Painting From Life vs. From Photos
To be an artist today is to confront continual uncertainty. There is economic uncertainty, and also uncertainty of purpose. Modern society seems to value art — art is preserved in museums, and purchased for large sums by “collectors.” And yet the typical artist is strangely disconnected from the top levels of success. Compare this with other professions. A competent pilot, trained at a good flight school, is more or less assured of a successful career. He or she might not get the opportunity to fly the biggest and newest commercial planes, or fancy jet fighters; but a stable career is a reasonable expectation, certainly compared to what an artist can hope for.
The profession of art has not always been so uncertain. For example, Cennino Cennini discusses the motivations of those entering the profession in his time (the 14th c.) “There are those who pursue it” he writes, “because of poverty and domestic need.” In 17th c. Holland, parents would encourage a talented son to pursue art as a profitable and respectable occupation. But nowadays, “poverty and domestic need” would better describe the results of becoming an artist, rather than causes for becoming one.
There is far more wealth in the world today to purchase art than in any time past. The difficult position of artist today is therefore something of a mystery.
If there is a general appreciation of art, and money to buy art, then why is it so difficult to fulfill the role of artist?
If you are under 30, preferably white, with an MFA from a prestigious art school you really should not face the predicament that Karl describes. For the rest of us – hire a publicist.
With the glut in abstract art, paint by numbers and Thomas Kinkaid / Bob Ross type kitsch flooding the senses, I suspect that people are being picky and they want only MBA type artists who have completed and made the necessary noises in the form of a BFA or an MFA… I really do not know – I have to think.
Sunil,
I almost no data, but I have the feeling that having an MFA from a prestigious art school does not guarantee anything. Half of the successful artists I know never went to art school.
There is far more wealth in the world today to purchase art than in any time past. The difficult position of artist today is therefore something of a mystery.
Not if you consider the fact that there are a lot more people trying to make a living as artists today than there were in Cennini’s time.
If you are under 30, preferably white, with an MFA from a prestigious art school you really should not face the predicament that Karl describes.
Sunil, then I must have really fucked up. I’m white, have an MFA from a decent school, and was at one time under thirty (though not recently). And I’ve finally managed, after many years, to have fairly decent gallery representation. But the only thing that keeps me from “poverty and domestic need” is having a day job. I don’t remember things being any easier when I was under thirty.
David,
Why do you think that there is a higher proportion of people trying to make a living as artists today than, say, 500 years ago?
It’s quite an interesting question, really, because we have to figure to whom to make the proportion. Do we include only non-agricultural professions? Do we include only professions that have some advanced professional training “required”?
Also, what do you mean when you say there are a lot more people trying to do it? The very difficulty of success means that a lot of people can say they are trying and failing, even if their effort is not really a serious attempt.
David,
I’ve been thinking a lot about your comments that you want to figure out how to increase the productivity of your linoleum work (this is sort of off topic). You said you were not making full use of your computer skills, for example. But you also said in the interview that working in the linoleum directly was part of the creative force of the work — for example, the “surprises” you got when you looked at the left-overs, the negative spaces of the parts you cut out. I’ve been concerned that if you try to design the (what do you call them again?) things on the computer, you might lose an essential link to the materials. My experience is that whenever I try to be clever and find a trick to increase productivity, I end up harming the work more than helping it. Getting back to the post topic, it might be that it is difficult to be an artist precisely because the inefficiencies of the process, the irrationalities or meta-rationalities are what make it interesting.
Karl,
I speculate that in the past when art and craft were joined tightly, people who needed a good pot went to their local pot shop, which had a couple of potters on salary (or at least as apprentices). The apprentice potter got paid sort of regularly, practiced her skill, and did “art” around the edges. Or, another example, if you needed to sell your house to a distant buyer, you went to your local paint parlor and had one of the staff members come out and paint a picture of it so you could sent it to the prospective buyer. It was a necessary blending of art and craft that worked to keep the hand alive.
Now much of what we used to think of as craft has been taken over by machines and is done much better by them. I have no romantic attachment to the pots thrown by most local craftspeople nor the blankets stitched by the frontierswoman. I’m convinced that most of that craft was pretty crude stuff.
