Arts Jobs are Jobs Too

I was linked to this post on Arts funding by a friend on facebook.




As a person who has worked arts jobs, and as a consumer of the arts, I agree with the author's sentiment. Arts jobs ARE jobs. Art jobs do create something of value, and I definitely agree that they should get funding. I'd definitely prefer that my tax dollars go to, say, LA Opera rather than funding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

What do you think about arts jobs? Are they valuable to you or not, and should they be given funding from the government?

from here

Talking to a artist(photographer, painter, illustrator, and muralist) that basically lives on art gigs and grants. T_T still waiting for my NEA grant so i can live like Wahol.

I honestly think of my arts job as a sideline, not a full-time job. Music isn't what I took in college, and even if I basically have the knowledge that a music degree confers, I can't really survive on it. My real life Russia nii-sama (teh bf) is already working an arts job while taking music composition in college, and if I do the arts full-time as well, er...we won't be able to survive just yet. I think both of us will end up teaching while doing our composition and performance as a sideline.

But to further the discussion...what importance should the government place on arts funding? I mean, it should definitely come below food, welfare, infrastructure, education, and defence (defence, not tramping about in the desert to protect our oil interests), but how much should it be funded, really?

Well, the main problem is that it is very difficult to make an argument that art fulfills a need and not a want.

So convincing the government who is already being forced to pay for things that are considered 'necessary' and therefore cannot stop spending it on them that something like art, which for all intents and purpose, doesn't keep someone living is extremely difficult.

(btw it's defense, not defence.)

And with the war spending going on, you're not likely to see any good results with things like this until it is over.

The other things about art, is that a lot of artist don't need to do it within a constrained amount of time. As in 8 to 4 each day. So there is the reasoning of "Why should you get free money if you can do this in your off time just as easily and work to support yourself."

But is it a real job or not?

Well it kind of depends on how you define what a real job is. Do you define it as something that supports your expenses, well art tends to fall short of that frequently. The very fact that government grants are needed to support it is a big sign of that.

Which is probably the logic used whenever someone says it's not a real job.

Defence is the British spelling of defense, lol. I think I had my Brit English spell check on. ^^;

In any case, the post mentions that every dollar the government spends on arts funding has between six and seven dollars of economic impact. That is a huge ROI.

Aside from that, yes, necessities are important, but life is precious little without the roses. Art is not just about creating beauty, but also about but also cultural cohesiveness and common understanding. They inspire and share ideas, bind together communities, and prevent stagnation.

I'm not disagreeing with you on that.

I'm just saying that is the logic being used.

If art is a real job, then they shouldn't need to leech of society by getting fundings and instead live on their sold art. If that is impossible, then it's not a job, just an hobby.

You can look at this at another angle though. I've been to 4 different high schools, and out of all of them I noticed the one thing that gets pushed back is arts and music. What gets pushed the most? Sports. Not to knock down sports, but there's even less opportunities for people to make a living from sports, yet it gets all the funding.

My grandpa is a technical illustrator for the Military Industrial Complex. He makes a good living off of that job, and it's a comfy job.

You don't necessarily have to associate the word starving and artist all the time.

The way you put it, education should be cut from funding, as they don't make anything that can be sold. A lot of sciences would be cut just because they don't produce much that can be sold. Both very important areas that need public/governmental funding or else they fall apart. With your line of thinking (assessing the immediate monetary gain provided), Art is a better investment than both of those.

I think funding for the arts is way more important than some of the stuff my money goes to; i.e. defense, pensions, welfare.




Sports can be reduced to being entertainment, and it really is a huge money maker, as a job and as an industry. I don't think it should get as much funding as it does some places, because it could probably be better used in other aspects of education.

Teaching is a way you sell your service dude, and education are needed for people to get a common sense and social competence, not to mention; to actually get a job. The same with science, it contributes to make life better for people.

Most artist are instead people that refused to study anything that would get them a decent job, and now when they realize that life isn't just fun and games and they got no money, they beg the government for fundings, so that they can continue produce something that actually isn't relevant, and if it was good enough to be, would make enough money on its own.

Having an art course means jobs are made from arts.. So no questions there.
Painting can generate cash and jobs for artist, it's not just for hobby.
there is also the arts of designing a room or a building, now those are real work made from arts.

