I wasn't wanting to suggest that all artists must suffer, or that suffering will always win out in the end.
I have no doubt many talents get lost along the way - and that success shines on many that don't deserve it. My point related to the seriousness of art as an activity - the fact that the aim of art is not just to 'please' or 'satisfy' (like a good wine or something). DA > Yeah, OK, that's right. I think I often go to > automatic when you're talking, Derek. Sort of what > you do too. Like Montaigne, I think we might come to > the same end by different means. > > Serious artists don't pander to any audiences at the > expense of their art. However, doing exactly that, > pandering, is the name of the game in art schools > today. Every student wants to "make it" through > networking because no independent qualitative > stansdards exist anymore. > > For serious artists the work is a lifetime commitment > even if there's no reward. And what reward is > sufficient anyway? No artist ever quit because he or > she was too successful or too highly ranked, or too > famous, although more than a few thought they must be > doing something wrong when their careers took off. > I've know many, many artists who quit and some of them > were hugely talented. I used to say that the > successful artists were not always the best but simply > the ones who didn't quit. There are enormous social > pressures against being an artist. It usually takes > about 10 to 15 years for an artist to get anything of > a serious artworld career and that's with an abundance > of good fortune. Mostly those years are at the most > crucial social stage of one's life ... 20s to mid 30s > when many obligations and needs come into play, mainly > families and living costs, etc. Few get through that > period. Even with success, few artists earn enough > from their work in today's urban environments. Say an > artist grosses $400,000. a year. Subtract all the > commissions and costs and not much is left, not even a > beginning MBA salary. And only the most select gross > $400,000 and it may only happen for a few years > because the commercial-theory laden artworld must have > something new and someone new every year or two. > > I think most if not all artists do need some support > person or group because people are social and because > art is social. It might be just one person, or > several at different times. Maybe some support is > partially imaginary. Some is material, like a day job, > or a trust fund. > > Just to tie this in to our discussions, all of the > material concerns, the real life concerns re art and > artists need to be a part of any aesthetics theory. > > > WC > > -- Derek Allan http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