However, there is another interesting side effect (besides allowing the artist to make money practicing her craft, I mean) that has been undercut by machines. And that is that with machines, we don’t maintain the base of competent, unambitious craftspeople who act as a foundation for those with more ambition and desire to do something more than work for others. So now everyone who wants to be an artist wants to be An Artist.
Outside of educational institutions, there aren’t many salaried positions where you can practice your craft. So you get lots of boutique artists, struggling and painting “art for small places” and selling in gymnasiums, and you get the scramble and struggle for recognition with galleries and dealers that can be debilitating indeed. Too much scramble and struggle, it seems to me, for far too few slots. And no place for the overflow to go.
Of course, this has been the case for a couple hundred years — William Morris tried to re-integrate art and craft, work and work, a 100 years ago. We still admire his wallpaper, but some of the other efforts fell apart almost immediately. It was already too late — machines had gotten too competent.
About art school — I was shocked when, about 15 years ago, someone admitted to me that she wasn’t “really an artist” because she didn’t have a degree. It never occurred to me that an artist had to have one. There are advantages to spending the kind of focused time that degree work requires — but the bigger advantage is having contacts within the world of art. Of course, there are even fewer guarantees of success for students with art degrees than those with English degrees. Scarcely anyone hires a degreed artist to teach Art as a Second Language.
However, making a degree a prerequisite to being a “real” artist might have the advantage of cutting down on the numbers scrambling for the designation. I say this with a certain amount of cynicism — maybe even a snort or two.
Why do you think that there is a higher proportion of people trying to make a living as artists today than, say, 500 years ago?
Karl, I think that without even having any numbers, you can look at the results of the supply and demand ratio.
Back in Cennini’s time, young apprentices who were willing to clean brushes and grind pigments were slowly given opportunities to move up through the ranks and, as they learned to paint, work on the master’s commissions. After a number of years they would prove themselves with their own “masterpieces”, and move into the market on their own. There was a demand for apprentices, who were fully supported (like having full scholarships), they slowly moved up into paid positions, and eventually they had their own clients and their own assistants. There seems to have been enough demand in the market at the time to support the number of people working in the field.
Contrast that with today. There is certainly a need by the schools to keep an ongoing flow of paying students moving through the system, but when they graduate they are no closer to making a living as artists than when they started. Maybe they’ve acquired some art skills, and maybe they’ve learned how to shoot slides, write a statement, and put together a resume. But so have thousands of others each year. Where are they needed? When was the last time you heard of a legitimate art gallery looking for artists? And why should they? There are thousands of aspiring artist (at all levels of seriousness) for every available gallery slot. You already know this.
I’ve been thinking a lot about your comments that you want to figure out how to increase the productivity of your linoleum work. You said you were not making full use of your computer skills…
Karl, the fact that you bring this up now is a good indication to me (or a good omen, at least) that I’m on the right track. As you know I’m currently between studios. And I don’t expect to look for another one right away. In the meantime I’m exploring ways to use the computer to lessen the amount of repetitive work that I need to do in creating the linoleums, while maintaining the improvisational nature of the process. I’m doing this in my limited spare time, while working on this zombie vampire movie at my day job.
Will keep you posted when I have more info (on the linoleums, not the zombie vampires).
karl one thought. Those of who want to be successful spend very little time educating people or talking about our work. Our struggles don’t seem to have anything to do with education, but more to do with our reluctance to make ourselves available, sharing ourselves. In part who we are adds to the value of the work we do. Sometimes collectors what to like or appreciate the person whose work they are collecting (added value). unfortunately when I get into a conversation about what I do, I begin to feel like I am totally full of crap. I know I need to find a balance.
I saw this huge comment that didn’t fit on my monitor and I thought, hmm, this must be one of June’s… Your basic point is that it is difficult to be an artist because of competition from other artists. Somehow I don’t believe this at all. The competition is with the other people who make stuff that fulfills the needs that art used to fulfill but is no longer called art — that is my guess. It’s difficult to be an artist because people don’t need art the way they used to, as you say. The challenge to me, it seems, is to make art that does things that people do want and can’t get from other sources. This would be a matter of redefining what art can do, can be. This is the way I look at what I am trying to do: art as discovery, not art as collectable prestige unit.
