Archive for the ‘Creative Living’ Category

Art and Family Life: Can a Creative Career Survive Marriage and Children?

Wednesday, August 18th, 2010

My father and me

I recently stumbled across this article in the Guardian, “The parent trap: art after children” by author Frank Cottrell Boyce, father of seven. I was intrigued and inspired seeing as I am very (as in, post due date) pregnant and have been wondering to myself, “What is going to happen to my life after this baby is born?” More specifically, “Will I have to give up singing?”

Of course this sense of despair is unfounded, but it feels legitimate. I would venture to guess anyone who has a child on the way mourns their loss of independence. But for the artist, the unknown could be a bit more frightening. We know how unstable the life of an artist is, believing it requires a singular devotion. We worry that the introduction of a commitment like marriage or parenthood could easily topple what we’ve been building. We may believe that in order to maintain a certain way of life for our art, we must sacrifice family, or if we want family, we must sacrifice art.

Boyce shares he once had similar feelings,

We were still students when we got married and had our first baby. It must have been hard work…Friends were mostly delighted, but also slightly appalled. From the first they’d take me aside and commiserate. “That’s it now, Frank, the pram is in the hallway.”

The full quote – from Cyril Connolly – is: “There is no more sombre enemy of good art than the pram in the hallway.” In fact, we didn’t have a pram or a hallway, but in the dark watches of the night I would sometimes look at the Maclaren Dreamer buggy in the corner of the tiny kitchen and think, is that it then? Will I have to go and get a proper job and never write again?

Fathers and artists: my father, dancer; my grandfather, painter

Fathers and artists: my father, dancer; my grandfather, painter

After graduating college, I had arranged a voice lesson with a famous soprano. At the end of our lesson she had some encouraging things to say about my voice and grilled me on why I was not yet in graduate school and “just what was I doing with my life.” I feebly explained I needed to make some money first, was just testing the waters with different teachers, and was not ready for grad school yet.

Exasperated, she asked, “Do you want to get married? Have children?” As if these would be the only reasons someone like me would not follow the same career path every other “serious” music school undergrad was following. She said, “You know the divorce rate among opera singers is over 50%? I have seen a lot of cheating in my day. You will have to make tremendous sacrifices and a solid marriage is possible, but not easy. I’m married, but may not see my husband for months while on tour. We decided we could never have children, given the traveling schedules we have as performers. We don’t have 401Ks, so you’ll also have to figure out how to save for retirement.”

37 weeks pregnant

37 weeks pregnant

Today, 8 years later, 9 months pregnant, just two weeks shy of my 30th birthday, having sacrificed a possible career dedicated solely to music (maybe, who knows, really) I believe my life and my career and far are more rich and wonderful than I could have ever planned for myself after that voice lesson, had I taken the soprano’s warnings seriously. In fact, I am grateful for the series of events that kept me in Michigan. I am grateful that I doubted there was one way to becoming the artist I was, and am, meant to become.

Boyce touches on the reasons why I believe committing to family life can be so much more frightening, challenging, and rewarding than (exclusively) committing to one’s work as an artist,

It’s very powerful to be surrounded by people who love you for something other than your work, who are unaware of the daily, painful fluctuations of your reputation. I discovered recently that my youngest child thought I spent my days typing out more and more copies of my book Millions, so that everyone could have one.

I love this insight. I have noticed that sometimes family members may not be interested in or may not understand my artistic endeavors. This is not to say they are unsupportive, but they cannot inhabit my world. It is not only selfish of me to expect them to, but unnecessary.

Boyce continues,

Jonathan Franzen has said that “it is doubtful that anyone with an internet connection in his workplace is writing good fiction”. Family is, of course, the most potent distraction, and probably the only distraction that makes you feel virtuous when you surrender to it.

My heart aches reading that last statement because I have experienced  it. Why is surrendering to one’s family so difficult and so rewarding? Is it because the rewards are often so private? Is it because they cannot be measured in an artist’s preferred currency: money or fame? You don’t build any artistic street cred by advertising on your blog, “I loved someone with all my heart today.” It won’t get you a job, make a sale, or win an audition. And while the distraction of family can be tiresome, draining, and in some cases, something you legitimately need to distance yourself from, what Boyce says next struck a chord with me,

There’s a belief that to do great work you need tranquility and control, that the pram is cluttering up the hallway; life needs to be neat and tidy. This isn’t the case. Tranquility and control provide the best conditions for completing the work you imagined. But surely the real trick is to produce the work that you never imagined. The great creative moments in our history are almost all stories of distraction and daydreaming – Archimedes in the bath, Einstein dreaming of riding a sunbeam – of alert minds open to the grace of chaos.

