Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bad Dog Cafe' started by ElJay370, Aug 8, 2019.
There's money to be made, you just have to have the right venue.
He also said, “Art is certainly not a pursuit for anyone who wants to make money.”
I saw this lecture a while back and it presents some interesting observations that relate directly to this thread. It's a great talk, if you have the time:
I take no issue with people who want to purse art as a career. But I also agree with the post about art being a luxury and not a necessity.
I've been playing
Bingo. It would be difficult for me to do a little plumbing on the side after working 40+ hrs at my regular job, but it's pretty easy for me to pick up the guitar and even gig in the evenings after work.
That's not saying it would be impossible to do a trade as a hobby, I guess I just haven't heard of many full-time artists who are electricians/plumbers/nurses/computer engineers in their down time.
Part of the reason is that the arts are subjective, whereas the trades are not. There is a right way to wire a house, shingle a roof, fill a cavity, etc. On the other hand, there are as many ways to make music/art as there are people attempting it. That's why a nurse makes a stable & predictable wage, whereas what an artist may make for any given project is all over the map.
Some of us are happy to make $100 for playing a gig at a bar, and some of us are selling out stadiums & raking in millions. I haven't heard of any amazing plumbers making millions just because they have a wide appeal.
All she ever wanted to be was a dancer, but she found that no matter how much she drank...
I'm glad you're proud of your niece, and justifiably so.....but you need to recognize the fact that the only reason she has job offers, and may some day receive a nice salary, is through the generosity of charitable entities. No museum is self sustaining. They receive huge subsidies from "arts foundations", large endowments from wealthy individuals, and massive grants and tax exemptions from the government. (and I'm NOT saying that's wrong) The general public occasionally likes to visit arts and science museums, but would never be willing to pay the true cost themselves.
I find myself very conflicted over this issue.....I sincerely value supporting many art endeavors and activities, yet frequently object to paying for "rubbish". (and I understand that's strictly my opinion) If "art" (whether visual, written or musical) can stand on its own merits, that's great! If not?.....well, questionable art will ALWAYS be made, and if it catches the attention of the public or a wealthy patron, that's great, too. As I said earlier....I create MY art because I'm compelled to.....it has nothing to do with remuneration or approval.
Art is everywhere and is valued correctly. There is no shortage of it, I see it in almost everything. I can't speak to the art degree to art career equation -- seems like a field more conducive to apprenticeship than scholastics.
One problem I see is that of supply and demand. No matter how much people pay for arts and entertainment, there are more people willing to make it than can possibly do so for a living. I think some of the "you're crazy" look is based in acknowledgment of that reality.
This problem exacerbates with scale. Avengers: Endgame did almost $2.8 billion worldwide. A small few pop and rock stars have nine figure net worths, as do a small few actors, even fewer authors, etc. With some art now having global reach, millions of eyes and ears and the money that go with them can be occupied by a few producers of work. I know lots of people who spend hundreds on arts and entertainment every month (cable bills, streaming services, Apple or Amazon or Spotify accounts, physical or Kindle book purchases, and throw in a few concerts or movies or live theater shows). It just goes to a few places, ultimately.
I know tons of struggling theater actors. Most rehearse and perform for little to no pay, and even the equity actors and productive playwrights need day jobs. I tell them to stop posting on social media about their favorite cable TV dramas. "Those guys are eating your lunch. You realize that, right?"
"A beautiful painting, an engrossing story, the perfect 3 minute rock and roll song.....these are the things that make life worth living, yet we've set up a system where those who would have the desire to create them are discouraged at every turn by the need to survive within that system."
there's nothing wrong with having your own style or rythm as long as you are not my drummer.