There is certainly a need by the schools to keep an ongoing flow of paying students moving through the system, but when they graduate they are no closer to making a living as artists than when they started.
David,
I have an talented acquaintance who was thrilled to be admitted to a prestigious art school in The Hague. It seems like you are suggesting that she would be better off following her own inspiration and direction than going to art school, is that right?
Those of who want to be successful spend very little time educating people or talking about our work.
Bob,
As I mentioned above to June, I don’t see competition between artists as the key problem. But since David brought it up again, I see that your comment fits. If there are thousands of artists applying for each gallery slot (although this sounds like an exaggeration) then what is the incentive for an individual artist to share his or her special knowledge with others? Even if we don’t think of the competition aspect, there is still the matter of taking the time. But clearly, a system where people don’t share their knowledge is one that will not be as rich as it could be.
I have an talented acquaintance who was thrilled to be admitted to a prestigious art school in The Hague. It seems like you are suggesting that she would be better off following her own inspiration and direction than going to art school, is that right?
Absolutely not. She’ll learn a lot in art school. What I am suggesting is that she not expect to get out of art school and start making a living as a fine artist. Unless the art world is very different over there than here in the states. It would be good if, while she was in art school, she also acquired skills she could use to make money (until she makes it big as an artist).
The competition is with the other people who make stuff that fulfills the needs that art used to fulfill but is no longer called art — that is my guess. It’s difficult to be an artist because people don’t need art the way they used to…
That’s partly true, unless you consider movies, television and personal photos to be art. Which maybe they are. In which case what some people need from art they are able to easily get from cable tv, Netflix, or a cheap digital camera. They don’t need to go to art galleries or buy paintings, unless that’s specifically what they’re looking for.
I also never think of myself competing directly with other artists. Many of my friends are artists, and when we can we help each other out. The competition is with the shear number of artists, not with the artists themselves.
If there are thousands of artists applying for each gallery slot (although this sounds like an exaggeration) then what is the incentive for an individual artist to share his or her special knowledge with others?
Generosity of spirit. And friendship. Same as it’s always been.
If there are thousands of artists applying for each gallery slot (although this sounds like an exaggeration)…
Karl, it isn’t an exaggeration, but a wild guess. What if I’m way off, and it’s just hundreds for every slot? Does that change anything?
When I compare the activities and beliefs of very many (if not most) contemporary artists with activities and beliefs of artists in eras past where the artists did well for themselves, the signal characteristic was that in the past artists seemed more content to meet the needs of the market. Nowadays there is great emphasis on originality or novelty at the expense of craft. The best artists have always managed to reconcile the two.
I do not now nor have I ever considered it difficult to make a living as an artist, but then I am willing to meet the needs of the market, and I can tell you the only universal is that the market knows the difference between skill and its lack. You can say anything you want, but by the gods, you’d better say it well.
In 2005 I made 55k making and selling portraits. Not a great living, but it was a living. It got boring is all. Now I’m working for the print market and am not bored but excited by what I do. I don’t buy into this particular artist’s woe at all. The answer is obvious. It just takes gut to face.
I don’t buy into this particular artist’s woe at all. The answer is obvious.
I don’t know that the answer is obvious, but I agree w/ Rex in that I don’t buy into the artist’s tale of woe either.
One thing I’ve learned is that there’s more to this business than just the gallery scene. It took me awhile to get it, but having just had a pretty-much sold out exhibition I finally realized what a bad business model it is for an artist. I’m exploring some other avenues at present, and I’m finding that exciting too. There’s a lot to learn, and it’s not all about creating images.
David,
Your lessons learned and tips would be very useful to all of us who try hard to get some kind of gallery representation… I was intrigued by your statement “There’s a lot to learn, and it’s not all about creating images” – I hold the ‘paint and they will automatically come’ point of view – which does not seem to be working…
One thing I’ve learned is that there’s more to this business than just the gallery scene. It took me awhile to get it, but having just had a pretty-much sold out exhibition I finally realized what a bad business model it is for an artist.
David,
This does sound neat. When you have a chance I’d like to hear more about alternatives to the gallery scene.
