Today, in the car, my four year old daughter told me that she is going to be an artist because she likes to paint and draw and make stuff. She figures if she becomes an artist she can continue to paint and draw and make stuff. Then she tells me that she is going to “go to work” too. She’s four and she knows that artists often need day jobs. This is comforting in that it means I am less likely to have to give her rent money when she is 40.
A few months ago I was working on a piece on arts financing. I never got it off the ground, but her comment today spurred me on. Let’s discuss this. There are generally two types of artists (in the financial sense). One is the artist that is totally art driven in artistic pursuits and usually does sometthing else to pay for living expenses (or has a very supportive spouse). The other is the artist that wants to do only their art (and its associated crafts), and ends up doing a lot of work that is in their field, but not necessarily in their artistic vision. Much of my career I have fallen into the latter category, and have the memorized horn parts to “Brickhouse” to prove it (although the therapy s helping).
Is one better than the other? Does one allow freer art? Do you have different perceptions of one’s work over the other? Please comment.