NPR had a story on last week (for full story, visit http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91556654) about starving artists in New York City. They were all 62 or older and they all had an average income of $30,000 a year. The artists, mostly painters, talked about how they loved their low income life style because they got to live doing what they love. It was extremely romantic and reminded me of all the dancer movies I watched growing up; the ones that emphasise little apartments and lunch budgets, countered by big passion. This picture has been painted over and over as an ideal sacrifice. I remember professing to a teacher once that it didn't matter if I had to ware the same leotard to class every day, at least I was dancing. That was all that mattered.
Somewhere I discovered that that was a lie. I actually do care about what I ware. I care about having enough money to do fun things. Coming to this realization has been hard as I've often felt I am a traitor to the arts. Or worse that I am just not cut out for life on the stage. My question is, why does it have to be either or? Why does art equal little money? I don't know. I guess there are many professions with the same question.
Well, I may be crazy, but I'm still holding on to the belief that there is money in art. I just have to find it. Be a little more creative. Isn't that what artists do best?
Somewhere I discovered that that was a lie. I actually do care about what I ware. I care about having enough money to do fun things. Coming to this realization has been hard as I've often felt I am a traitor to the arts. Or worse that I am just not cut out for life on the stage. My question is, why does it have to be either or? Why does art equal little money? I don't know. I guess there are many professions with the same question.
Well, I may be crazy, but I'm still holding on to the belief that there is money in art. I just have to find it. Be a little more creative. Isn't that what artists do best?
