This email is a tad on the long side because this--the "starving artist"
whose art
is a hobby VS the artist who derives a living wage (or better) from
his/her art--
is something I feel extremely passionate about.
From a personal perspective: I have seen far too many artists in my
area who care too much about "being an artist" and "not selling
out"--and also
sometimes "what would other people think?"--that they have done physical
harm to their bodies through malnutrition, lack of sleep, lack of
shelter, etc.
I'm talking about artists who refuse to get a "day job" when their art can't
pay the bills and balk at any opportunity that might benefit them as an
artist if it is something that they could possibly relate to "selling out".
Have any of you heard of the painter Maud Lewis? She was a brilliant
folk artist who lived from 1903-1970 here in Nova Scotia. She lived in
horrible conditions: 12 X 13 foot one-room house (!) with no electricity or
plumbing; abusive husband; physical debilities that were made much much
worse by the conditions she lived in. She refused to charge more than $5
for her paintings and refused to move to a healthier environment (ie a house
with electricity and plumbing). She refused to leave her husband because he
had supported her early on. She didn't take advantage of the fact that
people,
in her best interests, wanted to help her get the medical attention she
needed.
Maud Lewis had international coverage (my first experience with her art was
when one of her paintings was used on the cover of our provincial phone book
for one year, years after she died) and she even sold paintings--again,
for $5!--to
members of the national US and Canadian governments. Many people tried to
help her including arts organizations, not just individuals, but she was
so focused on
being an "artist" that she thought moving to a better home and charging
more for her paintings than $5 would be seen as "taking advantage of
people" and likened her popularity to "celebrity and fame = bad things".
Unfortunately, her story is not an isolated case I've seen. There are many
artists who would rather malnourish themselves and end up in the hospital
(of course, they don't make this decision rationally, but that is the gist
of it) than take some sort of "day job" to pay for the basics--food,
clothing,
shelter, etc until their "art" goes from a hobby to a job that pays the
bills.
Over the years, I've seen a few artist-friends pass out in front of me
(or in
situations where I've been) due to not eating for days due to not having an
income from their art and refusing to get a job
in order to buy food. These weren't drug or alcohol related problems,
they were 100%
not-eating-due-to-refusing-to-do-a-non-art-related-job-and-getting-very-sick-
from-it-related. I'm talking going-to-the-hospital-in-an-ambulance sick,
and being warned by the doctor sick, here, people!
Not every artist from here is like this, fortunately.
Buck 65, for example, worked in a local magazine store here in Halifax
right up until the day before he moved to Paris because he understood that
working a "day job" is not "selling out". Six Too worked day jobs here
until he
moved to Montreal. They realized that you can't have a future as an
artist if
you debilitate yourself from malnourishment due to not having an income.
I'm
no Buck 65 or Six Too, but I'm smart enough to have had day jobs over the
years (record store clerk, data entry clerk, media monitor, community radio
station program manager, music journalist) to supplement my income while
my art was at the hobby stage and not making money toward paying the bills.
My closest brush with "VISA commercial" type of opportunities was coming
in second place in a competition to score a national TV and radio campaign.
Winning that competition would have meant being able to give up having a day
job for a year or so; I wasn't being greedy, I was wanting to win so
that I could
focus more on my art for a year or so; coming in second place meant a
nice chunk of change,
but having to continue with a day job and continue with trying to turn
my art
from a "making a little to no money" situation to a situation ie job
that paid the bills. Nowadays
I don't have a day job, but I do have to bust my butt to pay the bills
through
various art/music-related activities: teaching sound design and music
production,
doing sound design and music production, licensing my songs, performing,
and so on. I'm not complaining, in fact I'm thankful that I can do this.
I'm lucky that all of my income comes from things related to my
art. But if something (goodness forbid) happened whereby I had to go back
to doing a day job to support my family, well of course I'd do it.
For me, an artist taking advantage of their hard work is, plain and simple,
common sense. There is no shame in it. If you're willing to be a starving
artist, then you'll likely never take your art beyond the hobby level.
