Here is the second installation in our Spread the Wealth for Artists series. And by the way, David Bruehan’s book, Spread the Wealth: More Haves Fewer Have-Nots came out the first of the month, so go order it, read it, and then let’s put our heads together to truly spread the wealth for artists.

Contributor Andrew Norcross is a financial advisor, tech wiz, and one of my regular Twitter (@Norcross) politics and econ sparring partners, so of course I asked him to weigh in here.

Question: Why Are Artists Poor? (a great question, I think, and the title of a book by economist Hans Abbing)

a. Why are so many people who pursue “art” for a living poor, or simply unable to lead a stable financial life?

b. What do you think is the greatest roadblock to artists being able to make a steady living in their craft? Do they trap themselves into thinking financial success=selling out?

Andrews’s Response:

A. For some, I believe it’s a self-imposed choice. They feel as though the only way to truly be ‘inspired’ is to struggle. They aren’t adept at working a ‘real’ job while pursuing their art, and often times aren’t able at doing anything that ‘interferes’ with what they feel is their artistic vision.

For others, it’s other factors in their life completely unrelated to their art (drug and alcohol addiction, mental illness, etc). They just happen to be an artist as well.

B. I believe for many, the “selling out” factor is legitimate. But more often than not, it’s a matter of their particular craft not being commercially viable. Because the masses aren’t usually interested in anything that isn’t mainstream. And most art certainly isn’t mainstream.

Question: A recent article “Chinese Graduates Increasingly Drawn to the Arts” highlights a significant shift in Chinese culture and art.

a.  Based on what you’ve read, what is your opinion of the recent surge of contemporary art in China? What has allowed this to happen?

b.  Consider the following quote about Chinese artists in recent history,  and compare to the current evolution, “A recent survey [2001] notes that unlike many countries that intervene in the arts, the Chinese government has gone to an unusual extreme.  ‘China…has a totally different structure. Performers do not normally have to take up another activity and they often do not have the right to.’” [emphasis mine]

Andrew’s Response:

A. I believe it’s a shift in China’s social structure. As the modern culture advances, there is a natural growth in the arts, from both a creation / development and financing [standpoint]. Given China’s pseudo-communist government structure, it’s natural that the country would be at the forefront.

B. I’m no expert on China. But it would seem to be that they (the government) have a real interest in fostering a healthy and prosperous arts community for the benefit of their entire country. Seeing how artists “struggle” in other countries, they may believe that allowing the artist to solely focus on their skills and craft is the best way to achieve that.

Question: Property rights are a hallmark of a free society. How do property rights affect an artist’s ability to make a living? How can we balance the freedoms of globalization and technology and protecting artist interests online?

a.   Is “crowd-sourcing” killing the individual artist?

b.   How has creative commons changed art, music, and social media?

Andrew’s Response:

A. I believe it’s killing out the marginal artists. While somewhat sarcastic in thought, I really do believe that if your job / skill can be crowd-sourced to achieve the same product that you can individually, then you weren’t very good to begin with. You could probably crowd-source a Thomas Kinkade, but you couldn’t crowd-source a Dali.

[Note from Milena: I've heard from a number of unverified sources that Kinkade's paintings are crowd-sourced. Of course, the Kinkade brand would keep this tidbit rather quiet, but if indeed true, it would add to your point. According to said sources, Kinkade's got a whole team of "painters of light" that fill in his lithographs and he may go add a daub of paint here and there. Though, artists throughout history have used this method as well - painting in teams. It appears crowd-sourcing is really nothing new, but simply evolving with technology.]

B. It’s given many artists the ability to find a channel to distribute their works, without a large barrier to entry. Almost anyone can get webhosting / social media space / etc.  to display their works worldwide without needing a benefactor or other sorts of ‘gatekeepers’, whereas in the past that was simply impossible.

Tags: Andrew Norcross, Art, Economics

This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 4th, 2009 at 11:51 pm and is filed under Art, Capitalism, Communism, Creativity, Economics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.