- Edit My Images
The wheels come off because some people (it seems) would rather score imaginary points instead of communicate their ideas clearly. How hard can it be just to write what you mean and mean what you write?And it was going so well, we nearly made it to post #40 before the wheels came off, that's got to be record for a thread of this nature
Thanks for this, I especially enjoyed Will Self's comments.
The socialist movements of the mid 19th century seem to have felt that people should be gainfully employed during the day then practice arts and crafts during the evenings and weekends. Their ideal was a "new Athens" without the slavery but with wealth and leisure for all.So, just as a hobby then? Just out of interest, what would you define as a ‘proper job’?
Good to see the humourless TP literalists are alive and well.So, just as a hobby then? Just out of interest, what would you define as a ‘proper job’?
Woah! Why on earth was the first comment necessary? I asked because you seemed to have in insight. Please calm down.Good to see the hunourless TP literalists are alive and well.
No, not as a hobby. A 'proper job' is one that pays a wage or salary.
I don't imagine Philip Larkin thought of poetry as a hobby, for example.
I'm perfectly calm. Just taking the psis - which is my hobby.Woah! Why on earth was the first comment necessary? I asked because you seemed to have in insight. Please calm down.
Indeed. Many (most?) artists subsidise their art by doing other jobs like teaching and running workshops. Or in Lowry's case collecting rents. Not too many survive on sales of artworks alone.If a salary or a definite regular wage is your primary driving force, then becoming a practitioner in the visual arts is clearly not going be the most suitable without a great deal of risk and belief in yourself along the way. I know a lot of artists and most make a pretty respectable income either by selling work, teaching part time, running workshops, selling prints, attending fairs, getting gallery representation etc. etc. It is certainly possible.
As I understand it, those 19th century socialists would see that as a form of parasitism. Art in their minds seems to have been for after hours entertainment and not a source of income.Many (most?) artists subsidise their art by doing other jobs like teaching and running workshops.
I'm perfectly calm. Just taking the psis - which is my hobby.
Indeed. Many (most?) artists subsidise their art by doing other jobs like teaching and running workshops. Or in Lowry's case collecting rents. Not too many survive on sales of artworks alone.
Does that make Larkin and Lowry keen enthusiasts/hobbyists/amateurs?If you spend a few hours a week doing other things to add to your income, it’s a very different thing to working most or all of the week and then producing work in your spare time. That is the territory of the keen enthusiast/hobbyist/amateur. There is nothing wrong with that of course bit there is a marked difference.
I agree but there is also a need for the time and space for work to develop. From my own point of view, I think it very unlikely I would bother with the expense of a studio space if I was still working in a full-time day job. The result of this would be the inability to work at a scale that I currently do and in the way that I do, therefore that development is unlikely to have happened and this work would not exist. I guess my story is different to Larkin and Lowry, who knows.Does that make Larkin and Lowry keen enthusiasts/hobbyists/amateurs?
An artist is someone who makes art. Doesn't matter whether they have a day job or not.