Consequently, it is not surprising to observe, as researcher Todd Porterfield did, that historically, art has always been at the service of politics: "We like to think that the artist is motivated solely by the pleasure of creating freely. But we forget that this perception of an artist's work is itself the product of a social and political context."(4) Despite their seemingly critical and anti-establishment ideas, it appears that the message of "engaged" artists unfortunately amounts to an ode to the power of Leviathan. As this expression has always seemed dubious to me, allow me to poke a little fun by supposing that these artists are implicitly "engaged" (i.e., "hired") by governments to spread their propaganda.
 

Capitalism, For Authentically Free Art

          Since the fall of the Iron Curtain, it is generally recognized that capitalism is the most economically efficient system, even if many hasten to specify that it is necessary to limit its "untamed" nature. One of the most serious accusations levelled against capitalism is that it encourages materialism, to the detriment of spiritual disciplines like art.

          The Soviet propaganda poster opposite illustrates this prejudice. An approximate translation of the text would be: on the left, "In capitalist countries, here is what those with talent can expect"; on the right, "In socialist countries, the way is cleared for those with talent." What this propaganda leaves out in the image on the right are the peasants starving to death to pay for the violinist's concerts, the only function of which is to feed the glory of the nation. This poster also leaves out those artists rotting in the Siberian gulags for having dared to question the Party's authority.

          The relative happiness of a country's population is certainly not gauged by observing which country sent the first astronaut to the moon, or which one possesses the most destructive nuclear weapons. In capitalist countries, everyone is free to be an artist or not, whether or not he or she demonstrates any talent for art. Obviously, there are natural incentives for the least talented to switch professions, but no coercion will prevent an Ed Wood from pursuing his work, however dubious its merit.

          Capitalism, by favouring the division of labour and increased productivity, frees up resources for the artistic sector. At no time in history has art been more accessible to ordinary individuals than it is today. If capitalist society is so materialist, how can we explain the omnipresence of foreign cinema, of video games, of alternative music? Better yet, technological advances made possible by competition and the pursuit of profit allow anyone and everyone to own sufficient creative tools to become an artist in his own living room. Let us not forget that the personal camcorder, the DVD player, and the MP3 player are not the result of government subsidies, but of private enterprise.

          No aspect of the classical libertarian attitude is opposed to the artistic mentality. Individualism, tolerance, and optimism are qualities that apply equally well to the libertarian and to the honest artist. This is why libertarians must not limit themselves to the social sciences, but must invade the artistic fields. It is not Human Action by Mises or The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard that will convert the greatest number to libertarianism; it is rather Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, Robert A. Heinlein's The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, or Trey Parker's and Matt Stone's South Park.

          Without wanting to expound here an aesthetic manifesto, the principals of classical liberalism could also help redefine or at least refocus the role of artists. Embellishing the world in which we live, making us reflect on the meaning of life, and moving us by presenting the human condition in an original manner; these are the legitimate objectives of art. In the meantime, let us attempt to put an end to the state support of nihilism and the destruction of Western civilization.