(A Monologue)
Nathaniel: (to the world)
It was dinner time, August 31st, 2008. There I was with my family: my mother, my father, and my brother, with the cat Doctor perched at the window behind. You see, I was shortly leaving for Paris, my father had come up from Texas to spend time with me before leaving, and we were having our last supper as a family for a while (of course, typically all of our dinners fall under that category, so this was not such a tremendous occasion, yet it had the feeling of a tremendous occasion both because of my upcoming departure and that of my brother going back to school for the 4th time). My mother posed the question to us both why we made decisions that are so different from what normal people do. I was shocked. A bit confused, you see. I didn't see my decisions as being altogether that strange. Granted, moving across the sea without much of anything over there is strange, but the other decisions in life I had made, decisions that led me to that place, etc...I didn't find those very strange. What she meant was, why do I not care about money...or, more of the effect of, why do I continually put myself in a place where I cannot make any money. Normal people care about that. Given my actions, I do not, she insinuated. So why is this?
At the airport, before checking in, after being dropped off by my mother and brother, I went down to have a cigarette. It would be my last for several hours (thankfully in Copenhagen, they have smoking stalls installed in the airport). A man came up to me while I was smoking outside of the SeaTac airport. Of course, he asked me for a cigarette, which I gave him one. He offered me a Marilyn Monroe Zippo Lighter in exchange for three more cigarettes...but as you can imagine, I declined. I told him I had to save my cigarettes, I'm moving to Paris! He asked what I do. I told him, "I work in the theatre." "Where?" he asked. It looked like he hadn't heard me. This man was not "all the way there" you see. "I work in the theatre," I repeated. Am I insane? Is this not a normal response to someone who asks where you work? Well, he still couldn't get it. I told him I was an actor, a lie, of course, but better than trying to explain Director or Production Manager. For God's sake, he must know what an Actor is! How could you not? He didn't. He asked if I was a double...or...or...something something something. I told him, "No, I act in small plays. Nothing too big, I'm not famous" (Though, I was wearing a fashionable outfit and could've been mistaken for celebrity, should've been mistaken for celebrity if this man was not out of his wits). "Of course not, no, not yet!" He said and finally, I thought that he understood what it meant that I work in the theatre. And then he asked me, "Where do you work?"
These two encounters, linked together so close in time, along with the "indefinite hiatus" of Emerald City Scene caused me to really think again about art's position in this world. You see, there's almost nothing that gets more attention and is thought higher of than art. When you really think about it, that is what gets all of the attention. Not even a man or woman who has led a country out of nothingness into prosperity receives the kind of attention that Halle Barry receives (She's only half-black, by the way, did you know that? So is this Barack Obama. Who does he think he is claiming to be the first Black Presidential Nominee?) Why does this happen? Because so few actually reach the level of recognizable. Most are left behind in the gutter...due to NO MONEY BEING AVAILABLE IN THE ARTS. Sure, once you reach the higher levels, your Opera's, Regional Theatres, big Museums, and so forth, you've got tons of money...far more money flows into those organizations than most small-mid level businesses, is my guess. But until you reach that level, you're all alone, pal. And to tell the truth, most just can't make it. In other business, other fields, if someone wanted to spend a little time not making a whole lot of money, soon they'd be slowly moving up the ladder into a place where they are making a comfortable amount of money and then, if they have the ambition to, they keep on rising to make a significant amount of money. Here is where most of the world, most of my non-artist friends will be. They will be lying in heaps of money. I, on the other hand, must make the choice. Make Money, Do Art. Make Money OR Do Art. I can EITHER Make Money OR Do Art.
And what I find to be the real pincher of it, is that without art in this world, there'd be nothing to make money for. Survival takes very little. It's the artistic ventures that we want to enjoy, that have the life in them. For every person out there working for some truly insignificant product and making more than enough for survival, there are a handful of artist out there hoping they can continue to do what they love and continue to provide entertainment and knowledge for the world without a scrap of money out of it. But hours and bills rack up.