Trouble is...who decides who gets to make a living with the arts? Does every storefront theater actor, every aspiring rock band, every visual artist, and everyone working on a novel get paid to do it? I don't say that with sarcastic or negative intent. I don't think we set up a system at all. Things evolved as human history progressed. It used to be only people who found wealthy individual patrons could live off of their creative work. Now it's about finding paying customers. Art is amazing. Lots and lots of people want to make it. Others are going to have to make food, shelter, goods, services, etc. Someone has to keep the books and clean the streets. Who gets to make their living with their voice or pen or brush or camera or instrument, and who decides? It's a huge question, and I know of no way to solve it, as much as I'd like to do so.
Funny you should write that, because that's the drummer for The Shaggs.
To me, the problem is not the educational system's qualities, but the systemization of education itself. Grouping humans into narrow age ranges and putting them through a rigidly defined curriculum has limits to its value (although there is value). Education as system doesn't lend itself to individual growth, a spirit of exploration, and all the rest.
On the bright side - while I am one of the rare persons in the IT field that choose that path many folks I've worked with have BA in a Music related field. A few have been really talented programmers; precise, neat, and logical thinkers.
I've found that mathematicians love Bach.
your confusing the process (education) with the current impelementation public/private schooling.
education is a great thing
maleducation is a deliberate destruction of learning abilites to provide a constant source of badly educated debt slaves.
maleducation seems to be the norm, I see bright individuals doing stupid things because they can't think, can't understand, can't extrapolate the results of their decisions.
People are "culture making" animals. All animals eat, but people are the only ones who make distinctions between breakfast, lunch, and dinner food, between fast food and formal dining; the only ones who like to set a table and insist on table manners. People are "culture making" animals and so in that sense art is fundamentally what we do, or it's what we do that's different from animals.
All sorts of acts are expressions of culture, but some pursuits allow more freedom of expression than others. Wiring a house is an expression of culture, but it's not one that allows as much freedom as, say, designing a bridge.
I'm a big believer in "the liberal arts:" history, literature, music, math, philosophy. These are themselves the study of culture and they enrich your ability to think and appreciate other forms of culture. It's like any pursuit: the more you know about plants, the more interesting the green world becomes. The more you know about guitars, and the history of music and guitar playing, the more interesting a guitar solo becomes.
The liberal arts are certainly undervalued because they don't show instantly practical results. My university is busily trying to crank out as many STEM majors as possible. Nothing at all against STEM but a STEM major's life will be better if he or she acquires some critical analytical thinking skills outside of a trade.
Should govt. support the arts? I'd say yes. I've sat on many NEH or NEA review panels where local people are trying to find money to do something that has no obvious and immediate cash value, but builds a sense of community and history and celebrates human culture-making. A lot of the folk music that forms the basis of our musical heritage was collected and preserved by people who were funded by state or federal government, and that stuff would be gone forever otherwise.
And if I may add
+1 to your reply as a whole, but did universities ever "crank out" artists? They may have had more of an emphasis on liberal arts in the past, but if they were cranking out anything, it was better rounded individuals.
Arts are criminally undervalued. My 15 year old son does theatre and marching band. He learns about music, literature, dance, and art design. He also learns how to work as part of a team, how to support the other members of his team, and the importance of giving his best effort. At 15, he is completely comfortable standing alone on a stage and singing or talking to a couple of hundred people. He has learned to better organize his thoughts, project his voice, and present ideas in an understandable and compelling manner.
He works as hard as any student athlete. This week he spent 9 hours a day at marching band camp, then 4+ hours each night at tech rehearsal for a musical, plus summer work for Honors English. He is exhausted, but still puts in the work. I could not be more proud.
No doubt there is value in sports. But I am confident that my kid will be better prepared to succeed and have a meaningful life because of the arts education that he is getting.
I wish every kid had the opportunities my kid has, and I think we would all be better off if they did. But arts programs are severely underfunded, and the first thing to be cut when money is short. My wife and I pay for theatre workshops, musical instruments, lessons, etc. The band parents work their butts off just to maintain the marching band and music programs at school. Meanwhile, the school district just spent a million dollars on a new field house for the football team.