Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/11/26

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] OT:Photo grad school.
From: Teresa299@aol.com
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 12:32:54 EST

In a message dated 11/26/01 6:45:29 AM, walt@jove.acs.unt.edu writes:

>I've wondered for years, if you SUBTRACT university salaries and grants,
>
>how many "artists" are earning a reasonable living in the US????
>
>I'm talking about money from the production and sale of art, NOT to 
university
>
>collections and without any tax-payer funds contributing to its production.
>


Every October, the county where I live (santa cruz) has an artist's "open 
studio."  I try and attend, not only to see the art, but also, to gauge how 
other artists manage to do their work. (Meaning do they survive on monies 
from their art, or do they not worry about selling because they have outside 
money sources etc).  This is particularly interesting to me, since the 
average price of a house is $380,000, 3 bed, 2 bath homes that are within a 
mile of the beach often go for $475,000 to $1,000,000 and for an artist to 
support themselves in this environment would be very impressive indeed.

Here's an unofficial survey of what I found:
- -artist's who survived because they or their spouse had a trust 
fund/substantial savings
- -artist's who either taught at the university or who had non-arts related 
jobs which in essence supported themselves and then they did their art on the 
side,
- -artist's who had managed to purchase a house before Santa Cruz became 
Silicon Beach and thus didn't have outrageous mortgage payments
- -artist's who had a spouse/partner who made enough money so that art sales 
weren't necessary for a reasonable living.

In essence there were only a FEW artists who were "full-time" artists and 
made a living at it.  They ALL had already purchased homes (and had them paid 
off, or substantially low mortgage payments), and they ALL had entered into 
the biz in the 60's, 70's or 80's. Most had spent a good number of years 
being financially assisted by other monies until they became "established."  
The one's that were tending do the best financially  weren't doing individual 
pieces of work, rather they were mass producing pottery, glasswear, or 
watercolors in a fashion that wasn't as extreme as Thomas Kinkade industries 
but certainly had leanings that way.  

I'm not saying that there weren't world renowned artists in my area, because 
the level of artwork displayed was very impressive.  But on an economic 
level, the outlook for a prospective artist (especially one just starting 
out) was rather bleak unless you had access to a good deal of financial 
support and backing. (Which of course does bode well for those artists from 
lower, working or lower middle-class backrounds).

Kim

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html