Fine artists typically display their work in museums, commercial art galleries, corporate collections, and private homes. Some of their artwork may be commissioned (done on request from clients), but most is sold by the artist or through private art galleries or dealers. The gallery and the artist predetermine how much each will earn from the sale. Only the most successful fine artists are able to support themselves solely through the sale of their works. Most fine artists have at least one other job to support their art careers. Some work in museums or art galleries as fine-arts directors or as curators, planning and setting up art exhibits. A few artists work as art critics for newspapers or magazines or as consultants to foundations or institutional collectors. Other artists teach art classes or conduct workshops in schools or in their own studios. Some artists also hold full-time or part-time jobs unrelated to the art field and pursue fine art as a hobby or second career.
Usually, fine artists specialize in one or two art forms, such as painting, illustrating, sketching, sculpting, printmaking, and restoring. Painters, illustrators, cartoonists, and sketch artists work with two-dimensional art forms, using shading, perspective, and color to produce realistic scenes or abstractions.
It goes on to talk about working conditions, but this passage from a chapter called "Training, Other Qualifications and Advancement" is noteworthy:
Postsecondary training is recommended for all artist specialties. Although formal training is not strictly required, it is very difficult to become skilled enough to make a living without some training. Many colleges and universities offer programs leading to the bachelor’s or master’s degree in fine arts. Courses usually include core subjects such as English, social science, and natural science, in addition to art history and studio art.
The site notes that 63% of artists are self-employed and that the "median earnings for fine artists, including painters, sculptors, and illustrators, were $38,060 in May 2004". The passage goes on to note that "Many [artists] find it difficult to rely solely on income earned from selling paintings or other works of art. Like other self-employed workers, freelance artists must provide their own benefits."
If you get further into the Bureau of Labor Statistics' site, you can find a National Compensation survey that tracks painters, sculptors, craft artists and artists printmakers' earnings since 1997. In that time, they have risen and astonishing 15%, from an hourly rate of $18.70 to just over $21.50. That works out to almost $45,000 per year. Not bad, but factor in adjustments to the comsumer price index, medical insurance, materials costs, rent or mortgage payments on a studio over and above housing and it starts to look a little less comfortable. And let's not even talk about how far $45,000 goes in a market like New York, Los Angeles, or Chicago relative to other, less expensive areas with less well-developed art markets.
This is not meant to be another whining protest against how artists are undervalued in society or a form of rallying cry for a living wage for cultural workers. It is meant to suggest that, as a profession requiring significant educational investment, art is risky and uncertain, but when risk and uncertainty are discussed, it's only in relation to aesthetics. It has been suggested that if other professional preparation institutions performed as poor in purely statistical terms, Congress would be obliged to investigate. All of this is the upshot of a culture in which access to art is seen as basic right when in fact it remains an elite privilege. But even that statement is fraught – it’s not access to art, it’s access to the right to make art as if it were a job like any other.
Perhaps my ire about this is so greatly inflamed because I recently visited the studios of a certain MFA program and have been scratching my head since then. Curious? You'll have to come back and visit HyperCritical tomorrow for more.
No comments:
Post a Comment