Posted on 12/21/2023 6:59:03 AM PST by DIRTYSECRET
Male artists had a higher median yearly income of $30-40K(poor), while female-identifying and non-binary identifying respondents shared the median yearly income of $20-30K.
I would argue that artists are profoundly exploited.
(Excerpt) Read more at nique.net ...
So, Sophia Tone can't sell her goofy writing so she blames it on racism.
That’s because the artist has to be dead before their work is really appreciated.
Has any live artists sold one of their works for over a million? Don’t know as I’m not really into art, other than the mentioned female art forms.
It depends. Is it a beautiful re-creation of reality? Many examples in the republic and most houses. I’ve paid for lots of it. Capitalism is wonderful.
My youngest just got her Masters in Fine Arts - put herself through by working 3 part time jobs.
She’s good and has sold some works, usually enough to pay for materials and a bit more.
BUT she’s also realistic and now has a full time job with a major company as an IT project manager.
She continues to make art on the side hoping that she’s recognized at some time in the future.
These people like to talk about “structural racism” or “racial capitalism”.
If the country has laws on the books that say “Women cannot go to college” or “Black people cannot vote” or “Black people cannot own a business” or such things, then, yes, that would be structural issues in society that hold back certain groups from success.
But we have removed all such laws (except Affirmative Action). There are no actual structural issues. There is human nature and humans do what they do. But attempts to force change at that level always fail (after millions are killed).
And look at where we are — Beyonce is a billionaire. Oprah is a billionaire. How rich is Elton John? Many artists are very successful. They have not been held back by racism, homophobia, the patriarchy, capitalism, or anything else.
If someone is an “artist” and they are not successful, then it’s because they are not good enough. Full stop. No one can fix that problem. So stop whining.
Umm, that “Madonna” look was over in 1988.
Forty years ago, there were good paying “art” jobs for either gender in the print shops and service bureaus, but the coming of the computer pretty much wiped those out. Most of the artsy types back then didn’t want to do production graphics, but you could pay the bills doing these jobs and be useful at the same time.
Now AI can generate the “art”.
He could retire, but he loves what he does and may never "retire" as this is his fun.
You have seen his work in many movies.
Of course he has to hide being a conservative when at "work".
Good catch. The linked article is a keeper. It as pure (and short) example as we are likely to find of the overwhelming sense of entitlement that affects so much of the left. The author wants to be an artist, to pursue her own visions, to be free to pursue self-expression. Up to this point, good for her; go for it and pursue your dreams. I hope you succeed. But then ... she also thinks society is obliged to make this possible. And she is staggeringly indifferent to, and probably supremely ignorant of, what this actually means.
She complains that art — by which she means her own work, not the work of successful artists — is “undervalued” by “gatekeepers” who are part of a racist, misogynist oppressive structure. She seems not to understand that if she wants to profit from her art, she is going to have to sell it (or at least sell or lease the rights) to whomever finds value in it. The “gatekeepers” are the buyers, who are essentially consumers. But she doesn’t like the idea of production for willing consumers, which to her represents the commodification of art.
She apparently wants greater public support, by which she means that people working in factories, offices, and farms will be taxed to fund grantmaking bureaucracies for artists without buyers. She wants these bureaucracies to be the gatekeepers, presumably because she is confident that the bureaucrats will be people indoctrinated to worship her particular gods. And I’m sure she anticipates that in 2023, they will at least allocate funding on the basis of an intersectional matrix.
The author is still young. She has time. I hope she will get enough rejection letters from the art commissars in the bureaucratic agencies to grasp that they are the real gatekeepers. Maybe she will then come to appreciate being able to sell directly to actual readers, film viewers, or homeowners looking for something creative and original to hang on the living room wall. Artists free to find a market is a liberating ideal, not a system of oppression.
She's a 'writer.' Guess retro is thing now....
There are so-o-o-o many writers in the last century and beyond who were overtly anti-capitaist, that maybe she should find a new theme? Something original?
Painters can pay their bills painting houses.
Actors wait on tables.
Sounds like what happened to portrait painting when photography came along. Portraits for middle class people were often produced assembly line fashion with one apprentice artist doing the hands, one doing the torso and clothing, etc, with the master artist painting the face. The apprentices learned the trade and they all earned a living. Then with photography the middle class just got a picture taken and the rich who wanted a real portrait had the master artist paint the whole thing. The industry broke down like the buggy whip business.
It might as well. By the time I called it quits, I had concluded that 99% of all the "art" shoveled at the world was pretty much worthless... including 99.9% of mine.
Yes. She is wise AND talented. Wise to stay working in a lucrative position and talented enough to see that her heart’s desire to create is recognized. Everything else is just icing on the cake. I have a fine art degree and have never regretted it for a minute. I serve a God who is first of all the Creator of the Universe. (In the beginning when GOD CREATED...)
Ok so all the wannabe artists out there get frustrated because no one wants to buy it. Breeds resentment. So who do they take it out on other than those who don’t think they should be subsidized?
Taylor Swift is an artist and a successful one. They don’t compete with each other.
Lol. She apparently expects people to buy art that they don’t like.
I was a printer in the late 70s. I got out when I saw what computers were going to do. Amateurs and incompetents started producing their own “art”. Really bad stuff. Buying Photoshop doesn’t make one an artist.
Artists—like everybody else—are on a normal curve.
That means at least 90% of them are nothing special—and most of them don’t want to hear the bad news.
“She apparently expects people to buy art that they don’t like.”
A good Communist demands people buy art they don’t like—at the point of a gun.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.