Writers have produced great work in the face of things far more stressful than the school run: being shot at, in the case of Wilfred Owen; being banged up in jail, in the case of Cervantes or John Bunyan. Yet that pram is lodged in our imaginations, like a secret parasite sucking on our juices.

In fact, if you go back to Connolly’s terrific book, you’ll see that the pram is only one of the many Enemies of Promise. Others include a public school education (so emotionally overwhelming you can’t move on) and success, surely the greatest enemy of all. But no one warns you about these. It’s just the pram.

Why does it retain its power to chill? I don’t think it’s about fear of distraction or domesticity. I think it’s a fear of babies. Being a parent – or really loving someone other than yourself, whether that’s your children, parents or your lover – forces you to confront a horrible truth: the fact that we get older. The amazing boy who was born when I was still a student is a man now. There is no way that I can still think of myself as “quite young, really” or “a child at heart”. Parenthood confronts us with our own mortality, every day.

To me, the pram is a metaphor for “all family life” and I might extend Boyce’s analysis to include “all family life confronts us with our own mortality, every day.”

It was not until I met my now-husband, was planning my wedding, and my father was dying of cancer, that I realized just how little I cared for a Great Big Career in music. How grateful I was that I never followed the soprano’s advice about my career path. How little I cared that my “creativity” was put on hold because I was growing my family and losing it at the same time.

I think what I am getting at, is that artists need to be open to life. They need to be open to the possibility that family life need not be sacrificed for art’s sake. That in fact, it can make you the artist you are meant to be.

Last dance with my father, at my wedding

Last dance with my father before his death

Enhanced by Zemanta

On the Specialness of Art

Wednesday, May 12th, 2010

This is a huge topic that deserves its own blog, so I offer few answers, but hopefully some fodder. Via Edward_Winkleman, an open thread about “whether or not art should be special.” Winkleman quotes a commenter who is fed up with the US art collector scene, ostensibly having found “better opportunities” outside the US,

On a personal level I feel that the object-based model (artist makes object, collector buys object), leaves something away from the experience. Art needs to re-enter life and to affect people at large as gestures, as life choices, NOT just as objects. “Art” is too concentrated in the small confines of the artworld and let’s face it, not everyone will fit that mold. “Art” needs to step out of its specialness and to re-enter the world as something more mundane.

Winkleman captures my ambivalence about this oft-repeated argument: art needs to be accessible, less elite, more inclusive, etc.

I’ve been hearing sentiments like this for some time…But somehow, I resist it. Not sure why. One knee-jerk (meaning, taking no time to consider seriously) answer would be that it’s not profitable, but very little about many of the projects we support are profitable, so I sincerely don’t think that’s it.

But the part of that statement I keep coming back to when thinking about it (and I do appreciate the commenter’s sharing it) is this:

“Art” needs to step out of its specialness and to re-enter the world as something more mundane.I’m truthfully not sure what that means.

If I can put words in his mouth, Winkleman goes on to describe how art is not, almost by definition, mundane. I’m inclined to agree with him. Art is distinct from mundane things and experiences,” or in other words “stuff that we take for granted”. I mean, who ever gushes to their friends about how they must go see the latest opera or gallery opening because of how “mundane and accessible” it was?

Of course mundane and accessible are two different things, and depending on how are we defining accessible – the issue is confused further. Do we mean accessible in the most literal sense of more people having more access to the arts in general? Then, congratulations! Never before in history have so many people had so much access to so much art via the wonders of reproductive technology. See Tyler Cowen’s “In Praise of Commercial Culture” for a thorough exploration of this topic.

Despite Walter Benjamin’s famous assertion that reproduction destroys the soul of art – I’d argue one would have to make a strong case against what I consider the clear advantage of technological advancement as far as accessibility is concerned. For example – what is being able to hear a high quality recording of a music performance, in the event that price, time, or location does not allow one access to the live performance  if not, accessibility?

If we mean accessibility as in “widespread comprehension and appreciation of art for art’s sake such that the majority of people can effectively commune with art,” then good luck, and I have more questions than answers there.

Winkleman continues,

And yet, I hear echoes…all the time. “Art is too elite. Art needs to be accessible to more people. Art should be something everyone can afford.” But that sounds like previous calls for wider television or internet access to my ear. That sounds like we’re attempting to reduce art to just another channel for information distribution, rather than some vessel for a hard-fought battle to transcend the mundane.

I don’t know…I guess I have enough mundaneness in my life already. Consider this an open thread on whether or not art should be special.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

A Defense of Manual Labor and The Arts

Thursday, March 25th, 2010
woodwork couple
Image by strollers via Flickr

It is no surprise that in this crippling economy more and more people are learning skills in self-sufficiency by planting their own gardens, knitting and sewing their own clothing, and learning to be more handy around the house.

