We Need Art So We Can Compete with Computers

The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is responsible for awarding grants to support a wide variety of artistic endeavors across the United States, from digitally archived conversations between renowned musicians, to literary festivals in Iowa, to music workshops in small communities. Unfortunately, its funding is about to be eliminated entirely, leaving many ventures struggling for backing. While the cut is purportedly to alleviate government waste, NEA appropriations represent less than 0.004% of the federal budget and are smaller in absolute terms than during the Reagan administration. For a variety of reasons – not least of which is the insignificant relative size of the outlay – it is difficult to understand how supporting artistic expression in schools and communities throughout the country can be seen as a waste of taxpayers’ money.

Firstly, taxpayers – and the children of taxpayers – are the primary beneficiaries. The Young Authors’ Book Project, which receives NEA support, fosters literacy in local classrooms by connecting students with professional authors and illustrators. Even those of us without children benefit when the next generation learns to read and communicate. The Alabama Blues Project receives NEA assistance for its after-school programs that give music lessons to young people, which seems a much more beneficial activity than watching television or playing video games. In tiny Pablo, MT, where one third of those under 18 live in poverty, another project received NEA funding to help the students learn storytelling via photography, developing a creative outlet for people who might otherwise follow the trend in their part of the country and pour their disappointments into drugs and alcohol. To help alleviate these potential social ills, each person who pays federal income taxes contributes roughly $1 annually to support the NEA. Where is the waste?

Secondly, personal well-being and art are interrelated, suggesting that any programs encouraging people’s creativity are likely accretive to societal welfare. The recent Artful Living survey completed by researchers at Vanderbilt University (with a grant from the NEA) indicates that actively creating art – as opposed to passively observing it – is correlated with higher levels of life satisfaction. While this might seem obvious, little scientific surveillance has examined the question deeply, and it is meaningful that the effect was present only when the interaction with art was as a creator. It is not enough, apparently, merely to bask in the presence of a Matisse masterpiece at the museum or listen to live jazz. Consequently, nurturing arts education in public schools fosters the mental prosperity of our communities. Additionally, when arts programs have been specifically directed to at-risk youth, data indicate that the government can recover “one and a half times its investment through savings to the criminal justice system and increased tax revenue.” That is an excellent return on investment for taxpayers.

Finally, even if no immediate benefits accrued to current taxpayers via greater literacy or less crime, it would be incredibly short-sighted to eliminate government support for the arts, since creativity is the one area where machines will not be able to surpass humans. An oft-cited report, predicts that 47% of jobs are likely to be taken over by computers, and the effects will be lumpy, affecting some locations more than others. In many fields, the reasons that machines will displace humans are straightforward and measurable, such as speed and accuracy – an algorithm can search the entire database of legal precedents, precluding the possibility of missing an important one before a trial, and can do so in a matter of hours. In the arts, however, beauty and inspiration are the basis for adjudicating merit, and neither is easily calculable. Consequently, while a “creative” computer, designed to paint pictures or write novels or compose symphonies, is a possibility, there is no reason to believe that it would exceed humans in its ability to stir emotions. While the tasks of factory workers, lawyers, doctors, and financial planners are all being usurped by industrial machines and algorithms driven by artificial intelligence, the realm of art will still be open to human contribution. Soon a computer’s capability to outmatch a human when optimizing a portfolio will be irrefutable, but even the most wonderful artistic creation by a computer will never diminish the importance of Picasso. Concomitantly, just as many people prefer Pollock to Picasso, the works of machines and humans will be compared, with partialities on both sides but neither patently paramount. Computers will eventually best us at everything when the basis for comparison is quantifiable, but, luckily, creativity is ethereal.

Unfortunately, support for the arts also tends to be ethereal. From the benefits that taxpayers and their children receive directly as participants in programs, to the indirect effects via a reduction in substance abuse and overall crime, it seems clear that government funding for the arts is far from a waste. Most importantly, though, traditional jobs for humans are going to disappear, lost to more efficient algorithms. Since much of our self-esteem – in western cultures especially – is tied to what we do for a living, we need to embrace and cultivate our creativity if we want to maintain our pride and avoid a damaging slide into degradation. Government funding for the arts is not only an investment in our communities today but also an investment in our ability to compete in the world of the future.