Those
who bust their butts and take and make opportunities are trying to
turn their art into a job--and as humans we all need jobs to pay for basic
necessities such as food, clothing, and shelter. So if you are an artist,
making your art into your job is not a shameful thing. I say shame on
people
who say (or imply) that it is shameful to benefit from one's artistic
abilities.
Afrika Bambaataa worked his butt off such that songs of his such as "Looking
For The Perfect Beat" have a value years and years later. VISA recognizes
this; Bambaataa and the others involved in that song are artists whose art
is their job, not their hobby, and they've rightfully taken advantage of
VISA's
interest.
Disco D is the exact same scenario for me: he's worked his butt off
such that
people such as 50 Cent (like him or hate him) and Brittney Spears (like
her or
hate her) have/want to work with him. He would be a fool to turn down
these opportunities.
The people I have trouble with are people like Moby who preach environmental
awareness and religion and veganism and the like and then allow their
"people"
to license the hell out of their catalogs for products that are counter
to what they
espouse. I mean, wouldn't it make more sense for the Moby-s to refuse these
sort of licenses and instead do like Bono and Bob Geldof and Pam
Anderson and
donate time and $ *publicly* to causes like PETA and AIDS-research and
Amnesty
International and the like? People bash Anderson (yes, I realize she is
not 313 or
music-related) for her activism, but it has raised MILLIONS of dollars.
I'd rather
Moby stopped licensing his music to car commercials
and instead become a visible activist like Bono or Anderson or Geldof
for causes--that way,
I might be able to put up with his self-righteous hypocritical BS (I'm a
vegetarian
since 1987, btw; and I agree with many things Moby says, just cannot
stand the
way he goes about it).
The other artists I have a problem with are those who turn down
opportunities and then,
instead of keeping it to themselves, get self-righteous about it. An
example:
The band The New Deal like to say how they refused to remix the
Backstreet Boys
(fellow Jive labelmates) as if it will get them some cred. I say "So
you refused to
remix the BSB? Who gives a sh*t? I didn't like your music before I heard
about this
and didn't like it after, so who cares?"
If Juan Atkins remixed the BSB, if it was a good
remix--cool! If the remix was crap, well I'd judge him on that, not on
the fact that he
remixed the BSB. If I was asked to remix the Backstreet Boys,
I would appreciate the challenge and would do it. I'm not interested in
being a
starving artist; I want to be able to pay the mortgage and the bills and
eat and not
go to the hospital malnourished; I don't want to die in squalor because
I refused to
take advantage of the fact that people (at least some of them :)) like
what I do.
I feel horribly for Maud Lewis (and others who lived/live like her) and
wish she
(and others who lived/live) like her didn't feel shamed by the fact that
people appreciate(d)
their amazing artistry and want to show their love financially, too.
VISA wants to license one of my tracks? Bring it on. The pope wants to
use my music
for a "don't use condoms/women shouldn't be priests/women shouldn't have
the right to
choose" or some company who knowingly
tests on animals or something I have a socio-political problem with, of
course not.
But I'm not going to go hungry if opportunity presents itself and the
opportunity is not
counter to my beliefs.
I think we should *celebrate* the success of others, not hate on them.
You may love
Disco D's music or loathe it, but you still should celebrate the fact
that he works hard
and has benefited from it. You may use VISA or hate the concept of
credit cards, but
I still am glad to see and hear a good song like "Looking For The
Perfect Beat" used
by an artist I enjoy than yet another usage of something like
"Unbelievable" by EMF or
"Right Here Right Now" by Jesus Jones--one hit wonder songs by artists
who I don't
enjoy who wouldn't be talked about in threads such as this or remembered
were it
not for the plethora of lazy/"it's been done before so let's do it
again" advertising agencies
out there who want to use the same d*mn songs over and over than do
something
refreshing (yep, I'm saying it again :)) like a) use material from a
good artist and/or
b) use a good song and/or c) use a song that hasn't been used before in
advertising.
My CDN $0.02. (I warned you it was long! ;))
Andrew
--
Andrew Duke
scoring/sound design/source
http://andrew-duke.com
http://myspace.com/andrewduke
Cognition Audioworks label
[Andrew Duke, Foal, Clinker, Granny'Ark]
http://cognitionaudioworks.com
