In this ultra-capitalist age it is easy to see everything as a commodity, with every exchange of ideas, labour, goods and wares determined by the market for these. A significant part of Cowen's argument is that outright wealth alone does not make for an environment conducive to cultural production. And, while it works well for literary goods, mass production does have its limitations. Seeing the Ring on television is like seeing a postcard of the Mona Lisa . It is better than not seeing it at all, but the qualitative aesthetic difference is of such an order of magnitude that Cowen is essentially comparing apples and oranges.
Artists can thrive in a capitalist system, and many do.
Unfortunately Cowen spends little space considering counterarguments or alternatives. Cowen is, however, not willing to look at the advantages and accomplishments of these patronage-systems objectively either, twisting them to fit his thesis, and he barely considers other examples of art thriving in systems that are decidedly not capitalist. The Soviet-bloc seems to offer numerous examples of art thriving despite almost impossible economic conditions. A market economy may be conducive to the creation and enjoyment of art but artists are often strange folk, and their incentives to create are often not market driven. Clearly it is necessary to make money in order to survive and then produce one's art.