When I compare the activities and beliefs of very many (if not most) contemporary artists with activities and beliefs of artists in eras past where the artists did well for themselves, the signal characteristic was that in the past artists seemed more content to meet the needs of the market.
Rex,
I don’t know what the basis of this is. What do you see as the needs of the contemporary market that are not being fulfilled?
What we were discussing above is the idea that it is the lack of need for handmade art that is the problem, not a lack of contentment in meeting that need. Innovation and creativity are central to advancing art. The contemporary art scene is remarkably lacking in the ability to do something new. There was the 20th century thing of defying all past expectations of what art could be, but that could only go on for so long before expectations were exhausted. Pollock and Warhol could only be great (if they were) in the context of what art had come before them.
Where artists are having difficulty today is in thinking that they need to keep fulfilling the old needs for art that are not relevant anymore. What we really need to do is create a whole new concept of what art is for.
Pretending that there is nothing wrong with the art profession today is not going to solve anything. Being humble in the face of current market needs, when those needs are not sufficient to support many of the people who have the talent to be fine artists is not a general solution. It will work in particular cases, sure
Karl,
Your questions are all over the place and derive in several instances from conclusions you made having nothing to do with anything I said, like “pretending there is nothing wrong with the art profession today.”
I will just give some examples of historical needs. During the era of Pericles, it was felt that we could achieve in the social sphere high degrees of excellence through greater distribution of rights. Artists glorified these notions in stone, and people paid good money, happily, because this art was in accord with their ideals. During Hellenic times, when those earlier ideals fell from favor, the money went into drama and emotional representations. For Imperial Romans, the thing was to look as Greek as you could, so copies were in. During the Italian Renaissance, gratuitous displays of piety were hip. For the Dutch, the nifty trick was to show one’s power without overt self aggrandizement. During the Impressionist era, we had the rise of the middle class. Impressionism is as much a financial as an artistic solution to the fact that middle class people could not afford an original Beaugureau (for example). So huge elaborate work was out and quickly dashed off work came in. These days the money’s in reproductions because that’s what people can afford.
My suggestion is simple. Why don’t you go out and down the street and ask the lady who works in the florist shop what she thinks would make a nice picture? How about the kid kicking the soccer ball by your house? Or how about the taxi driver?
Probably the better part of my distaste for the “café set” comes from their contempt for the tastes of ordinary people. So you ask why is it so hard?
Yes. It’s obvious. Get off the the cloud and get back to earth.
On the other hand, if one’s really not interested in money or surviving as an artist, then by all means, do your own thing. Enjoy your cloud.
(I don’t hear such people complaining about how hard it is though. It really isn’t about money for most artists, per my observation.)
Very good website and will link off Belcheresque. Also comforting to see that problems we facing here in Nottingham are pretty much worldwide:-)
Keep up the good work
Moogee The Art Dog
http://belcheresque.wordpress.com
Home of Woofism
Is there a single artist alive today who can paint like Rembrandt? How about Titian or Raphael?
Rex,
I don’t share your belief that a random flower lady, kid kicking a ball or taxi cab driver instinctively know art. If this were the case, why is there so much kitsch in this world?
I prefer Robert M. Kay’s comment (4 comments below) that some artist are trying to tap into something revolutionary.
Birgit,
I don’t share the belief that artists instinctively know art. It’s frightfully clear they do not. I do believe artists should serve their societies just as any profession does. Only foolish ones think that means kitsch, and assuming that any random person will want that just shows that artist REALLY needs to talk to more people.
You might find that flower lady likes some kitschy thing, but a deeper discussion will reveal that she truly seeks in art a sense of continuity with the parts of the past she admires. A schlock artist will then do some nostalgia scene, a good artist will transcend that.
And Elizabeth?
There are plenty of artists alive today who paint as well as anyone who ever lived.
Is there a single artist alive today who can paint like Rembrandt?
Odd Nerdrum. Maybe others too…
How about Titian or Raphael?
Probably. Was there a single artist alive during the Renaissance who could paint like Chuck Close?
Artists make the kind of work they do based on their background and temperament. All art (or at least all good art)is based on the need to communicate something to some group, be it large or small. Aiming for a broader group doesn’t make you a better or more honest or more authentic artist. Neither does targeting a narrower or more elite group.
