Last newsletter we talked about the CIA's funding of magazines that heralded the likes of James Baldwin, which in essence proves the necessity of funding cultural production outside the typical demands of "the market". Naturally, certain issues can arise when what you're doing is funded by the state--or any entity that provides funds without the expectation of some kind of return--because more often than not it can be assumed that the only reason such an entity may be interested in funding the work is that it is deemed suitable for their agenda, even if at the moment of producing the work the artist may not have had any idea that the work was capable of doing so. Therefore, it is up to the artist to, at all times, be extremely self-critical of what they produce. Not just in terms of craft and artistic merit (as is often the case with artists) but also in terms of the work's potential for co-optability. 

That is not to say that I'm necessarily dogmatic about avoiding state funding. I'm not sure I'm dogmatic about avoiding any funding really, primarily because how very bad rich people don't seem to mind taking money from wherever they can get it. No matter what class, background, ethnicity, or political leaning you might have, the CEOs of mega-corporations want your money and will find a way to get it. Even presidential candidates ask both the rich and the poor for money now, at least in America anyway. Therefore, there should be no reason for an artist to avoid tapping into the funds of state or corporation, despite how terrible their practices may be. What an artist must avoid however is the influence of where the funds come from. For is an artist even a true artist at all unless they strive to become ungovernable?

I should say though, disclaimer: I'm not a hundred percent on any of this. Nothing in this here essay is principal or proven, at least by me. I'm just thinking out loud with this one.

The thing about the importance of funding without the pressure of market-profitability, it doesn't only apply to culture or individual artist's careers, it also applies to many businesses even. Take Facebook for instance, which received over 780 million in funding over the course of 8 years before it turned any profit at all. There's no reason that cultural production should be held to a different standard, somehow expected to turn a profit in record time without any funding whatsoever. Is it even possible for any endeavor to fail after receiving 780 million in funding over the course of 8 years?

And besides, assessing the profitability of cultural output in particular is kind of like assessing the profitability of a road. Both are infrastructure. Culture is just social infrastructure. Without it, or with a poor version of it, society crumbles.

(Roads and other transportation infrastructure are of course profitable to state's economy on the whole given that they facilitate the transport of goods and labor. But you don't assess the economic return generated from each and every road and train constructed, given that they contribute to the overall economy in immeasurable ways. Culture is very much like that too, but rather than being only specific to economy, it is like that for social development, which affects everything from economy to politics to healthcare and education and everything in between.)

State and corporations/market aside, the only other option available to an artist might be crowdfunding, which is fine and all, but:

• a) Its success relies on the artist enjoying a fair degree of popularity, which means already having enough of a track record (itself made feasible by some kind of funding) to raise funds from an interested audience.
  
  
• b) It still technically counts as working within market confines (indeed, very few successful crowdfunding campaigns are for anything that is vastly different from what one might encounter in the wild). 

A sound strategy for the artist then may be to diversify funds and avoid relying on any one entity in particular. Not only would it help secure more funds to operate but may also help dilute any one particular entity's sphere of influence.

In any case, as I once mentioned in another essay (An Early Lesson in Touch and Tact, published in the excellent FREEDOM OF THE PRESSES by Booklyn), it is probably a good idea never to reveal the entirety of your plans to the overlords funding your project. Give them enough to allow for continued funding, but do yourself a favor and keep them in the dark about as much as you can get away with.
 

Ganzeer
Houston, TX
December 5, 2024