Last week we talked about whether "real" artists take
workshops (they can, and do). Now let's consider whether you have to make your
living full-time as an artist in order to be considered one.
|
|
 |
|
|
Many of us hold down other jobs while we pursue our art. While it is the dream of many to work full-time as professional
artists, it isn't necessary to deserve the title of 'artist.'
The Fruit Vendor, original
oil painting by Steve Henderson.
|
We're all familiar with the phrase "starving artist," which emphasizes
that not all the great names that we recognize today were raking in the funds
during their lifetime. Some were--and being born of the right families at the
right time with the right connections was as helpful then as it is today--and
some weren't, not being properly "discovered" until they were dead.
And today there are good and bad artists out there
making it full-time, and just as many or more good and bad artists working a job
during the day and painting or drawing at night. (One has a difficult time thinking of
Monet remarking to Manet, "I'm staying with the office part-time because I
really need the health insurance benefits," and yet, that is an integral
concern for 21st century artists.)
A large gallery we worked with mentioned that most of their
artists, many of them prolific and popular, were all sorts of things on the
side--plumbers, writers, teachers, construction workers. "I don't think we have a single artist on our roster who
doesn't work at something else on the side," the gallery director mused.
So does this mean that she isn't running a real gallery
because it isn't filled with work by real artists? Hardly. How much money you make each year, the size of your studio,
whether or not you wear a smock or beret--these do not determine whether or
not you are an artist.
Creating, striving, challenging yourself,
painting, drawing, sculpting, learning, progressing forward--these are what determine
whether or not you are an artist.
--Carolyn