Paper presented at First International Conference on Arts and Economics, sponsored by the Association for Cultural Economics, held in Edinburgh, Scotland, August 8-10, 1979.

Why do we provide so little inspiration to creative artists? Are our activities so boring and uninspiring? If we are represented at all in literature and the theater, why are we cast as seedy drunks or villains and not as heroes? I suppose that the discovery of a new macroeconomic model which survives rigorous testing is hardly material for some great dramatic work, unless its inventor has other, more glamorous characteristics....

There is another reason why economists are never likely to be heroes to the literati, though they may continue to be villains. Most economists can find something good to say about the market economy, but most artists regard the market economy with suspicion and hostility. One can hardly blame them. They are rarely trained to face its rigors and many go so far as to claim that they should be immune from all market pressures. Nor can one derive much inspiration from taking a balanced view of the performance of the economy. The vision of an ideal , unselfish world contrasting with the evils of capitalism is much more appealing to the tunesmith, lyric writer, and novelist than an apologia for big business, if only because such a vision sells better in the wicked free market....

So my conclusion must be that if we economists want to improve our image through the medium of culture, we must do so ourselves. (p. 4-5)

Paper presented at First International Conference on Arts and Economics, sponsored by the Association for Cultural Economics, held in Edinburgh, Scotland, August 8-10, 1979.