Hard work if you can get it
I know it sounds pretty dismal trying to make a living as an artist. In truth, though, I know a number of people (and you probably do, too) who are working in a career that has little if anything to do with their degree. So this affect others, not just art majors, equally. Sometimes we have to admit that education is its own reward. Of course that doesn’t help ease the sting of college loans. Just be sure to choose wisely. This is not a short post. And even after four years of college you may still not have the answers you need.
What is an artist to do?
One of the things the artist has to decide is how important is it to make a living as an artist vs being potentially freer to create whatever you want without the need for it to generate revenue. This is a big decision and may even change as you progress through your career.
The pressures are also different depending on what type of artist you are. A visual artist or other individual type of artist will have the pressure of being able to afford their materials which may or may not be all that expensive.
Performing artists are in a different boat. Developing a theatrical or choreographic piece is usually a much longer process and typically involves a multitude of people who also want to get paid. Set design and construction, costume design and construction, lighting design and implementation, music composition and performance or licensing, all add large costs without even adding in the other performers and administrative personnel that make the business part of “show business” tick.
Do you work as an independent artist or do you work with a company or some other collective of artists and arts administrators? Each are truly life style choices. Not everyone should or can work, or even create, independently. Not everyone can work with people they may or may not enjoy working with day to day. That takes a marriage-like commitment.
Choreographer Christopher Wheeldon, after he started his own dance company, learned that running a dance company is not the same as creating art. He had to give large amounts of time and attention to things that have nothing to do with creating choreography. After three years he ended his company and now works independently creating choreography for other dance companies.
If you are trying to earn your keep in the arts, whatever art you create, the end result is to be that someone somewhere has the interest and willingness to pay for your work. For performing arts, that means butts in seats (as they say). Art galleries need to make money. They only make money when they sell an artist’s work. Sometimes people want something new and unique. Sometimes people want an exceptional variation of what is considered a staple—abstracts, landscapes, portraits, storybook ballets, etc. Sometimes people want an investment. Some want decoration. Some just want to own art that moves them.
That can have a tremendous affect on what you create, thinking about what you want to make that will sell. I know a lot of people (even artists) think the artist should be or even is able to create whatever they want to create. The reality is, if you want to earn money, you have to create what people will pay for. What adds to this dilemma is that it seems to come easier for some artists than others. This can be a huge problem to the point of despair.
The worst thing that can happen to an artist isn’t that people hate what they make. The worst thing is people don’t notice. People not caring that you made something is saying what you do isn’t important enough to even take the time to hate, much less pay for it.
Make work that sells or sell work you make?
The important thing that you have to do is be able to create authentically as an artist. In a previous article I wrote about the importance of creating what comes from you, your voice, not someone else’s voice. You have to create what it is that is in you to create. Creating something that is sellable is not necessarily the same thing as creating art. And, as the debate in my previous post discusses, just because something is sellable, even at a high price, does not mean it is the best or greatest art. It just means someone is willing to pay for it.
Sometimes they can be the same thing. For many artists this is true. Sometimes they can create something that sells to help pay for the stuff that doesn’t sell as well (or at all). Ballet companies often produce Nutcracker and theatre companies often produce A Christmas Carol, or some other similar production, for this very reason. These popular shows help offset the productions that, for whatever reason, may not sell as well. And they do so in the discipline they prefer. There are other equivalents for all art disciplines. This way they still get to practice their craft in a way that generates revenue so they can afford to produce the works they may feel have greater human and spiritual significance but lower income potential.
Even the greats
But for many more artists, even some of the greats, this is not always the case. Vincent van Gogh sold only two paintings in his life, one to his brother. He did try to find a way to make a living as an artist. His Potato Eater paintings was his attempt to find a style of portraiture that he could call his own and that would sell. If it wasn’t for the ability and generosity of his brother he would not have been able to create the works we enjoy today. Bach struggled, even considered a third choice in the case of playing the organ at church. His work went largely forgotten until rediscovered by Mendelssohn.
I wish I could say the best art is made with no pressures. I wish I could say making whatever you want is all it takes to make a living as an artist. Unfortunately none of this is true, at least for us mere mortals. But what is true is you have to create from the abundance of your own heart. As Suzi Schultz said in her interview, you have to create without your marketing cap on. But you have to put it on after you make your work.
You have to work on that everyday. As Merce Cunningham says, you have to love the dailiness of dance. It is a day in, day out process and pursuit. And you may have to do other things to put food on the table, or figure out how much you really need to eat and live within your means. You have to figure out if there is an audience for your work and how big an audience that is. Then decide if the art you want to make is something that will work for a living or need to be supported by other means.
Never settle. Always push to do more, to find and create with your own voice.
Picasso once said something that may sound contrary to what I’ve been talking about:
When you have something to say, to express, any submission becomes unbearable in the long run. One must have the courage of one’s vocation and the courage to make a living from one’s vocation. The “second career” is an illusion! I was often broke too, and I always resisted any temptation to live any other way than from my painting… In the beginning, I did not sell at a high price, but I sold. My drawings, my canvases went. That’s what counts.
But not really. This exemplifies what it means to make a living with your art. It is not easy, especially at the beginning, and sometimes even after you have become established. If you have thought through what you want to do and if you really believe you have something to say, that God has made it clear that this (whatever this is for you) is what you should do, just as I was fully convinced working in the performing arts is exactly where God wanted me, then you have to move with the courage of your convictions. You shouldn’t change who you are to make work that sells. You should dig deep into who you are to make work. That is what will sell, if it sells.
Just because people buy what you make is not what makes your work art, much less great art.
Just for kicks
A fun little “front line news” story from a Huffington Post article. A 493 person survey of people who work in the entertainment industry.
Feel free to shoot me an email. I love to hear people’s thoughts.
blogATnatureofthebeatDOTorg
Joe