World Class Poetry Blog

Poetry Should Be Subject To Market Forces
5 January 2008, the poet @ 10:15 pm

Howard Junker of Zyzzyvaspeaks is proud to have survived. Quite frankly, so am I.

Junker is so proud of his pronouncement to survive that he proclaims, “Not helping this year will be the NEA.” I must confess, the NEA has never done anything for me either. What’s interesting about Junker’s confession, however, is that he has been a recipient of NEA grant money for two years, but was turned down this year, and says,

At least for now, however, I can, without seeming hypocritical, insist that I don’t think the Feds should be involved in arts funding in the first place.

Hmmm … did he feel that way last year? How about the year before? Maybe Mr. Junker should feel hypocritical because he sure does seem it. And I just love his next proclamation, which is one that I can agree with:

Let the people spend their own money. Let artists struggle without the alleged benevolence of the regime.

Yes, I fully and wholeheartedly agree, even if Mr. Junker is being hypocritical. Artists don’t need government funding. None. At. All.

Junker points to an article published by the Cato Institute as evidence of government-sponsored favoritism. But do you really need a libertarian policy think tank to tell you that government-sponsored art and literature is a walk through the Devil’s palace? Not if you have principles.

It seems that I am not alone among literary artists who make a point to shun NEA grants. Examples quoted in the Cato article include:

“The writer doesn’t need economic freedom. All he needs is a pencil and paper. I’ve never known anything good in writing to come from having accepted any free gift of money. The good writer never applies to a foundation. He’s too busy writing something.”(57)

William Faulkner

John Updike:

“I would rather have as my patron a host of anonymous citizens digging into their own pockets for the price of a book or a magazine than a small body of enlightened and responsible men administering public funds.”(58)

and

“Every serious artist knows that he cannot enjoy public celebration without making subtle public commitments.” (62)

Robert Lowell

Who can argue with these voices?

I’ve never applied for a grant. I don’t want to. I figure he who holds the gold makes the rules. By that measure, Jesse Helms has every right to demand that certain types of arts not be funded. But if no arts were funded then Helms’ points would be moot. It isn’t that artists don’t make choices in life.

The Only King Poetry Needs Is The Free Market
I’ve always believed that artisans and their work should be subject to free markets. If enough people like your work then they will buy it. Whether your work is painting by watercolor, writing haiku, or making independent music and movies, if there is a market for your work then you can survive. If there is no market then you will perish. I’m tired of seeing mediocre work propped up by the public purse. It’s unjust.

The economics can be easily explained. If artists have to work harder to produce artwork worth purchasing and they can not find buyers then there will be some fallout. Mediocre writers, painters, sculptors, and musicians who cannot market their creations will stop producing or change their styles. The cream will rise to the top. Mediocrity will no longer be rewarded and true artists will excel in producing and marketing their creations to the people who appreciate it the most. Publishers will spend their time looking for artists with talent rather than someone who fits the right profile for a handout. The free market worked for Madonna; why not Joy Harjo? Why not you and me?

I will likely be lambasted with insults for taking this stand, but I do believe it is time for poets, painters, and other artists to take responsibility for their creations. Find your market, and when you do, sell them something. If they won’t buy, they’re not your market.

3 Comments a “Poetry Should Be Subject To Market Forces”

1. howard junker — January 6, 2008 @ 5:05 am
   

   Thank you for taking note of my blog.

   Actually, what I was “pleased to report” was that we stayed within our budget, a necessary condition for survival.

   One reason we broke even last year was a $5,000 grant from the NEA.

   I accept NEA money because it is there, sometimes to be had.

   I accept it as an expression of the will of the people.

   I accept it because I cannot question the source of donations: Who knows how individual donors have come by their money? The great art funders—Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie, Guggenheim…—were not entirely noble fellows.

   Publishers have to make many compromises; we struggle to maintain our integrity.

   Poets are somewhat better situated, because they do not have to pay the printer.
   Best regards,
   Howard Junker
   Editor, ZYZZYVA

2. Jim Murdoch — January 6, 2008 @ 8:15 am
   

   Writing poetry is an art. Selling it is a business. There might have been a time when these were mutually exclusive occupations but no more. The customer may not always be right but he knows what he wants. Or at least what he can afford.

   I don’t see what’s so complicated about it. Granted oftentimes a customer may not realise what his options are and so only wants what he knows is available and that’s where marketing comes into play, an opportunity to expand the buyer’s choices, but, at the end of the day, he may still decide to go with what he knows works.

   I’m a writer but I’m also a buyer. I have a limited budget and so I’m choosy about what I spend my money on. I often go into book shops and come out with nothing because I can’t pick. What if I wasted my money on something I’ll never read?

   There are, of course, writers and artists who have doggedly done their own thing and lived in poverty and obscurity all their lives only to be discovered by future generations (a certain chappie called Van Gogh springs to mind). And that’s sad. But it is life.

3. the poet — January 6, 2008 @ 8:42 pm
   

   Howard, thanks for responding. I hope I wasn’t too rough on you. I am familiar with the challenges of publishers. Yes, it is difficult and ZYZZYVA is a fine journal. I wasn’t lost on the fact that you broke even because of the NEA grant. In some ways, public funding does help folks like you stay in business so that poets can have a place to publish. But it may be that there are just too many journals out there in the first place and we lost a few good ones in order to rid the world of the bad ones so that bad poets have fewer places to publish, well, then a sacrifice might best be made. That sounds harsh, I know, but as Jim says … that’s life.

   Jim, you hit the nail on the head. Writing is both an art and a business. Poetry as well. We can’t expect our audience to value us if we don’t value ourselves. I’ve met poets who would create chapbooks then give them away because “I’m just not a good business person.” OK, fine, you don’t have to be. Just know the value of what you offer. And don’t bend. If you die poor with your integrity in tact then at least you’ve lived a good life. Let posterity do the rest.

Submit a comment

Name

E-mail (not published)

Website URL

Enable CommentLuv which will try and parse your last blog post, please be patient while it finds it for you

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail