The Democratization of Patronage

Although The Wealth of Nations** contains no chapter devoted to painting, music, theatre, or literature, it offers a coherent explanation of why commercial societies become fertile ground for artistic achievement. Far from viewing commerce as hostile to culture, Smith understood that expanding markets fundamentally changed the conditions under which artists could live and work.

Commerce does not merely increase material wealth; it creates professions that could not exist on the same scale in smaller societies.

The average financial rewards in the “ingenious arts” are often surprisingly modest — not because society undervalues artistic talent, but because so many ambitious young people willingly accept poor economic prospects in pursuit of distinction, reputation, and excellence. Artists, in other words, participate in the same labor market as everyone else, but they are motivated by more than money alone.

This is my scarcity observation (#1449095, #1467035) put in a different light: the labor pool of potential artists and thus output is near infinite (= financially speaking, there's a steady offer just above the market price, meaning any marginal

"one of Smith’s most profound insights about culture [is that:] before the rise of commercial society, many artists depended primarily upon courts, churches, or wealthy aristocratic patrons."

That's nice in one way (stable, benevolent income security) but definitely captured in another (can't produce work that annoys the patrons too much). A wide audience -- mass production for mass consumption in Mises' famous terms -- secures independence. But not that many people can achieve that status.

Commercial society made it possible for artistic production to rest upon decentralized demand rather than political or aristocratic favor. In this sense, commerce did not simply commercialize the arts — it democratized their patronage.

I dunno? Quite a lot of artists (and scientists!) are explicitly rent-seeking these days, constantly out hunting for this or that public-money grant. You've just replaced a meritocratic, responsible, powerful patron with their own funds (mostly) with a fickle, woke, and despicable one handing out others' money.

Institutions dependent upon government funding become sensitive to changing political priorities, bureaucratic procedures, and prevailing cultural fashions. Public support undoubtedly enables worthwhile artistic projects that might otherwise never exist. But it also influences which projects are likely to receive support in the first place.
Contemporary disputes over publicly funded art, especially when artistic expression becomes difficult to distinguish from political advocacy, suggest that Smith’s question remains highly relevant.

His famous warning that workers performing the same simple operations throughout their lives may become “as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become” reflects a broader concern about the intellectual foundations of civilization itself.

Yes, the alienation point (#1545916).

Smith defends public amusements, including theatres, music, and other forms of entertainment, not because they maximize economic output, but because they cultivate sociability, soften manners, and reduce the appeal of fanaticism.

"A prosperous commercial society, in Smith’s view, requires more than wealth. It requires an educated and culturally engaged citizenry."

Aah, that's why we so poor!