The American Artist as Uneconomic Man

Abstract

It is unlikely that there has ever been a time in America when patronage of the arts has received more coverage in the mass media, consumed more hours of discussion at cultural conferences or drawn more money from the coffers of private philanthropy than now. It may be equally unlikely that there has ever been less general understanding of the problems of the individual artist, who works alone when he can work at all. An abundance of romantic literature and a good deal of myth surround the solitary painter, sculptor, writer and composer, his tribulations, his lack of recognition, his alienation but there is little published solid fact. Artist know how their colleagues do or do not make out; few others have any idea. The artist who has been getting most, though not quite all, of the attention in debate over the state of the arts is the performing artist. He and the vast, uneconomic cultural centers being built for his performances have been the subjects of several studies. Until recently, however, there had been no comparable study, as far as I know, of the nonperforming arts; no investigation into the problems of the painter, sculptor, writer or composer. Now, at least a preliminary investigation has been undertaken by the MacDowell Colony in southern New Hampshire (Table 1). The colony provides art-makers with, as nearly as possible, an ideal situation in which to 'do their thing' in solitude, and a comfortable studio is provided. During the past sixty years, a large amount of distinguished work has been done in the colony's studios, which are spotted around 400 acres of countryside, by such creative talents as Edwin Arlington Robinson, Milton Avery, Aaron Copland, Thornton Wilder and James Baldwin. It is a place for artists who have demonstrated their professionalism and seriousness of purpose. The study of the MacDowell Colony deals with men and women between 20 and 80 years of age who