Does a market economy encourage or discourage music, literature, and the visual arts? Do economic forces of supply and demand help or harm the pursuit of creativity? This book seeks to redress the current intellectual and popular balance and to encourage a more favorable attitude toward the commercialization of culture that we associate with modernity. Economist Tyler Cowen argues that the capitalist market economy is a vital but underappreciated institutional framework for supporting a plurality of co-existing artistic visions, providing a steady stream of new and satisfying creations, supporting both high and low culture, helping consumers and artists refine their tastes, and paying homage to the past by capturing, reproducing, and disseminating it. Contemporary culture, Cowen argues, is flourishing in its various manifestations, including the visual arts, literature, music, architecture, and the cinema.

Successful high culture usually comes out of a healthy and prosperous popular culture. Shakespeare and Mozart were highly popular in their own time. Beethoven's later, less accessible music was made possible in part by his early popularity. Today, consumer demand ensures that archival blues recordings, a wide array of past and current symphonies, and this week's Top 40 hit sit side by side in the music megastore. High and low culture indeed complement each other.

Cowen's philosophy of cultural optimism stands in opposition to the many varieties of cultural pessimism found among conservatives, neo-conservatives, the Frankfurt School, and some versions of the political correctness and multiculturalist movements, as well as historical figures, including Rousseau and Plato. He shows that even when contemporary culture is thriving, it appears degenerate, as evidenced by the widespread acceptance of pessimism. He ends by considering the reasons why cultural pessimism has such a powerful hold on intellectuals and opinion-makers.

He begins his economic analysis of art markets by stating that the creation of wealth enables people to address their aesthetic interests. Specifically, markets enable artists to free themselves from both the desires of wealthy patrons and the need to satisfy mainstream tastes. This enables outsiders who stand to gain little by appealing to mainstream conventions to take risks and establish new cultural ideas. He gives a number of examples of how members of ethnic minorities managed to break color barriers by creating new genres of music.

In the area of books and literature, he asserts that the decentralization of editorial and financial decision-making enabled the number of publishers to skyrocket. He points out that small independent and university publishers can flourish in a commercial society by gathering capital for little-known authors who operate outside of popular spheres. He states that it has become more and more difficult for a small group of authors to dominate the attention of readers. He responds to the accusation that literary diversity diminishes fame-based incentives for authors by explaining that markets tend to increase the quantity of fame available to everyone over time. As a result, the quantity and quality of literature available to the public also increases over time.

Cowen responds to critics from across the political spectrum. He deconstructs arguments brought against capitalistic art by neo-conservatives, religious leaders, neo-Marxists, feminists, multiculturalists, artists, and surprisingly, some libertarians. He explains that members of each group fear culture because it can produce rapid changes in people's worldviews. As unregulated culture cannot be controlled, people who have a vested interest in preserving certain ideas tend to oppose it. Thus, people who work in politics must limit human creativity to stay in power.

Although his defense of government as a limited entrepreneur in the cultural market will rankle some readers, Cowen's account is a lively historical view of how markets reward individual creativity. Like Samuel Johnson, he praises the ability of markets to enable artists to turn their passions into livelihoods. He presents an effective critique of arguments that favor heavy government involvement in the artistic realm. Most importantly, he demonstrates why individuals should look forward to enjoying high quality artwork for years to come.