My Path Might Have Been Different

I recently received an email from a student who attended my last Artists Who THRIVE seminar, sponsored by the Small Business Development Center.

“Had I heard you speak when I was coming out of graduate school, my path might have been different….” Quinne graduated in 1985 with an MFA and his remark is something that I hear all too often.

Too many graduate from art, music, culinary or other schools, with very high hopes. And too many graduate with no plan or concrete guidance. So their hopes are soon set a drift on a raft of flames when the economic reality of food, shelter, and student loans set in.

What they have not been taught, because too many academics resist the notion, is that in order to thrive as creatives they will also be required to be very savvy entrepreneurs.  Why?  Because there are precious few “jobs” for creatives that deliver stable and adequate income, retirement, and health benefits.  Glinda, the Good Witch, is just not coming.

Why don’t they get this guidance from their professors?  My theory: it’s because their professors are, just that, professors.  And they are not facing the same economic realities of a new graduate.  My opinion: these teaching institutions, that are often very expensive, are simply irresponsible.

I’ll never forget when I served as a panelist at UC Berkeley.  The topic: How to make a viable living as an artist?  The tenured professor of the painting department advised the eager audience, “Don’t worry about it.  Just make art.  It will all work out.” Easy for him to say!  That’s complete BULL$$hit!  My fellow panelist, a successful print maker, said to him in front of a large audience.  “F*&#! That!  People are buying art!” In that moment she became my hero and the seeds for Artists Who THRIVE were planted.

Is Art and Money like Oil and Water?

swear

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

About three years ago, the director of the UC Berkeley career center read a profile of me written by the business editor of the San Francisco Chronicle and invited me to be part of a panel discussion for recent art degree graduates and alumni. Once again I encountered such strangely conflicting opinions about the commerce of fine art, just really weird biases and stupid and tedious stereotypes.

The panel was composed of a successful print maker, a painter, a tenured UC Berkeley art professor of painting, me, and someone else.  When the moderator came to the professor to ask his esteemed opinion on the matter of making a living as a fine artist, his general very long-winded response was to “just make art and do not worry about money.”

To my delight, my print making co-panelist dropped an f-bomb and said “F*! that, people are buying art”.  “You said it sister!” I replied.  And easy for you to say Mr. Tenured professor, who’ll never be fired, even though his instruction is completely irresponsible garbage.  “Don’t worry about it?!” So should they not worry about food or shelter either? Good grief!  The ones who seem to be less concerned with money are usually the ones who have plenty of it or who know that ultimately they have a financial back up. Go figure.

I heard this strange disdain for the commerce of art just last week.  I was interviewing marketing consultants to help me craft a new marketing piece and I was met with “you seem to be much more interested in the marketing of art than the making of art.”  “Ah, nooo. I’m very interested in the making of art, but if I want to keep doing that I have to market it.  And ah, aren’t you a marketing consultant?”  I didn’t hire him.

What the heck is this twisted and hypocritical conflict about money and art?  Musicians seem to suffer less from this. Why is that?

Please! Making art and well-being requires money. So let’s make more money!