided federally-funded jobs for millions of unemployed Americans during the Great Depression, many of which included musicians, actors, dancers, writers, photographers, painters, and sculptors. Nowadays, similarly industrialized countries such as Australia, Sweden, and Norway create publicly-funded music schools, invest in certain artists, and overall have a higher average salary for citizens employed ‘under the fine arts.’ Comparatively, the United States falls behind. Specifically, Pitchfork outlines the great disparity between how little America provides federal music funding compared to its industrialized counterparts. Federal music funding includes investing in certain musicians, providing a base income while an artist is in the process of creating an album, or allocating funds for local festivals/concerts.
Consumerism doesn’t have to be the death of creativity. 80s and 90s pop artists such as Andy Warhol, Keith Haring, and Jean Paul Basquiat have proven that commercially successful artists do exist—even without having to stifle their own creative message. The emergence of online shops and platforms have made it easier for artists to sell prints, upload music, and distribute movies. However, students from a young age have been taught that they must do something that makes money and thus contribute to the general American workforce. Creatives are met with the sharp realization that their talents and traits are not quote-on-quote ‘helpful’ in a consumerist, capitalistic society. Though I have already proposed allocating more federal funding towards the arts—promoting creativity, civic engagement, and community amongst citizens—it’s also the jobs of others to simply emphasize art in a child’s upbringing. Go to local museums, festivals, and shows. Make sure that art is still a priority in a hopelessly consumerist world. Something worth getting a degree for.