“Begin to submit yourself to the direction of a master for instruction as early as you can; and do not leave the master until you have to.”
This may be the most significant sentence in Cennino Cennini’s Il Libro dell’Arte, but I did not understand the reason until yesterday. The key is to ask, why does Cennini say this?
. . .
The clue came from Tracy Helgeson, who commented:
“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.”
In Cennini’s time, an artist did their non “free-lance” work in another artist’s workshop, as an apprentice. In this workshop, the young artist developed the skills he would need later, while receiving a living wage. When he established himself as a master, he became a “free-lance” as Tracy says, and got his own assistants.
Nowadays, because artists don’t generally collaborate as a team in a workshop, the artist must often get their stable income from a source not directly related to art. The time in the “day job” is time lost from learning how to be an artist. Cennini recommends staying with the master as long as possible, because this gives the opportunity to learn without having to survive as a “free-lance,” which is what is so difficult for artists today. Herein is the significance of what Cennini wrote some six hundred years ago.
Cennini adds, “There are those who pursue [art], because of poverty and domestic need, for profit and enthusiasm for the profession too.” Not quit the situation today, is it? In our time, art can be a cause of, rather than a cure for, poverty.
…
Tracy Hegelson, Jon Conkey and David Palmer discuss their “day job” experiences in comments to the previous post on art education. The “day job” can provide valuable knowledge, even if it is not the same nature of work as these artists do in their studios. But their comments also confirm the distinction between our time and Cennini’s.
…
Earlier I compared the education of a scientist to that of an artist. A biologist, for example, will spend four years in graduate school (ages 21-25), then another two to four years as a post-doctoral fellow, before becoming an independent assistant professor. The post-doctoral years are some of the most productive in a scientist’s career: free from coursework, free from the demands of teaching and administration, the post-doctoral fellow focuses on research under the guidance of and in collaboration with a recognized scientist. There is nothing comparable for the artist, as far as I know.
I think one thing that’s changed is the role of an artist in society. Back in Cennini’s time, virtually all art was done on commission. Patrons came in and ordered murals or alterpieces for the local church, or a duke would want to decorate his palazzo. The price was based on time and materials. If a patron really wanted to show off, they’d order a painting with lots of gold and ultramarine blue. Artists rarely determined the subject matter, it was always the patron (there were what, maybe a half-dozen themes). Skill in creating believable scenes was pretty apparent and easy to recognize. Artists were basically craftsmen for hire. There were no galleries, and artists rarely created something that wasn’t pre-ordered.
Certainly what we have now is a totally different situation, an open market. Artists are expected to create something totally new and unique. There’s little agreement as to what is good art, or even as to what is art (as per your earlier post). There’s a lot of hype and positioning to try and create marketable “brands”. And all kinds of speculative buying by collectors hoping to get in early on the next big thing.
Within that, there are a few opportunities to work as assistants to successful artists, though I don’t think there’s usually an expectation by the “master” that the assistant will ever be more than an assistant. There are also workshops where artists work as teams. I’ve experienced that doing residential murals, doing scenic painting for tv commercials, and now working with hundreds of other digital artists creating movies. But these activities are not really seen as part of the art world.
I’m not sure your example of a scientist moving from grad school to post-doc to assistant professor is necessarily the model that is relevant in this discussion.
There are many other jobs out there for a scientist – not just back at another university.
The question I have – how well does the unversity do at training these people to locate, interview for and ultimatly obtain such positions? And once the scientist arrives at their new non-university job are they well equipped to function in the corporate or government or other type of environment?
I spent 4 years in grad school in computer science and I can safely say that they did not train me to do these things. What they taught me was how to survive in the academic world – not the real world.
I had to scramble to figure it all out and life out here as a software engineer is nothing like I had expected. On-the-job skills are not what I was taught in school.
And for that I am extremely gratful. Instead I have an amazingly broad knowledge of the theory and fundamentals of computer science. With the braod knowledge comes the ability to learn and adapt to the present day “real-life” applications.
That I believe is the purpose of a good education. Not the hands on “here is how to sell art in todays market” but the “this is what it means to be an artist and make art”. I think it is up to the individual to take that broad knowledge and apply it practically.
Ask most university professors and they will say that a university education is not a job training program. It is an education.
Sure – some practical “how to I sell art” information is needed – but does it belong in a university curriculum? Personally – I don’t think so. I do think it would be great if professors pointed artists to sources where this information was available but I do not think they should be teaching it as it means less time to teach the foundation.
Lisa,
I can only speak from my experience in Neuroscience, and what I have seen with friends and acquaintences in other fields. A PhD program combines education with job training. Almost all of my colleagues who remain in science make a good living and are stimulated by their work. Those who decided to leave university research had no difficulty in obtaining good jobs (usually at higher pay) in the real world). That is, unless they decided to become an artist…
David, Your point about the mode of selling on commission is key. See my post of today (11 Oct).
Well, you’re right there isn’t much parallel to a scientists feildwork or education in art. On the other hand, we can make our own shelters. My group of friends after art school were very commited to painting and making art full time. They all did…even with full time jobs in other feilds. I worked ina nightclub for three years full time, painting for the most part, whatever I wanted on the walls of the nightclub, rotating throughout the year. I look at that time as really working on my chops.
Musicians often do this too. Artists and musicians usually dedicate a lot of their spare time to practice…where other young people might join volleyball leagues, or crusie bars and get married…musicians and artists have in common a tendancy to attract friends and lovers who bend to their bizzare schedules(if being artistic could be called having a scehdule ha ha). A lot of solitary tie is expected and taken…sometimes at the cost of a social life or love life.
So the time that society and academia often incorporates for a scientists post school study or apprenticeship…artist and musicians have classically been known to create and define their own offbeat commitment to practice themselves.
This is functioanl in their youth, but we all know folks who used to be ina band or make artwork and then the thirties come along…family, relationships and finacial burndens often cause many talented musicians and artists to store their instruments and materials in the garage…nad eventually…their motivation is squashed…and their passion becomes a memory they will tell their grandchildren about their “artsy fartsy days”.
I’ll try to clarify my thoughts.
There are definitely pure research positions outside of universities, and I worked in one at IBM for a while, and it was basically identical to a university environment. So I’m excluding those from my discussion.
I’m talking about true corporate positions where pure research is not the goal. Where there are customers, and performance reports, and meetings and an incredible amount of other crap that has to be dealt with to survive and advance.
We never covered this in my PhD program. We never talked about how to get ahead in the corporate world.
I spend less than 1/2 of my time actually doing any type of real computer work – I’m mostly doing other thing – things I had to learn on the job. Red tape, “process”, things that corporations put in place because in the end they answer to the share holder and the customers and not to a higher calling of “research for the sake of research”.
And that was the comparison I was making. Art school teaches how to make art for the sake of art. PhD programs train scientists to do research for the sake of research.
Turning either of those into a customer facing, money making enterprise is not an easy or obvious task that I don’t believe is taught at most universities. And again – I don’t believe it should be.
Okay Lisa, Now I see what you are saying. This is exactly why I decided to pursue my art career outside of the academic context, because I felt that the process of selling is central to the process of creating art.
I’m uncomfortable about saying that working at a university is not the real world, though. Who is more in the real world, a scientist studying global warming, or someone making comercials for SUVs? According to the standard view, it is the person with the SUVs.