Making A Living

Two interesting articles popped into my inbox yesterday relating to making art as a living. Firstly, I was happy to see BFAMFAPhD's report on the number of artists in the country actually making a living on their art. The numbers aren't too surprising, having gone through the art school process myself and realizing towards the end of the 4 years, that not everyone would be making money from their art (not to mention that I was one of them). They cited the Census Bureau’s 2012 American Community Survey (ACS) to determine their statistics. 

Important to note: they refer to "people who have bachelor’s degrees in the arts as 'arts graduates' and to people whose primary occupation is writer, author, artist, actor, photographer, musician, singer, producer, director, performer, dancer choreographer, and entertainer as 'working artists.'" Also important to note: they negate MFA's and PhD's and designers and architects because the "higher earnings of designers significantly alter the median earnings of our field." 

Though I consider myself an artist, I definitely don't fall into the "working artist" category outlined in this study. As I mentioned last week, I have been stewing over an essay on art (don't worry, I'll be more specific when the time comes), and this study shines more light onto my thoughts. 

One of the most enlightening stats is that nearly 40% (39.9%) of working artists did not have a bachelor's degree and only 16% have bachelor's degrees in the arts. It makes you think, is art school worth it? Does it provide any more of an opportunity to become a "working artist". It seems like the answer is no. Then again, art school provides an unlimited number of opportunities to network, participate in exhibitions, collaborate with other training artists, etc. Honestly, I think the main draw of art school is this: You don't pay for the degree, you pay for 4 years of being able to explore, practice, fail, experiment, find, develop, fine tune, and attempt to master your craft.

The report is worth downloading and reading yourself.


Secondly, how could I resist reading this article: "What Makes a Child an Art Prodigy?. I don't think I can go too far into this topic, only because I think it is truly absurd. The art of this child is very well done, aesthetically pleasing, and somewhat surprising. That said, what I think makes contemporary art, what I will call, "New York Gallery, Solo Show Worthy", is primarily how an artist is able to talk about and discuss their work in the context of other contemporary and historical art. The author of this article references Jackson Pollack and Cy Twombly, but I would put money on this young girl not being able to reference those crucial artists in her own work. I've mentioned PBS's Art21 series before. Watch one. Listen to how the artists talk about their work. Talking about your work is what you learn to do in art school (see above). This young girl is being like any other child: playing, experimenting, making a mess, and most importantly, is being encouraged to do so. Two telling quotes from her mother:

“To be honest, she doesn’t care about all of this and being on television...”

“...It’s not about that for her. She’s a child, and she just wants to paint all the time.” 

Of course she wants to paint all the time!!! She's a child!!! What child wouldn't want to paint all the time when mom and dad say: "Ok sweetie, here's some paints, brushes, and canvases. Oh, and don't worry if you make a mess, you're in your studio".

Maybe my frustration and bitterness is jealousy or maybe it's just rational. Either way, paint on young child, paint on.

Previous
Previous

Framingham Project

Next
Next

Thierry de Duve