Ugh.
I say that this has nothing to do with government funding, working space, available grants or corporate sponsorship... but with the fact that people are not raised to be patrons of the arts.
The average person can't equate art to value ... and what it will bring to their lives, if they just spend a little bit of money to enjoy it. I am not sure how far back this goes... maybe since the first world war? Industrial Revolution? world war II? the Baby Boom? with the decline in religion in the "western" world?
Not sure.
What i do know: it is an easy to solve problem.
GO BUY SOMETHING.
It's not really that often that I preach that, and I really am not trying to pull a George W Bush move (post 9-11 newscast) but really... you can affect local, national and global artists by just putting a bit of money out there, in the right places.
- Buy a photograph from a local photographer.
- Go out and pay the cover charge to see a band play.
- Check out a show at a small theatre show, even though you're not sure what to expect.
- If you see someone busking, reward them monetarily for their contribution to our vibrant society.
- Appreciate and reward good design, in all aspects of our culture.
- TEACH YOUR KIDS TO VALUE THE ARTS.
I'm just sayin.
More Action can create Actual change in this area. Let's take advantage of that.
I'm sure you've got an opinion on this one - lemme have it!
H.
PS> Thanks to Emily Robson for letting me know about this event and keeping everyone updated through twitter. check it out.
Posts
This is so true, and so sad... Especially since artists put more of themselves into their work than any other profession. I tried to make photography go as a business last year, and had to abandon it because people did not value it in the least.
ReplyDeletethis is a global problem, i think, and applies to artists everywhere. our parents were right, we won't make a good living being artists. but that's only because they have perpetuated that mantra. if my parents maybe had splurged, and gone to see some experimental theater, maybe i wouldn't have been forced through a 5 year disaster-capade of biology and chemistry and i would still be playing the violin. get OUT THERE people! emancipate yourselves! emancipate your children!
ReplyDeletewhat exactly is the definition of artist from this study?
ReplyDeleteif someone wants to be an artist and produce stuff that no one wants to buy, that's their cross to bare. art, like everything else that costs money, is subject to the same rules of supply and demand as all other goods. if there is no demand for your art, then that shouldn't be our social responsibility to ensure you make a decent wage.
i buy art. i've bought art directly from the artist several times. i did so cause they produced art that i thought was lovely. it's survival of the fittest.
if the average wage is $18k, then perhaps the market is oversaturated or maybe there's a lot of crap art out there. my guess is both.
More reasons why one should buy art: http://www.20x200.com/art/2010/03/why-you-should-buy-art.html
ReplyDeleteweird. joe and i went art shopping today. more specifically painting for our room shopping. we found the one we loved. it was $700. we didnt buy it. but this post may have given me that itty bitty extra nudge that i need to just say fuck it and pick it up tomorrow.
ReplyDeletelove you!
Thanks for posting this Hilary! A couple of clarifications:
ReplyDelete1. The 18K is the median, so half make more, half make less.
2. This statistic wall pulled from 2006 census data that related to income for 2005. So, this median income for artists is not exclusive to their art-making activities, but includes any other income (i.e. second jobs) and doesn't include grants (i.e. even more depressing)
3. The definition of artist for this study included 9 (actors & comedians; conductors, composers & arrangers; dancers; musicians & singers; other performing artists like puppeteers; producers, directors, choreographers and related occupations)
The study is from Kelly Hill, a great economist and statistician working on arts in Canada. You can see the whole presentation "Putting Arts and Culture on the Map" on his website, http://www.hillstrategies.com/ along with other great reports and presentations.
Thinking about schmee's question on the appeal and marketablility of artists work, I would add the following point to the discussion. In May 2006 there were 140K people working as artists in Canada, compared with 135K directly employed in the automotive industry. How does support for the automotive industry compare to that for artists? There's definitely a good argument to be made about the fact that nobody wants a Neon (we had one, it sucked), but there was an incredibly supportive financial reaction to crisis in the that sector based on the number of jobs it represents.