Also with sports, it is a way to increase enrollment. Especially when dealing with a university. So it does have a benefit for the school versus the art department, which well unless you have an exceptional section of it that is well known and brings in people to study at the school for that reason...

The grants i got is for teaching photography in public school and some colleges, since the state cutting funding to art in the school, the teachers and instructor are paid by federal NEA and bonds.

Most artists get no money from government, and the one's who do need them. It's like at researcher at a university, there work is securing funds and grants so they can do their research, and a lot just live on the grants and do nothing but spend it with no progress or outcome for their research. With a art grants like the one's you get from NEA, there have to be a outcome or you have to paid it back. If you just spend it and don't do what you said your going to put out, IE art shows, series, book, education you paid it back.

I just want it for the prestige of being a NEA sponsored artist, and ten grand can help me do my book and paid from my materials.

Artists contribute value to society. One could go on to list many reasons. Here are a few:

1. People do consume art. Pretty much everyone listens to quite bit of music these days it seems. Fakku is a site that facilitates consuming art. Even if people don't need art and art objects to live, they seem to want them anyway. Availability of art improves quality of life.

2. Art is considered culturally significant. Governments spend money to fund art, yes, but they also spend money to preserve historical sites, build museums, and honor imports persons in history. None of these things are going to win wars or cure cancer. Still, most people seem to think it is a good thing that that US built a monument to George Washington and preserved the site of the Antietam battlefield as a national part. People want to look at the culture they come from and see a rich heritage that they can be proud of. Arts are part of that. If you go to the US and ask people what it means to be American, most aren't going to answer you with GPD or gross income per capita. People will talk about the cultural heritage and legacy of the country of which the arts are a part.

3. Cutting arts education is dumb for a number of reasons. Obviously, if we don't provide opportunity for kids to experience and participate in art, there won't be as many artists. Even if you don't care about that, it's not like arts are completely irrelevant to "real life." Students are often required to collaborate and to learn to respect or at least tolerate diversity of ideas. These are important skills in the business world, for example. Furthermore, a key problem facing education in the US at least is students dropping out of the system early. Arts provide another opportunity to engage these students. If they become invested in arts classes, even if they don't become artists, they may find a reason to stay in school longer.

Yes, art jobs are jobs.

Except Steve Jobs.
Cause he really hardly makes anything worth calling art any more.
*ba dum ching*

I believe much of the blame for arts jobs not be looked upon as 'legitimate' jobs falls on the artists. Many do not look upon art as a profession, and many more refuse to look at their art as a business. This (IMHO) is the biggest issue.

An example, many years ago I had two close artist friends, one was an older guy and the other a woman my age. The guy was a watercolorist. He had a local studio (New England) and did all types of works, but he spent several days a week producing works for the tourist trade. Smaller, priced towards impulse buying and, I am sure, not terribly gratifying. But he sold them in droves - the sale of these types of works did two things - 1) it provided him with a comfortable living for himself and his family, 2) it allowed him to spend a couple of days a week painting whatever he desired (the less commercial subjects). The woman on the other hand refused to "sell out" and paint anything but what inspired her. She also had a gallery but her style wasn't exactly what the tourists flocked to and her paintings (much larger and more complex) were well out of the impulse, vacation purchase, price range.

My friend frequently had to order one hundred plus frames per week, while the young lady would go weeks between ordering any at all. I would say he had an arts job, while she played at being an artists. He raised a family of five while she struggled to support herself (usually on welfare). Talent - both were very talented, the difference lay in their outlook and approach to their art. He was a realist - and by doing less satisfying pieces, he was able to support himself as an artist and spend a reasonable amount of time also painting what he loved to paint (regardless of whether they sold or not). BTW - the larger, more personal art did sell - but never in a quantity that would have allowed him to support himself, let alone a family.

So what about the OP question, I'm all for support for the arts, but I have serious reservations about subsidizing artists - if they won't take what they are doing seriously and aren't willing to make some sacrifices towards being self-sufficient why should we provide for them? Selling out is no excuse - having a job means working, and as the rest of us know, they call it work for a reason - its not always just fun and games.