What do students want from an art education?
October 9th, 2006Simple: to learn how to make a living as an artist. Art school education, no matter how stimulating, cannot be considered complete if the graduates need to seek other employment in order to support part-time, non-profitable art making.
Of course, the question of “how to make a living as an artist?” is not trivial. It brings together two things: 1) being an artist, with all the personal expression and integrity implied; and 2) how to live from this. Combining 1) and 2) is a serious topic for research. This should be one of the functions of an art education — to do research into how to sell art.
If how to sell art? is a mystery, then finding the answer will be as exciting as solving any other important problem. Advanced education is not only about learning, but also discovering what is not known.
The only problem is, if art schools could really fulfill their mission, they might loose their faculty — the professors would likely go off and do art full time.
…
This post was inspired by Bob Martin, who is on the board of an art school and commented “I would be very interested in learning what artists want from a school and an instructor.”
What do you want from an art school and instructor?
—
[Thanks to those of you writing the great comments, David Palmer in particular, for giving me insight into the art school education, where it succeeds and where it fails.]
October 9th, 2006 at 8:50 am
I think almost any kind of job that is free-lance, which an artist essentially is, requires a second, more stable income for a good period of time. Unless one is willing or able to live in extreme poverty and upheaval.
I was an illustration major in college and so what I am doing now is a bit different. However I have applied many of the lessons learned then to my current situation. We received some guidance in how to get started, but the info we didn’t get was the nuts and bolts: how to keep records, images etc of the work, how to handle business relationships, how to guide your career and get what you want out of it.
That said, in today’s world, unlike 20 years ago when I was in school, most of that kind of info is readily available, especially through the internet so I don’t think there can be too many excuses for not knowing what to do.
I’d also like to add that it is important to make mistakes here. For example, I knew that I shouldn’t make a sale around my gallery, but when I did it once, it became a huge mess, and cleared up only when I came clean and reimbursed the gallery their portion. Knowing what to do and actually doing it are two different things and reading about it is different than actually doing it.
October 9th, 2006 at 9:03 am
Tracy,
You have hit on the key point which none of us has yet articulated:
“almost any kind of job that is free-lance, which an artist essentially is, requires a second, more stable income for a good period of time.”
In the past, an artist did their non “free-lance” work in another artist’s workshop. In this workshop, the artist developed the same skills he would need later. When he established himself as a master, he became a “free-lance” as you say, and got his own assistants.
Nowadays, because artists don’t generally work as a team (as is the model in science as I mentioned earlier), the artist must often get their stable income from a source not directly related to art. So the time in the “day job” is time lost from learning about art. THAT is the problem. Thanks for highlighting it.
October 9th, 2006 at 9:53 am
Karl, Now you have brought up a point that I could highlight. I don’t feel that having a day job is the worst thing for an artist’s career. I have done many different things over the year while waiting for the chance to get back to art and I feel that I learned a lot from those experiences which have been invaluable to me as a working artist. For example, I learned how to socially interact with different kinds of people when I worked as a receptionist, I learned how to do bookkeeping and marketing when I worked in the office of a graphic design agency. And the things I learned as a stay at home mom! Patience, how to keep going when dead-tired, multi-tasking, that list goes on and on:-)
Anyway, my point is that outside work doesn’t always have to be a detriment to an art career, it’s all in how one approaches it and how they use those skills learned, in a different context.
October 9th, 2006 at 10:28 am
Tracy,
I like your way of thinking positively. I’m going to post about your previous comment later this week, so I won’t comment further here.
October 9th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
I think there are a number of factors to consider here, including the artist’s perception of what it means to make a living as an artist.