Being able to create with one’s hands is something of a lost art in a luxury society like the United States, where most goods and services can be found at relatively cheap prices, such that few of us have ever had a need to know how to change a faucet out or install a deadbolt, or repair a moth-eaten sweater.

I came across a lovely piece by UK journalist Libby Brooks entitled “The dignity of labour” where she makes a compelling case for a revival of artisan skills such as woodworking or crafting,

In the knowledge economy that values above-the-neck abilities above all others, an increasing lack of manual competence renders us passive and dependent. It also significantly alters our relationship with the material world. So that chair, once woodworm stippled, now sanded smooth and varnished, no longer holds the narrative of our own efforts and nascent skill, but the mediated story of a stranger’s capability.

And, while manufacturing may have moved east, there is still a demand for manual competence in east London. Last year, the Crafts Council published an audit highlighting the desperate skills shortage in this country, while Country Living magazine launched a campaign to preserve traditional craftsmanship. Jobs in manual trades such as carpentry and masonry are proving hardest to fill during a recession when millions are facing unemployment.

Despite this, “vocational” training remains the Cinderella stream of education, with the implicit assumption that it narrows and restricts students’ potential. Which is ironic at a time when the open-skies opportunity of the much-lauded university degree offers little more than a free pass to the dole queue. The value we give to particular kinds of learning will only become more pertinent as the recession continues.

In a knowledge economy, it can feel embarrassingly retro to talk about the dignity of labour. But Richard Sennett talks compellingly about the value of lasting work to workers, and the way that the economic downturn is forcing a reassessment of the quality of life offered by cog-in-the-wheel office life, where employees see neither daylight, their families, nor the end product of their labours.

And this is an ethic that challenges directly the disposability of the consumer age. An item can be made, mended and re-fettled again. The ability to think critically about material goods, to comprehend their structure and durability, offers a certain freedom from the imprecations of the advertisers, who would rather we concerned ourselves with the cultural associations of an object, rather than its inherent quality or capacity to serve a purpose.

I think of my own father, a true Renaissance man. He came to this country as a professional dancer, only to work as a truck engine repair man, and eventually owned his own interior finishing business. One day he was in our front yard surrounded by a number of large half-circles of wood. I asked him what on earth he was doing.

“I’m building a water fountain for a client,” he replied.

Surprised, I responded, “I didn’t know you knew how to make water fountains!”

“I will when I am done.”

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Artists who Give Artists a Bad Name

Sunday, March 21st, 2010
pacman food bank display
Image by eyesplash Mikul via Flickr

We know art school grads are trained to have expensive taste, so why ask them to compromise when everyone else has to? Check out the nouveau hedonism for today’s poor epicure, from Salon’s Hipsters on Food Stamps,

In the John Waters-esque sector of northwest Baltimore — equal parts kitschy, sketchy, artsy and weird — Gerry Mak and Sarah Magida sauntered through a small ethnic market stocked with Japanese eggplant, mint chutney and fresh turmeric. After gathering ingredients for that evening’s dinner, they walked to the cash register and awaited their moments of truth…

Magida, a 30-year-old art school graduate, had been installing museum exhibits for a living until the recession caused arts funding — and her usual gigs — to dry up. She applied for food stamps last summer, and since then she’s used her $150 in monthly benefits for things like fresh produce, raw honey and fresh-squeezed juices from markets near her house in the neighborhood of Hampden, and soy meat alternatives and gourmet ice cream from a Whole Foods a few miles away.

“I’m eating better than I ever have before,” she told me. “Even with food stamps, it’s not like I’m living large, but it helps.”

Mak, 31, grew up in Westchester, graduated from the University of Chicago and toiled in publishing in New York during his 20s before moving to Baltimore last year with a meager part-time blogging job and prospects for little else. About half of his friends in Baltimore have been getting food stamps since the economy toppled, so he decided to give it a try; to his delight, he qualified for $200 a month.

“I’m sort of a foodie, and I’m not going to do the ‘living off ramen’ thing,” he said, fondly remembering a recent meal he’d prepared of roasted rabbit with butter, tarragon and sweet potatoes. “I used to think that you could only get processed food and government cheese on food stamps, but it’s great that you can get anything.”

What are these so-called artists learning in art school? How not to make an honest living and how to mooch off others? Apparently, I should not be so judgmental, and assume these highly-educated artists are entitled to this support because of their creative output.

“At first, I thought, ‘Why should I be on food stamps?’” said Magida, digging into her dinner. “Here I am, this educated person who went to art school, and there are a lot of people who need them more. But then I realized, I need them, too.”

