The eco­nom­ics of art is a peren­nial source of debate. Pro­po­nents of fund­ing for the arts usu­ally fol­low one of two argu­ments. The first is that art con­tributes intan­gi­bly to soci­ety by con­tribut­ing a rea­son to live, as opposed to a way to live. The sec­ond is that art actu­ally con­tributes tan­gi­bly to the greater econ­omy through the hard work that many artists do for rel­a­tively lit­tle pay. In con­trast, those who oppose fund­ing for the arts argue that fund­ing is waste of money, because valu­able art will be able to sur­vive eco­nom­i­cally on its own any­way: good artists will be in high demand, cre­at­ing scarcity for their work, and hence ensur­ing them a com­men­su­rate level of income.

But art has never been a good fit to any mon­e­tary econ­omy, because money was not really designed to han­dle art. Con­tinue read­ing “Eco­nom­ics vs. Art: Why a good fit has never existed” »

Jason Caslor has a post on his blog today ref­er­enc­ing a New York Times arti­cle that muses about whether “glitz” or other mar­ket­ing gim­micks are use­ful or hurt­ful for clas­si­cal music. The mus­ing is in ref­er­ence to the effect that con­duc­tor Gus­tavo Dudamel’s flam­boy­ant hair has had on clas­si­cal music (in con­junc­tion with his musi­cal tal­ents). Is it good for the vital­ity of orches­tras and opera com­pa­nies on the long run? Con­tinue read­ing “Dudamel, Glitz—and the impor­tance of ask­ing the right question” »