Why is making money from your art such a dirty thing?
Via Twitter: Why is making money from your art such a dirty thing? Friday’s “Art Work” talk at Domy Books in Austin was disappointing. – @StagiraStudios
In my own experience listening to and talking with artists, I frequently hear the question, “How can I make a living with my art?” The marketer in me wants to answer, “Follow what successful businesses and entrepreneurs are doing. You’ll learn how there.” But then there’s the artist in me (and I hear the same from other artists) that says, “I don’t want to position my art as a commodity. I want to make a living from it without sacrificing the creative nature of my art.” And, there is the challenge: how does one find a balance between creativity and profitability… are those two things, art and money, naturally opposing ideas?
That’s why I was really interested in going to Friday’s “Art Work” talk hosted at Domy Books in Austin. The conversation was supposed to be about how the recession has affected the creative process and artistic compensation—how artists can find ways to sustain their art and lifestyle despite the economy. I was eager to hear from other working artists and learn about the tactical ways they were marketing, selling and positioning their art in the marketplace today. Unfortunately, I was really disappointed by the discussion which developed. It turned out to be nothing more than a philosophical kumbaya discussion about what it feels like to be an artist.
One gentleman representing the Art Work project (and I apologize for not remembering his name) kept on referring to Roosevelt’s WPA (Works Progress Administration) program and how it was critical for keeping artists working and artwork accessible to the public during the Depression. I think his point was that in difficult economic times art can be a savior for the psyche. Why the WPA was relevant to the discussion today… I don’t know. Artists don’t have a similar program today, and frankly, shouldn’t have to depend on one. There are millions of other opportunities out there for artists. It’s just that they need to create such opportunities for themselves, not wait for an organization or program to deliver a solution.
Another part of the discussion that was alarming for me was the operational goal of Domy Books (as described by Russell, the manager/purchaser for Domy). He emphatically stated over and over that Domy Books’ goal was to simply break even. They (Domy) just wanted to be a place for people to explore and become excited about new art, and to be a place for artists to show work—they didn’t really care about making money. ‘As long as we break even and stay open, we’ve reached our goal,’ is what he stressed. In my mind, I thought, “Why the hell is he so proud of that goal? What’s wrong with turning a profit?” When one turns a profit, one can reinvest in their art and continue to share it with a wider audience. He even offered the fact that their books don’t sell well; that what keeps Domy afloat is the sale of the ‘toys.’ And, he bemoaned that fact… I guess because the toys are more commercial in nature (even though the type of toys sold at Domy can be traced back to working artists).
As the discussion opened up, one member of the audience suggested that artists should stop whining and create their own solution. Find resources and networks outside of the creative community in order to show work AND monetize the experience. Essentially, stop thinking of art as this thing that is valued less when money is involved. The audience looked at this guy like he was the devil.
In my opinion, there’s nothing wrong with marketing art and assigning monetary value to it. Artists need to stop playing the victim. Stop believing the myth that art is only pure when it’s completely removed from the concept of making money; that an artist is only a ‘real artist’ when they are starving. That’s total bullshit.
Please, share your thoughts. Why do artists, especially, buy into the myth that if you make money with your art, you’re a sell out?
Alleluia, sister! It’s hard enough to be an artist in a society that (generally) doesn’t value creative expression as highly as more tangible commodities. But I think the ‘pure art untainted by commerce’ argument is mostly a defense mechanism that sabotages our potential success… we’re sticking it–not to The Man, as good art can metaphorically do–but to ourselves.
Creative expression is a risk in and of itself. Putting our inner selves out there for the world to see, to comment on, to judge, can be nerve wracking enough. Now add the challenge of asking someone else to *gulp* part with a buck on our behalf, and the situation can get pretty emotionally untenable. Is it surprising that I have a hard time believing that when a potential buyer rejects buying my art, they aren’t really rejecting ME?
Yes, we right-brained, creative-types can be pretty sensitive, passionate folk. This isn’t bad; it’s integral to our craft. But brutally honest self-evaluation isn’t always included in that skill set. So rather than meeting head-on whatever lack of self-worth or self-esteem we’re struggling with, we bypass the problem altogether by claiming any whiff of money would make us untrue to our higher ideals. Nothing risked, nothing lost, no?
Bullshit… you couldn’t have put it better. It’s time we got out of the way of our own success.
[...] artwork or to truly understand its value. Frankly, this is bullshit just like the myth that artists are destined to be starving. When it comes down to it, if you want something bad enough you’ll find a way to make it [...]