blog by arwen

inspired by a few conversations online and in person with various colleagues, i wanted to throw out an idea i’ve been contemplating to more accurately measure the “professionalism” of artists…

the first step is to remove the word “professional” from our vocabularies once and for all. can’t remember where i heard it (maybe the Field’s Economic Smackdown event last month?) but folks smarter than me have made the point before that other professionals (doctors, lawyers, accountants) never feel the need to qualify what they do by saying “i’m a professional X…”(imagine what you’d do if a new surgeon you consulted for an operation started out with an introduction like that…not exactly a way to build confidence in your client) and i heartily agree.

instead of this loaded word, maybe we could describe ourselves or the work we do as either “commercial” (i.e., working for institutions on broadway, at major venues for classical disciplines, in union film & tv, as advertising, promo & entertainment talent, at commercial design firms) or “independent” (i.e., do-it-yourself art making in all disciplines that aren’t sponsored by an institutional or commercial entity in a work for hire situation) – is that not a more accurate representation?

the second step has to do with income and valuation. since so many artists are often paid so little (if they are paid at all), we can’t use income as an accurate measure of acheivement in the field or to deem who is a “professional” or not.

{i know the IRS would throw a hissy-fit in response to this idea but this is philosophical post, not a practical advice post, and while i am well aware of them, i am going to ignore their requirements regarding income qualifications, deductions, profits and losses related to a business vs hobby for now.}

so, what if we start using years and define an artist by the time spent studying and pursuing your craft as a measure instead? isn’t that the truer measure? trust fund or not – are you still doing it after 10, 20 or 50 years?

this dovetails nicely with an idea advanced by a friend & colleague who asserts that one way to support the ongoing career development of artists is to bring back the apprentice-journeyman-master system, which is an idea i love.

what do you think about these thorny issues of time, money, commitment and self-identification as far as how to represent and define your artistic career to the masses?

Can someone tell me why The New York Times published this bullshit story about “artists” living in Williamsburg who are no longer subsidized by mommy & daddy?

F*#! YOU New York Times – your article is completely out of touch.

First – It IGNORES the reality and effects of rampant gentrification on local residents and the artists role in the process. this is a gigantic issue threatening MANY neighborhoods across the city (including mine) that the author is clearly IGNORANT of in every sense. the real story is that NYC is losing its working class neighborhoods because of people like this are inflating the market and the Times totally missed it. It’s really quite obtuse and offensive.

Second – How dare you hold these wanna-be’s up as “brooklyn artists” worth writing and reading about? it is disgraceful reporting and breeds anti-artist sentiment. how about profiling artists making critically acclaimed work for 5+ years in NYC while living on $15,000 annually? their resourcefulness could teach MANY in the C-suites of major corporations a thing or two…instead we get a piece about entitled, spoiled brats who evade the natural selection process that deems which artists CAN survive and manage to thrive here (does this clueless author not know the lyrics “IF I can make it there, I’ll make it anywhere”?).

Third – It is  insulting to the artists in this city who are part of New York’s heart and soul by being productive members of the  MIDDLE CLASS for the long haul – not just as long as someone else pays for it. cultural production gives a place its identity, its character and its voice because it represents the people that inhabit the place. as I’ve heard they say in statistics: garbage in, garbage out.

check out the reader recommended comments if you get the chance – they are worth it.

i feel a letter to the editor coming on.