Ever since I got my undergraduate degree (and again since grad school) I’ve worked at many jobs, almost all of which could be considered, I suppose, making a living as an artist. I’ve worked as an illustrator/muralist at a natural history museum, painted Pompeiian frescos for the Sultan of Brunei (as part of a team of artists), and done scenic painting for tv shows and commercials. At one point I worked for friends of mine who had a monoprint studio. We cranked out pseudo-impressionist monoprints, signed them with made-up names, and they sold them to interior designers. I’ve worked as a digital artist, at first on CD ROM projects (remember those?), and more recently on major Hollywood movies. I’ve learned a lot from each of these jobs, which I guess in some ways could be comparable to what you’d learn as an apprentice. And some people might consider them “making a living as an artist.” But I’ve always thought of them as day jobs. At the end of each day, and on weekends, I would go to my studio and do my own work. I still do this.
I guess my idea of what making a living as an artist means is doing your own work, work that follows the path of your own interest, and then selling it, either through galleries or directly. Commissions would count too, of course, as long as you were doing work that furthered your growth in the direction you want to move.
Part of the problem, as I see it, is that the gallery system is broken. There are way too many of us aspiring artists trying to land shows in way too few galleries. You have to be picky, because showing with the wrong galleries can really hurt your reputation. And I have a pretty decent gallery that I show with. But on their own they don’t sell anywhere near enough work for me to live on, and I haven’t had much luck expanding to other cities. Most serious galleries have so many artists trying to get their attention that they’ve stopped even looking.
Sorry this comment has become so long…anyway, time for me to get to work (day job).
October 9th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
In the constraints post you were unenthusiastic about Painting A Day. I’m not suggesting you join, of course (I don’t belong either), but it is interesting to consider this phenomenon in the context of your statement: “The gallery system is broken. There are way too many of us aspiring artists trying to land shows in way too few galleries.” Painting A Day is an attempt to find a new way to sell that by-passes galleries altogether. You inspire me to interview one of these painters to get an inside view. We need more information about what they do before we can say much more.
October 9th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
It’s an interesting paradox. On the one hand I applaud any effort (especially successful ones) by artists to embrace the business side of what they do and make a living from their work. No argument there.
But then there’s the work itself. I’ve done a bit of Googling around since my “constraints” comment, and basically all of the PAD work I’ve seen has been little traditional landscapes and still-lifes. Some of them are pretty well done. But is it an art movement if it just involves doing endless versions of something you’ve already seen a million times? Or is it just a marketing movement? Would there be as large a market for less familiar-looking stuff?
I’m not criticizing the artists involved. Some of their work looks good, and hopefully they are doing something they love and can feel good about. But I personally haven’t been that interested in what I’ve seen, or felt inspired to join in.
For me what’s exciting about art is the process of discovery, both for artist and viewer. Science too! Would you have been drawn to science if the only way to make a living at it was to keep re-discovering gravity? The Apple A Day Movement?
October 9th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
What I tried to express in the What is Art? and Fall of the art world posts is the idea that the buyer has become alienated from art. It seems that Painting a Day is a way for the artists to reconnect with the public. It is logical that the initial work in such a movement would seem conventional. What is interesting is the by-passing of the galleries.
If the buyer and the artist recommence a meaningful dialogue then I would expect that appreciation of art should develop. The Painting a Day painters, or their successors, will stimulate this process and react to it, making more interesting artwork.
As for science, much of what goes on is repeating the same experiments, with subtle variations. Progress is often slow, with occasional breakthroughs that lead to a flurry of new research. The reason is perhaps the same as for the conservative nature of the Painting a Day artwork: in order to be funded, a research program has to have some prospect of success, and for this, it cannot be radically speculative. The science world supports a lot of scientists doing normal work, so a few can do outstanding work. That is the way it has to be if you want to get the outstanding work done — because no one knows ahead of time who is going to do that work. In the art world, you have to be outstanding simply to make a living. For many talented people, just surviving is not enough incentive to go into art full time.
October 9th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
Karl, you make some good points. I look forward to hearing more about this movement, even if at first I don’t find it that interesting. I agree with your statement that the public has become alienated from art. I’m just not sure that the solution is endlessly producing the same things we’ve seen over and over again.
