...
A Protest Without Rhyme or Reason | Postmodern Times by Eric Felten - WSJ.com. (Hat tip, Dave Lull.)
Ms. Oswald was happy to collect an Eliot Prize back when the money used by the Poetry Book Society to organize the contest was coming from the government. I suspect that, in best progressive fashion, she would be happy to see the government's coffers filled primarily from the accounts of Mr. H. Fund Moneybags III. So let's get this straight: If the investment bankers' money is grudgingly handed over to the taxman it's squeaky clean. But if it is given voluntarily, the lucre is filthy. What an odd and upside-down moral equation.
Hi Frank,
ReplyDeleteThere's a problem with the assumption.
Here in the USA anyway, the IRS taxes income that is obtained illicitly, from gambling or drugs, for instance. That goes into the coffers, and is part of the money that would be used to give a grant to some artist, say. That same artist could be right to draw a line and say that he or she would not take the money directly from the drug dealer, prostitution ring, what have you. In other words the artist's art may not be used to further corruption of the sort which the artist objects to, as much as the artist can help it.
In retail, however, we take anyone's money pretty much--unless we believe it to be counterfeit or something. Even if we suspect someone to be a drug kingpin or a mobster of some sort, we sell them our goods. In this sense, I suppose, the saving grace is that the money is going from the bad guys, them, to the good guys, us. But really, we make no judgment, money is in circulation, and money is just money, apart from the ethics or morals of whomever may be making a purchase. The Philadelphia Inquirer sells papers indiscriminately to hoodlums as well as upstanding business people, and will do so to Oswald and Kinsella if they come to town. The Wall Street Journal will do the same.
But if Oswald and Kinsella believe that they are giving too much PR to a corrupt company by accepting "dirty" money, whether the law deems so, or whether you or I believe this to be so, then they can be seen as doing the right thing, standing by their convictions in the face of a fair enough pay day, or pay off, as it were.
Odd that he offers only two options, private patronage and government support, both of which presuppose the existence of full-time, professional poets. What about poets getting full-time jobs unrelated to their poetry and subsidizing themselves? Cavafy seems to have done okay for himself in the long run.
ReplyDeleteI have nothing further to contribute to this discussion, but in rare display of egoism, I hope my blog friends notice that I have kept the discussion going by regularly posting things I know wil meet with disagreement. I have often had occasion to point out that one of the subjects of this blog is the nature of discourse. Discourse here tends to be rather civilized, don't you think?
ReplyDelete