Looks Like People Still Care!!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... there's no obvious need for higher tuition other than "they can"...

"they can" = supply and demand = a.k.a. free market

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

In the two years my daughter has been in this Florida university, they just finished a third dorm building on campus. Indicating, more or less, a 20%-30% jump in demand. Their prices went up last year by about 5%. Have not received the bill for the next year, but I do not expect a jump of 20%-30% either. My daughter heard the new dorms are super nice: dryer/washer in rooms, etc. Monthly rent is similar to what I pay for a one bedroom apartment in a luxurious condo building near Miami. She and her friends decided to move to an older, but cheaper, off-campus dorm.

I heard in the first year many parents complaining the living conditions in the dorms were not up to the standard their kids had at home.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Or this:

[faberryman]

I heard in the first year many parents complaining the living conditions in the dorms were not up to the standard their kids had at home.

Duh.

[amolitor]

Absolutely. Art is stupid and useless, and nobody should pursue it without first ensuring their financial security, and only then should they pursue Art as a leisure activity.

That will definitely result in some great art, and a marvelous, rich, culture.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Absolutely. Art is stupid and useless, and nobody should pursue it without first ensuring their financial security, and only then should they pursue Art as a leisure activity.

That will definitely result in some great art, and a marvelous, rich, culture.

If I properly understood the above as sarcasm, nobody prevents anybody from studying arts. Just do it on your own dime, or pay back the loan if you take it. In most cases, they will be unable to repay it, which only raises the cost for everyone else. Besides, studying arts doesn't make you an artist, let alone great.

[JoeKitchen]

As someone who makes his sole income from my art, along with my wife, and does very well for himself, I can tell you, you are both wrong. 

First and foremost, most art programs do not teach business skills and marketing.  Art is a business, and as such, follows the same rules as any business.  The fact that so many programs have very little, if any, business course requirements is a very big part of the reason so many art students fail at making a living from their art.

So, partly going to Slobo's point, if you want to study the fine arts, and be an artist, make sure you really vet the schools and go with that that has good art business courses. 

Second, being a professional artist is a very very different lifestyle then the normal 9 to 5 job most people not only end up in but mentally desire.  I have no set schedule nor a set location to work from nor do I have a consistent income.  I am always reinventing myself, not to mention picking apart my work to the point where I am disappointed 99% of the time.  My wife and I love it, and find it exhilarating.  However, until you actually start living it, you just don't know if you can really deal with it, and most can't.  I am not saying I am better then others, just I have no issues with this lifestyle, whereas an inconsistent schedule with out a set income is very daunting and fearful to most people.  So many of my former assistants left the industry due to these inconsistency and the fear of not bringing home a weekly paycheck, and this is another reason so many with art degrees end up not being a pro.  Not sure how you teach this to the point of someone truly understanding it, but it is certainly a big issue. 

So, Slobo, an art degree can be very rewarding and pay very well, so long as you put in the effort to learn the business side of things, really vet the schools, which I think you advocate for.  However, Andrew, studying fine arts and trying to make a career out of it should not be taken light heartily.  You really need to think about the lifestyle and whether or not it is right for you.  After doing this for 12 years and seeing so many consumed by the fear of inconsistencies, I would not frivolously recommend it to anyone with our a good deal of sole searching. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Joe, what you do is probably better known as applied arts, which can be commercially rather rewarding. Something that most "true" art students probably deeply despise. And even if they study for applied arts (e.g., graphic design, if I am not mistaken), it still takes talent and a good deal of hustling to break into the field and make decent money. You can't just say "I am an artist" and expect the world to fall into your lap.

[amolitor]

The point is that by evaluating everything in dollars, we continue to place the cart before the horse. The economy is a support for culture, not the other way around.

Never has any society every produced so much abundance with so little labor.

And yet, never has any society, though every other society has required more productive labor from its citizens, so thoroughly evaluated higher education in terms of how well it equips the student for productive labor.

It is absurd.

[rabanito]

Joe, what you do is probably better known as applied arts, which can be commercially rather rewarding. Something that most "true" art students probably deeply despise. And even if they study for applied arts (e.g., graphic design, if I am not mistaken), it still takes talent and a good deal of hustling to break into the field and make decent money. You can't just say "I am an artist" and expect the world to fall into your lap.

I tend to agree w/ that-
Photography as defined to make money is better defined as "artisanat", not art.
Among other things, you make what you think others will like, not necesarily your "inspiration" (Others no liking, others no giving money)

I copied part of a statement by one Michelle Gaugy, Art gallery owner, author, art consultant
"What also makes this question more interesting - and somewhat more confusing - is that in that past several decades the definition of artist has expanded greatly. The result is that a significant number of people who heretofore would have been deemed “mere” artisans are now freely using the title of artist as a self-referent. Many craftspeople, furniture-makers, jewelers, clothing designers, hairdressers, etc. etc. now regularly refer to themselves as artists, and their products as art."

The full thing (and ergo in the real context) can be found at
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-an-artist-and-an-artisan

[Rob C]

As someone who makes his sole income from my art, along with my wife, and does very well for himself, I can tell you, you are both wrong. 

