Lens Culture Art Photography award winners

sirch said:
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 :D
Click to expand...
Not sure I would say the wheels had come off, hopefully, just a little aside to the main substance of the thread.
 
I know, I was using artistic license :)

My comment was more about expressing surprise that threads like this don't usually get to a dozen posts before the "emperors new clothes" "I know what I like and everything else is crap" brigade come along and start p***ing everywhere. I guess the philistines are on holiday.
 
sirch said:
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 :D
Click to expand...
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? :thinking:
 
Birdy06 said:
So, just as a hobby then? Just out of interest, what would you define as a ‘proper job’?
Click to expand...
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.

In their book it seems that people who practiced "art" without also producing for the public good was no better than a capitalist who expected to live off the efforts of others.
 
Birdy06 said:
So, just as a hobby then? Just out of interest, what would you define as a ‘proper job’?
Click to expand...
Good to see the humourless TP literalists are alive and well. :LOL:

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.
 
Last edited:
Ed Sutton said:
Good to see the hunourless TP literalists are alive and well. :LOL:

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.
Click to expand...

Woah! Why on earth was the first comment necessary? I asked because you seemed to have in insight. Please calm down.

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.
 
Birdy06 said:
Woah! Why on earth was the first comment necessary? I asked because you seemed to have in insight. Please calm down.
Click to expand...

I'm perfectly calm. Just taking the psis - which is my hobby. :)

Birdy06 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ed Sutton said:
Many (most?) artists subsidise their art by doing other jobs like teaching and running workshops.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Ed Sutton said:
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.
Click to expand...


Err... fair enough with your hobby. Whatever floats your boat I guess.

I’d say that most of the artists I know, make the majority of their income from whatever is produced in their studio or from prints/multiples. I certainly do too. 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.
 
Last edited:
Birdy06 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Ed Sutton said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top