Regarding what you said about the incremental nature of the progress of science, I understand that, but the difference is that science (hopefully) is at least trying to move forward from where we are, not redoing the same experiments they were doing hundreds of years ago.
PS – I just want to add that I’m really enjoying this discussion. In looking at the timestamps on these comments, I’m struck by the fact that we’re thousands of miles and many timezones way (I’m heading out to lunch) and are all able to have a conversation.
October 9th, 2006 at 6:54 pm
Art school is only as good as the student/teacher relationship created by the student who enters, not every teacher will impress or reach all students; unfortunatly for the student, one must already know what “they are after” then seek that particular advice; so many students today expect all the work to be done for them by a “guru figure” (the “I studied with so and so” clan), ironically they never seem to “out-do” the master whose name they consistantly drop. Instead of putting in the hours required to excel and achieve greatness, by releasing the passion and love they have stored up inside them, many (most) are basically looking for someone to hand them the keys and show them the way to stardom. Good luck!
Perhaps a better question would be; which artist in history was guaranteed a steady income after their training? And, which “school of thought” is superior to all others?
Unfortunate as it is, talent is never enough (and never has been), society in some way needs to be impressed with the performance of any artist before that artist is embraced. The artist is responsible for paying attention the the reactions of their society (if they are looking to make money), society is pretty good about recognizing real talent when they see it, even without any training whatsoever. We have all seen amateurs try to break into the art scene with mass $$$ and corny marketing (every art magazine is filled with them); they only last as long as the $$$ are flowing in; then “poof” their gone.
The best advice I could give “any” student of “anything”, would be to discover your “loves and passions”, then persue them with all your heart, and learn they histories of what it is you like; that way if it leads you to nowhere, you will have at least mostly enjoyed the path getting there; which is better than folks that do what they hate everyday.
A brief note on day jobs…As an artist, I choose day jobs that used my art skills most of my working career; pinstripping cars, litho press assistant, gallery manager, picture framer, restoration, etc. All the while gaining valuable information that I could later use in my art. Hopefully, my two cents will help someone. JLC
October 9th, 2006 at 7:53 pm
I have a post up today regarding my decision to work with galleries rather than selling my own work via the internet. While at first it was a practical decision (not enough time in the day), now I see that in order to get the opportunities that I envision for my work, (rightly or wrongly, who knows?) working with a gallery is the best way for that to happen.
I agree with much of what David said about Painting a Day. I don’t really see it as a movement, but rather as a process that takes advantage of the internet for sales and as a non threatening way for people to buy art. Which is good for all involved. I think PAD is interesting, and a really good way to develop various skills as an artist. Will it be taken seriously, or is it simply a passing fad? Will it influence future artists? I don’t know, but I do find the whole thing interesting to watch and there a few that I check every day or so.
October 10th, 2006 at 11:34 am
Karl, from one of your comments I wonder if you are familiar with the book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Kuhn. http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-Thomas-Kuhn/dp/0226458083
a nice summary of the book is here http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/kuhnsyn.html
also a good wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions
I read this book in my honors computer science class my senior year as a CS major. It’s one of those books that has made a lasting lifetime impression on me.
Found your blog via Tracy’s. Lots of interesting content – thanks.
I work a fulltime job but I do not consider it a horrible thing either. I have the luxury of going to my studio and not having to think “will this sell” and that is invaluable to my growth. At least for this stage of my art career.
October 10th, 2006 at 12:11 pm
Karl, I read the Kuhn book as well, and I agree w/ Lisa that it’s excellent.
One of the most inspiring and insightful books I’ve read on the art process is Brian Eno’s diary, A Year with Swollen Appendices. It’s unfortunately out of print, but seems to be available on Amazon through resellers (a bit pricey though).
October 12th, 2006 at 8:05 am
Lisa,
The comments I made about the progress of science are based on my own observations and experiences in neuroscience. I think what I say is probably obvious to everyone working in that field.
I am familiar with the Kuhn book’s main ideas (I think) but I have not read it.