First and foremost, most art programs do not teach business skills and marketing.  Art is a business, and as such, follows the same rules as any business.  The fact that so many programs have very little, if any, business course requirements is a very big part of the reason so many art students fail at making a living from their art.

So, partly going to Slobo's point, if you want to study the fine arts, and be an artist, make sure you really vet the schools and go with that that has good art business courses. 

Second, being a professional artist is a very very different lifestyle then the normal 9 to 5 job most people not only end up in but mentally desire.  I have no set schedule nor a set location to work from nor do I have a consistent income.  I am always reinventing myself, not to mention picking apart my work to the point where I am disappointed 99% of the time.  My wife and I love it, and find it exhilarating.  However, until you actually start living it, you just don't know if you can really deal with it, and most can't.  I am not saying I am better then others, just I have no issues with this lifestyle, whereas an inconsistent schedule with out a set income is very daunting and fearful to most people.  So many of my former assistants left the industry due to these inconsistency and the fear of not bringing home a weekly paycheck, and this is another reason so many with art degrees end up not being a pro.  Not sure how you teach this to the point of someone truly understanding it, but it is certainly a big issue. 

So, Slobo, an art degree can be very rewarding and pay very well, so long as you put in the effort to learn the business side of things, really vet the schools, which I think you advocate for.  However, Andrew, studying fine arts and trying to make a career out of it should not be taken light heartily.  You really need to think about the lifestyle and whether or not it is right for you.  After doing this for 12 years and seeing so many consumed by the fear of inconsistencies, I would not frivolously recommend it to anyone with our a good deal of sole searching.

Yeah, the freelance lifestyle.

1. Knowing enough about your career choice when you are young is not easy; unless you have a family member in the commercial art world how can you know? Folks don't usually go around telling you how much or how little they earn - most want to be thought successful, not the opposite.

2. I kinda believe that choosing the lifestyle is a two-way number: it chooses you as much as the other way around.

3. "Fine" art, as compared with commercial art (meaning anything artistic that you do to earn your keep, on a salary or by commission, including industrial design, photography, advertising design, copywriting, all those things), is more of a conceit, I think, and puts you in a very hot seat if you expect to live from it. Basically, nobody needs your product. That's probably why so many turn to full-time teaching. I should imagine that only a handful of students has the family money behind it to indulge the dream of being the next Picasso or whoever was the incentive to study art. I'm sure one could remain a happy student until one's thirties! After that, I think self-doubt and grim realisation of not making it may remove the golden glow. If you do make it, then you can laugh at the world. It's why I play the lottery.

4. For either gig, commercial or "fine", you gotta be really lucky. In my own life, so much fell into my lap by chance, and so much that I fought to get never opened its door an inch. I hardly think my story was unique.

5. The freelance life, with its ups and downs of income, does not make for forward planning. Pensions come to mind. Pensions are vital when you are old and mostly knackered, and increasingly so.

6. Looking back. The good times were good when they were happening - if you recognized them at the time - the bad get forgotten quickly (but not the personal, professional slights). Everything gets compressed, with all the separate gigs becoming part of the same compounded one. You can derive pleasure from memories, despite what many people think it hip to tell you. In other words, better a has-been that a never-was.

Rob

[JoeKitchen]

Joe, what you do is probably better known as applied arts, which can be commercially rather rewarding. Something that most "true" art students probably deeply despise. And even if they study for applied arts (e.g., graphic design, if I am not mistaken), it still takes talent and a good deal of hustling to break into the field and make decent money. You can't just say "I am an artist" and expect the world to fall into your lap.

Any business takes a good deal of hustle; it's no different with commercial art. Or even fine arts, getting shown in galleries takes a good deal of hustle and the marketing to those galleries pretty much follows the same principles of any marketing. 

[JoeKitchen]

I tend to agree w/ that-
Photography as defined to make money is better defined as "artisanat", not art.
Among other things, you make what you think others will like, not necesarily your "inspiration" (Others no liking, others no giving money)

I copied part of a statement by one Michelle Gaugy, Art gallery owner, author, art consultant
"What also makes this question more interesting - and somewhat more confusing - is that in that past several decades the definition of artist has expanded greatly. The result is that a significant number of people who heretofore would have been deemed “mere” artisans are now freely using the title of artist as a self-referent. Many craftspeople, furniture-makers, jewelers, clothing designers, hairdressers, etc. etc. now regularly refer to themselves as artists, and their products as art."

The full thing (and ergo in the real context) can be found at
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-an-artist-and-an-artisan

Not really.  Probably about 95% of the images I have shot were exactly what I wanted to shoot.  Only about 5% were client directed.  Now I dont get to pick the buildings I am hired to shoot, but at the end of the day, the images were all still exactly what I would have shot.  And any way, no way could I get the access I would need to do what I would want to without getting hired to shoot the building.  Most places are not going to let some random guy come in with 500 lb. of gear, take over the place, and do a photo shoot unless it benefits them some how. 