I’m really quite appalled at her rationale. Even from a graduate just out of school, I might understand, since this is the worst economy in decades. But these people are just a few years older than I am, plenty of time post-graduation to realize they might need to diversify their potential streams of income. I’m also an educated person who went to music school. Once I realized that I, too, was unwilling to eat ramen to make ends meet, I did not seek ways for others to subsidize my chosen career path. I found additional work and education that allowed me to support myself and my family while maintaining a level of artistic output I am happy with.

Am I totally alone in thinking other (admittedly) able-bodied, educated artists should find honest work, even if not in their chosen field – and save the food stamps for those who really can’t afford to live?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Audience vs. Artist

Tuesday, December 1st, 2009

Bill Eddins, Conductor

Bill Eddins, Conductor


In a post on the classical music career blog Sticks and Drones, symphony conductor Bill Eddins reflected on the paradox inherent in being creative as a career choice. Even the description “being creative” is so wildly open to interpretation (it seems to me) that artists and their audiences may experience a gap in terms of truly understanding what the role of the artist is.

Eddins puts forward that professional artists (specifically, those who make most of their living from a creative skill) may lose sight of the “magic” of creativity and offering their work to audiences. He says,

We all know that classical music faces some fundamental problems in the world today, and we are all very good at pointing the finger at various aspects of the business.  But there may be a more fundamental problem – us.

He goes on to say that professional artists, in this case, musicians, become myopic. Spending hours practicing their instrument or studying scores and only conversing with other serious musicians creates an atmosphere of intense musical scrutiny. As a result, what may be an enjoyable and uncomplicated symphony program for audiences may be looked at as tedious and uninspired to the players themselves. This is clearly not a good way to do business.

Think of every tidbit of business advice you’ve ever gotten. Doesn’t “Have passion for what you do” rank somewhere at the top? The paradox for the classical musician lies in the fact that because he is involved in the business of entertaining and educating, he is subject to the whims and desires of the audience. He is simultaneously grateful someone is willing to listen to his craft and resentful he must play a few crowd-pleasers to get them in the door.

Eddins points out,

Too often the prevailing attitude amongst musicians is one of gloom, despair, and a hidden intense disliking of our profession.  It is almost as if we have forgotten how lucky we are to do what we do.  Three hundred years ago our ancient colleagues did all sorts of crazy things besides music.  They were footmen, or they mucked out the barns, perhaps labored all day at some physically demanding job.  We have come a very long way from those times and we should be thankful for it.

He goes on,

I think what I’m trying to get at here is that the specialization of music and musicians has had some unintended consequences and perhaps we should reconsider the path our profession is on.  Is the whole conservatory movement a good thing?  Juilliard, Eastman, Curtis, etc., are they helping our hurting?  Sure, the graduates can play, but what do they know of the real world?  Or just as importantly, what does the real world know of them? They’ve already been separated from their age groups by going to specialized institutions.  Is that a good thing?

I have to admit, it is precisely because of what Eddins describes that I decided to leave a career path dedicated solely to becoming a professional vocalist and trying to get into a conservatory for a Master’s degree. After I graduated with my Bachelor’s and did a bit of legwork to find out what “real” musicians did for a living, distinct from the fun and games I experienced taking classes in school. I realized I wasn’t too thrilled about their careers or lifestyles.

I met a lovely woman whose bread and butter was singing Mozart’s Queen of the Night. This sounds great, right? Well, to me I thought the idea of singing The Queen, night after night, on stage after stage for 30+ years sounded just as banal as some desk job. In fact, I promptly got myself a desk job, since at least the competition was less fierce and the income stream more steady. It seems I am just like the musicians Eddins describes, but I could read the writing on the wall long before I dedicated myself to a performance-only career path and did audiences the service of bowing out. I find much more enjoyment out of performing the things I want, when I want, and this way (I hope) my performances remain fresh and inspired.

I am thrilled Eddins’ is pointing to multiple, complex, issues in classical music requiring problem-solving and soul-searching among creative professionals. Perhaps those seeking a creative career will finally understand the will of the audience must come first about 80% of the time and personal creative expression is perhaps only 20% of the job, and those who are not comfortable with that will choose another career. However, perhaps audiences will realize that the “magic” of being creative is not magic at all, but hours of toil, practice, and research – creative muck-raking, if you will. No creative professional rolled out of bed, inspired and creatively perfected. Their needs to be appreciated for their uniqueness is just as great as that young girl with the desk job. To them, playing a well-received Beethoven symphony is rewarding – but it’s been done so many times, they yearn for something else.

Eddins is on to something. I will have to keep mining this topic for clarity and insight, and I know this is just scraping the surface.

 
© Powerered by Wordpress | Custom Template Design by NBurman Design