Well said, Arthur.
Arther,
Touché
However, the question originally poised was “Why is it so difficult to be an artist?”
Broadening one’s market is a proven solution to the problem. Doing so without compromising one’s ideals can be done. Assuming that a broad market means kitsch or schlock is sure to defeat one before the challenge is even essayed.
So far, I haven’t even heard of another solution.
Anyone?
Broadening your target can help you make money as an artist, although its hardly guarantees anything. You still obviously have to know how to market your work. Luck helps too. But there are also more or less developed markets for work of all sorts. You can make good money with work aimed at a niche audience. It isn’t necessarily likely, but I’ve seen it happen. And surely populism isn’t going to work in the long run unless you believe in what you’re doing.
But what I wanted to do with my above comments was address the contempt you evidently feel for the so called “cafe set”. I wanted to convey why I don’t buy into it.
It obvious that you can make money marketing things to niche audiences, right? Like luxury cars.
Also, if you consider teaching as an integral part of being an artist rather than just a sideline, things begin to look a lot better.
It strikes me that part of what is going on is the devaluation of official artist status. Becoming an officially recognized artist during the Renaissance surely wasn’t easy, but it was more or less synonymous with some considerable level of success and respect. Becoming an officially recognized artist today is easier; it just doesn’t mean nearly as much.
You make good points Arthur.
In another life, I probably roasted stolen meat over the embers of a burning mansion. Surely my viewpoint is skewed.
But thank you for actually suggesting a solution. It is true that niche markets can work.
I would suggest that it also helps to know how to to paint. This too is an obvious point, but I’m afraid that a lot of personal observation shows that this is not the case.
But then, I am as snobby as they come when it comes to that too. :)
Well, I’m pretty ornery myself.;}
I would suggest that it also helps to know how to to paint.
I agree that knowing how to paint is important, but only if you’re trying to be a painter. There are a lot of other art forms out there, and they require different skills and sensibilties.
If anyone wants to learn more about niche markets, Chris Anderson, the editor of Wired, has an interesting book on the subject, and also a blog.
One thing I’ve learned is that there’s more to this business than just the gallery scene. It took me awhile to get it, but having just had a pretty-much sold out exhibition I finally realized what a bad business model it is for an artist.
What are other alternatives to galleries? Do you find you have better success selling through alternative channels such as art fairs and the Internet?
I’m interested to know what other individuals do to sell their works.
David:
Not even Close.
David: Was there a single artist alive during the Renaissance who could paint like Chuck Close?
Jay: David: Not even Close.
Jay, I’m assuming your response is to this question I posted earlier. If so, that’s pretty funny :)
Rex,
I wrote about making art to satisfy specific people’s needs here. But this approach does not make it easy to be an artist. The obvious reason is that people have lots of other stuff to spend their money on — for example, they can buy a camera to take pictures of their own kids, instead of depending on some artist to do it for them.
Your formula for success refers to some specific examples, like ancient Athens. But Rex, why was Athens so special with respect to art, when so many other cities, with lots of ordinary people with the same needs as the Athenians, were not? Your argument holds no explanation. You are missing something essential — there needs to be something special about the people buying or commissioning the work, perhaps. Something. If you can’t explain what about the Athenians, or the 19th century French, was so special to create the right environment for great art, then your suggested approach is not compelling. It would apply equally well to the 18th century Florentines. What were they doing? Not much comes to mind.
You are using strong language to agitate for a certain mode of production. You are essentially saying, ignore one’s own feelings, paint for the florist, and hope for the best. It’s not a bad argument, but it’s not very powerful or compelling either. You are ignoring the fact that most people who are artists have the ability to do other things well and could probably make a good living if they decided to abandon art. Having chosen for art, why should one then abandon one’s own purpose for doing it for the sake of a taxi driver or a CEO?
I think a good artist is in part a creative problem solver. I think a lot of artists don’t see that that skill can also transfer into finding solutions to marketing oneself.
Regards rembrant.
Like so many others,I regard rembrant as the greatest ever,I wish I could come somewhere close before I leave the planet.I am having a great time trying.
Cheers to all