Not to mention we are always engaged in personal projects, which are entirely our own, to help draw attention to us from the art buyers.  In these cases, the art buyers never want to see commercially viable works, since that is what they do all day.  They want to see independent works that are funky, and perhaps pull them away from their day job. 

Insofar as you quote, it has always been the case that those in the fine arts looked down on those doing commercial arts.  For some reason, as soon as you make money, outside of a gallery, these fine artist have a change in opinion.  Sorry, but to assume the only avenue to make money at being a true artist is a gallery is very short sighted.  Anyway, not that I think an average furniture maker is an artist, but I have seen furniture shows at high successful fine art galleries that you find it very difficult to argue against it being art.  They were very functional too. 

[jeremyrh]

The economy is a support for culture, not the other way around.

Absolutely this!! If no-one lacked food or shelter - what would they do?

[jeremyrh]

Art is a business

Mmm - no, it ain't. If you can get paid on the back of it, fine, but that's not what it is.

[JoeKitchen]

Mmm - no, it ain't. If you can get paid on the back of it, fine, but that's not what it is.

Fine, the actual art is not a business.  Making a living from your art is very much a business.  Every successful gallery owner would completely agree with me here.  If you want to ignore this and put your head in the sand, that is your own prerogative.  But at the end of the day, no one really makes it being lucky (as Rob implied). 

You make it by putting into effect good business practices, whether you realize it or not.  Such as, constantly reaching out to gallery owners whom you research first to see if your work would make sense with what they show, sending out fliers and examples of your work to get attention, when you do have a show promoting it on Social Networks and other traditional media, negotiating what your take is from the gallery sales (and making sure that the first print in a series sold you get your percentage plus the cost of the frame), knowing to put aside artist prints of each work so if you get famous you can sell those at the current market price, etc.  These are all business practices. 

[jeremyrh]

Fine, the actual art is not a business.  Making a living from your art is very much a business.  Every successful gallery owner would completely agree with me here.  If you want to ignore this and put your head in the sand, that is your own prerogative.  But at the end of the day, no one really makes it being lucky (as Rob implied). 

You make it by putting into effect good business practices, whether you realize it or not.  Such as, constantly reaching out to gallery owners whom you research first to see if your work would make sense with what they show, sending out fliers and examples of your work to get attention, when you do have a show promoting it on Social Networks and other traditional media, negotiating what your take is from the gallery sales (and making sure that the first print in a series sold you get your percentage plus the cost of the frame), knowing to put aside artist prints of each work so if you get famous you can sell those at the current market price, etc.  These are all business practices.

You are clearly making it - and well done for that. Did van Gogh make it? How does your art stack up against his?

[Rob C]

Sarah Moon made it as an artistic fashion photographer; she has written of how some contemporaries derided her success as meaning some kind of selling out: as she says, because she made heaps more money than did they with their reportage etc. was an absurd reason for dislike, and not without a tinge of the colour of envy.

Deborah Turbeville and Sheila Metzner did much the same, use their God-given eyes to make exceptional work the technician photographers could not.

Money discolours everything, especially when someone has more than do you.

Regarding my own tale, I can only repeat: without extraordinarily good luck and chains of coincidence, I would now be a retired, knackered old engineer filled with no memories, no adventures. I am equally knackered as I would have been in the other life, but have few regrets of omission.

:-)

[elliot_n]

Fine, the actual art is not a business.  Making a living from your art is very much a business.  Every successful gallery owner would completely agree with me here.  If you want to ignore this and put your head in the sand, that is your own prerogative.  But at the end of the day, no one really makes it being lucky (as Rob implied).

Rob said the opposite, and I agree with him. It's mostly about luck, not hustle. A degree in business studies is of no help here.

You make it by putting into effect good business practices, whether you realize it or not.  Such as, constantly reaching out to gallery owners whom you research first to see if your work would make sense with what they show, sending out fliers and examples of your work to get attention...

This is not how it works. Gallerists have no interest in artists 'reaching out' to them. Keep the flyers for commercial prospects.

Commerical photography, with its 'art buyers' and 'art directors', might somehow seem 'arty', but photographs made in this context are not art. A commercial photograph is little more than a piece of propaganda.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Joe, what you do is probably better known as applied arts, which can be commercially rather rewarding. Something that most "true" art students probably deeply despise. And even if they study for applied arts (e.g., graphic design, if I am not mistaken), it still takes talent and a good deal of hustling to break into the field and make decent money. You can't just say "I am an artist" and expect the world to fall into your lap.

There are also alternative career paths that can be explored.  One of my daughters was a music major in college with a minor in brain and cognitive science.  She wanted to continue playing the bassoon but not as a career and hence did not get a performance degree (recieve a BA rather than BM).  She worked in an office setting for a couple of years and then went back to grad school to get a Masters in Music Therapy and now works at a children's hospital at a major medical school.  Similarly, there are opportunities for degrees in art and dance therapy and one can have a rewarding career in those fields. 

I'm sure that there are a lot of us who either are working or have worked in fields that were quite removed from our college education.  That certainly was my experience when I moved into pharmaceutical regulatory affairs after a short career in medical research.