They Wont Let Me Be A Starving Artist. . .
Just a quick take on the Supreme Court’s Decisions the last few days. There is plenty of commentary out there but still I feel the need to express my 1st amendment rights regarding these decisions. And the three I am focused on are regarding Biden’s student loan program, the question of race on college and university applications, and lastly what seems to be a confusion of art and literature and web design, and likewise free speech and the marketplace.
I am sure folks have seen the reports, read the commentary, perhaps scrolled through some of the decisions and dissents. I just feel compelled to throw my two cents in. In a nutshell, I look at each of the three, and am simply left asking if this is the direction that we want to be heading?
With the decision involving the religiously devout web designer, we arrive at it being legally OK to not engage clients who are wanting her to build a website for their gay wedding. We learn in the decision that web design is an act of free speech, comparable to writing literature or creating art as opposed to providing a service in the marketplace.
Would it not be better to tell such a client that one is perhaps not the best web designer for this project considering the project and one’s beliefs. This seems to be a better way to use one’s right to free speech. Then of course the designer and client, in any deal, would need to also agree on a price, a schedule regarding the deliverables, and of course what exactly would be designed. My point is that there is always a give and take between a vendor and client, creative or not, and that involves money, time and what exactly is being done, and it is here that free speech is situated in the marketplace.
There is no real conflict between free speech and the market. Rather, one’s values, including one’s religious values are just another factor among many that will play a role in such a transaction in the marketplace. That market can only function if we have free speech. That is why we have the image of a starving artists. They starve because they will not compromise their values. Ultimately, they will not compromise their vision of the work product.
Now you could turn this around and suggest that the Colorado law is precluding this. It could be said that the Colorado law requiring our Christian web designer to accept and build the gay marriage website is infringing on her right to free speech, it violates her right to exercise her religion. She is not able to act upon her values as a direct consequent of the Colorado law. She cannot, because of that law, be that starving artist. She is not able to act on her values.
Well, aside from the question of whether a web designer actually qualifies as such there is another issue. As I said above, the market requires free speech. Let’s go back to those initial conversations between her and her clients, where a deal is made or not. It is here that the Christian web designer’s concerns and issues, her Christian values, would and should be expressed to her potential gay clients. It is at this time that the clients can respond accordingly.
What happens if it is specifically because of her Christian values, that these clients want her to design that website? Imagine such a scenario. Then one quickly asks several questions. What are the client’s intents(?!), and how much freedom are they willing to grant her? And what exactly could she create in such a space? Is it possible to create a website that acknowledges her Christian values and represents their gay wedding. Is it possible to create a website that both parties would be accepting of?
It might be that they will never agree on what such a website would look like, but that happens routinely between a client and a creative. Disagreements regarding creative vision are common. Such can lead to both abandonment of projects, and likewise new and interesting takes on subjects and domains.
This is after all the beauty, the wonder of art, the potential of art. That is how I would like to see free speech intersect with a public market here. I see no conflict between the market and free speech, between the market and one’s values. It is because of peoples’ values, including religious values, that markets and the arts are interesting and vibrant-alive.
The Supreme Court on Friday not only introduced into our legal system a way to discriminate against the LGBTQ community, but also betrayed a lack of understanding of both the arts and of markets. As I said, I was left asking is this the direction we want to be heading.
Sadly, only got to one of three tonight. One down, two to go. We will see.
