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.

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).

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.

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.

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

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.

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.