Search Results
7/5/2025, 3:30:35 AM
>>149272244
>stability is nice, but there's an immense joy in being able to do what you want to do.
I agree, and it's a blessing if you can find something that lets you do both. Let me be clear, I'm not suggesting artists should be poor, I'm simply stating that if you go into a job, ANY job, expecting to only ever do the things you want to do, you shouldn't expect to make a lot of money at it. I enjoy my work, but at the end of the day I am making a product somebody else wants or solving a problem somebody else can't solve; and that's not all that different from how patronage of the arts has traditionally worked.
Historically, even up until well into the mid-20th century, artists who didn't come from the upper classes took commissions to pay the bills; from the wealthy, from governments or religious institutions, from business, etc. and used that to pay the bills and work on projects they were passionate about and establish themselves. The vast majority of Norman Rockwell's works were illustrations commissioned for Boy's Life, Saturday Evening Post, and other publications; the vast majority of Grant Wood's works were commissions for local businesses and schools. These people still found time to make great art outside of their commissioned works, but it was expected that making stuff other people wanted made was going to pay the bills.
Artists expecting to be paid to work on their passion projects right out the fucking gate is a very recent phenomenon. If you think can convince someone that a project you're passionate about is worth supporting, that's great, but it's naive to think that that should be the default.
>stability is nice, but there's an immense joy in being able to do what you want to do.
I agree, and it's a blessing if you can find something that lets you do both. Let me be clear, I'm not suggesting artists should be poor, I'm simply stating that if you go into a job, ANY job, expecting to only ever do the things you want to do, you shouldn't expect to make a lot of money at it. I enjoy my work, but at the end of the day I am making a product somebody else wants or solving a problem somebody else can't solve; and that's not all that different from how patronage of the arts has traditionally worked.
Historically, even up until well into the mid-20th century, artists who didn't come from the upper classes took commissions to pay the bills; from the wealthy, from governments or religious institutions, from business, etc. and used that to pay the bills and work on projects they were passionate about and establish themselves. The vast majority of Norman Rockwell's works were illustrations commissioned for Boy's Life, Saturday Evening Post, and other publications; the vast majority of Grant Wood's works were commissions for local businesses and schools. These people still found time to make great art outside of their commissioned works, but it was expected that making stuff other people wanted made was going to pay the bills.
Artists expecting to be paid to work on their passion projects right out the fucking gate is a very recent phenomenon. If you think can convince someone that a project you're passionate about is worth supporting, that's great, but it's naive to think that that should be the default.
Page 1