To answer my mother's question, I don't think that I've made such different choices. The truth of myself and most other artists is we follow the same formula. We start in lowpaying positions and hope to move up the ladder of recognition to someplace where we can truly be comfortable financially and doing the job that we were trained and born to do. Unfortunately, in this field, it's very difficult to make it up to that second rung...and from there, ten times harder to make it to the third rung, and so on. It's very easy to just go back down to the bottom, though, and find a new ladder to climb.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
amazing window to provide for us. indeed, it is not only hard for artists to go up the lower rungs of the ladder (as i'd bet pretty much everyone needs to do so), but it definitely is more intense, difficult to be an artist. many successful artists had to have "day jobs" to be able to achieve all that they needed to do, essentially working twice the amount of most other people. me, i believe that sometimes the extra effort you put into things is becomes worth it later on. just my two cents. well, great post, certainly thought provoking. also, curious that your mother would ask why you did not make "normal" decisions... if that's punching a 9-5 card at some dead end job, in my opinion, it ain't what it's cracked up to be. make the sacrifice in the beginning, and later on when you're doing things that you enjoy, making a change in the world, you can thank yourself for the extra effort that you did. thanks again and keep yo' head up, bro.
abraços,
So, for somebody who has chosen to start my career and work the crazy hours for good money instead of doing what I want, I feel like I have things to add to this post. First, the arts don't pay much, requiring other jobs, because there are a lot of people going after few positions. Large supply, small demand = no pay. Luckily I happened to pick a major that has a small supply, large demand = higher pay. One must decide, do I pick a job that I love or do I pick a job where I can support myself to be able to afford things outside of work. Live for today or live for tomorrow. Yes, artists sacrifice themselves for what they love, but "money jobs" also make sacrifices. Working til midnight, working weekends, etc. We all make choices and have live with those choices. The grass is not necessarily greener on the other side of the fence.
B-Squared
In responce to b-squared's post, this is exactly the misconception that I am talking about. There are many jobs, like b-squared's, which require long hours (overtime, weekends, etc) for good pay. The misconception is that artists are nor doing this. After six to eight hours at a day job (or night job) we then go for four or more hours at rehearsal, or meetings, or whatever WORK your art requires. The problem here is that art is seen as recreation when it is done in addition to a day job (as opposed to those artists who are lucky enough to live off of art). The reality is that it is not recreation. I imagine there is as much hard work done during an artist's "off time" (when he or she is not at her " real job") as when most people are at their jobs and getting l
Paid for it. The other misconception I want to address, or maybe misdirection, is the supply and demand model. Not everyone wants to be an artist, much less, many who do want to be don't have the ability! The true supply of artists who have the ability to be professionals is pretty small. The problem is that the demand is seen by the world at large as relatively small. Yet it is art which is the go-to for society and culture when it's people are free to spend their income and time. Those with ample time and money flock to the arts. Theatres, symphonies, and galleries are full of old rich people. True, some of this is status-showing, but it's mostly because, if people could, this is where much of their energy would go. Think about popular music and film. These artistic arenas are available (and mass publiciZed) to your everyday person, and most seek out it's entertainment.
My point here is that there is a high demand for art and the artists that are qualified to produce it, but the demand is being overshadowed by a stigma that says this is merely recreation for those who produce it, whereas other "real jobs" are hard work and more deserving of good pay.
To further clarify my point regarding the supply and demand, I need to write it different. Unfortunately natty, you are quite wrong. The supply of artists is infinite. Everybody could be an artist. Notice I didn't say good or talanted artist, but just artist. I could wake up tomorrow, start drawing, creating music, or make a movie and call myself an artist. I sure as hell wouldn't want to see, hear, or watch what I would create, but that's not the point. There are no barriers to who is or is not an artist. Unlike other industries where it requires a college degree, certifications, or whatnot, artists don't have this same requirement. The only requirement is an internal drive to create. It's unfortunate that talented people can't survive on an artist's pay, however, that is the way it is.
Additionally, another problem that artists have is who determines what art is. Art to one person is crap to another. I personally can't stand modern art and would never pay $1 for it. But others love it and pay millions.
