On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 09:39 +0530, Charles Haynes wrote: > in the US. In the US many of my friends were artists, either full or > part time. Here, I don't see that so much - and I've actively sought > out artists here. I can easily see my children going into the arts, > but I don't see the same sort of attitude or possibility here for kids > of most techies or other professionals.
i think this is probably due to wage differentials being smaller in the US (and certainly in europe - e.g. the netherlands pays many artists just for existing, which some dutch artists have blamed for the supposedly low quality of dutch art). your full time artist friends were probably managing to pay the rent, find occasional display space in art galleries, afford internet connections, etc. there are a huge number of professional artists in india; they are less likely to live in cities or speak english or find space in galleries or have internet connections, since all this costs more money than they would normally earn. no wonder techies and other professionals would prefer that their kids avoid this. economically rich societies are more easily able to afford luxuries such as "altruistic" art - which is altruistic in the economic sense only if they truly are "starving artists". it's patronage, whether in the form of state support in most european countries, or private patronage in the US (explicit, or implicit through more people spending more money on art). > Could the earning pressures also be different? Is there less tendency > to measure success solely by how much money you make? a society where people make enough money has the luxury of deprecating its importance. this is similar to how increasing levels of comfort provide people with the time, space and (despite being otherwise intelligent) naivete to worry much more about the environment and global warming rather than, say, access to clean water and the prevention of diarrhoea and malaria. it's all about maslow's hierarchy of needs! -rishab
