Re: [Leica] OT:Photo grad school.

[George Day <george@rdcinteractive.com>]

Being a fellow Santa Cruz resident (howdy, Teresa), I can vouch for harsh
cost of living here.  Honestly, Teresa is being a bit soft on the real
estate prices, too!

Anyway, most "art" photographers I know are also full-time commercial,
wedding or journalism types.  Again, some went to grad school, some didn't.
Their "real" work by and large subsidizes their "art" work and, often, the
two intermingle.

Bottom line is, if you think you'll take it seriously and get something out
of it, great.  If not, perhaps not so great.

on 11/26/01 9:32 AM, Teresa299@aol.com at Teresa299@aol.com wrote:

> 
> 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

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