B-Squared
intervention time! bsquared, i think you agree with natty, however, you both exist on different philosophical (or economical, in this case) paradigms. you both agree that the supply of artists that can make money is small, however the divergence is whether someone dedicates their near-full-time to their artistic work. i think you also disagree about the function of the "money-making" work, whether that's fulfilling in itself or whether sometimes people need more than that. i'm glad that we've got this space to better define our viewpoints on such matters, but i think further comments underr this point may be superfluous in this case :).
abraços
I will refrain from making another large argument here, but must say that the inference that anyone can be an artist but not anyone can perform in other industries is insulting, which was not the point of this post. If the supply of artists is unlimited,so is the supply of every other professional. Arts products are subjective only in as much as every other product is subjective.
I'm sorry, but how is that comment insulting? Not anybody can become an engineer, scientist, CPA, lawyer, financial trader, whatever. These positions all require at least 4 years of college, professional licensing, etc. But anybody can pick up a paintbrush, musical instruments, or pen and try to become an artist. For those that are talented artists, it's too bad that they have to live in an extreme poverty until they are found.
Basically the point I was trying to make is that many careers have blockades that stop "just anybody" from going into that industry. These are the higher paying jobs. Those jobs that don't have blockades, like artists, don't pay well until you have made it and people recognize your talent.
I must take a moment to bridge a little bit of a gap here. There are many positions that one can do freelance that "require" no college degree. A good friend of mine is currently a computer programmer for transit routing (getting paid *bank* I might add) with no CS degree. He simply lived in poverty for a year building up his skills and doing what he loved, and eventually he was "discovered" by Y-Combinator and the rest is history.
Similarly, there are many professional art jobs that do require a degree. For example, I just got hired at Seattle Rep, and you can be damn sure I wouldn't have gotten that job without a 4-year degree and significant experience in a related field.
Unfortunately, really exciting and rewarding jobs - be they in the arts or in computer-generated tripplanning - are less plentiful and more sought-after than many other jobs (but of course, this is an assumption - maybe some people love being administrators or clerks or phone monkeys or baristas). And let's not forget that in order to be able to do what you love (whatever it is) you probably have to spend a lot of time practicing what you love, and no one is going to pay you for practice. Architects get paid very little and work extremely hard in their spare time (doing competitions, side projects, taking photos, etc) to eventually get recognized for their work and become licensed, and similarly artists work very hard for very little pay until they eventually get recognized and are invited to Actor's Equity, the Artist's Guild, or the American Federation of Musicians.
The bottom line is that there are standards of professionalism in every field. I file my own taxes - does that make me an accountant? Yes, but only insofar as the casual piano-player is a musician and someone who makes a decent quiche is a chef. Don't underestimate the professional rigor required of professional artists.
In whatever field one chooses, aspiring to be at the top requires a lot of long nights, a ton of work, and quite a bit of living for tomorrow. Just ask DMD, who's working his ass of to eventually get to do exactly what he wants. We actually have very similar schedules...
But as an aspiring professional artist, I can't complain about the sacrifices I make. It would be a bigger sacrifice to me to spend 40 hours a week doing pretty much anything else. Choices dude, gotta live with 'em and love the ones you make.
-MCB
Sorry, I thought this thread had died. I agree with what MCB has said...not anyone who picks up an instrument/pen/paintbrush is an artist, just like not anyone who picks up a calculator is an accountant. When I worked in the accounting dept. at Holiday Group, if I had stuck around, I could have become CFO (after many years of data entry crapola and probably some hard work). I PROBABLY could have done this without even receiving a degree (in accounting or anything...no degree...I probably could've worked my way up to that position).
The way I see it, the arts should be considered in exactly the same fashion as other jobs. If a four year degree is what it takes, then so be it. But at that point, artists, like engineers, doctors, scientists, etc should be able to make a descent living after having put in the same (more or less the same) amount of work that these other professionals have put in to obtain their degree and obtain their positions.
Congrats on the Seattle Rep gig, Michelle. I'm glad to hear it!
Post a Comment