Yes..no shock...really.

I don't live in Canada but what I know is that you describe well a general situation, I am not able to give all the subtilities,
I can only say that I spend my life with the painting matter, I lost my health, I put all the money that I earned in my artistic activity (in my studio materials and all), I worked day and night and I am as poor as in the begining,
I may perhaps not have high diplomas and recognition , I didn't look for, but I studied by myself much more than some of those who do have such diplomas;
the quality of a painter is not only a matter of technicity,
we can speak with difficulty about our times but if you look at the past you can see that the greater artist was whithout diplomas by they sacificed there lifes not because they intended to do so but because the situation was as in our days.
I can't explain deeply,
I cant describe how a whool bunch of ignorant, nasty abd not talanted people make a joy by make a hell of my life and did everything to stop me paint.
I didn't ask anythink to anybody, just did what I can and make my living, is what I can is more than what others can is not my fault,
I don't take myself for Van Gogh and I don't imitate other people,I just tried to do my job the best as I could.
This is my testimonial, is true, sincere and not hateful ,
I am on the end of my life and I don't care to be poor,
I just want to be let alone to do my life as I do understand it,
I dont belive in the colectif mind and stuff,
You have talant and in that case you are an artist,
you dont and in that case you can be a teacher,
is a very honorable job too.

Perhaps I am wrong from others point of view but is what I think and is about my life experience.

Thank you for your interesting letters.

Wow - you should be shot unless you are an artist who is more concerned with making a living than making art. Yes there is a great formula for making money in art. Follow the formula path that galleries take because it is easy to sell paintings that look like someone who has a lot of advertising out, or already has a name. Personally I have decided not to dumb down and to do the best work I possibly can, for my work to grow so that at the end of my life I know I used this god given gift as fully as I could. And yes you are right, the better I get the smaller my audience. But that is better than galleries (salesmen) dictating what is art. If your focus is on money then do that. But the institutionalization of the arts does not make better art, just allows non creative people to control the arts. Better that control be in the hands of the artist than a former shoe salesman.

Who is counting their hours? Much better to consider what you are doing on your canvases.

I didn't think that artists were supposed to make money, I kept my daytime job just to afford it.

Years ago a vice-president of a large corporation I briefly worked for saw my art and said he didn't know I painted in my spare time. I told him I worked for the company in my spare time, that what I really did was paint. He was the rare type who understood perfectly what I was all about and when I decided to paint full-time (forty years ago) he was the one who was really happy. He said, "That's great!" and jumped on his desk to cheer. I told him that was easy for him to say. We had four teenagers to raise and I did not know how things would work out. As it turned out I made more money (without painting just to sell) than I would have made if I had stayed with the company. We worked hard for a long time and it was worth it. I still work a lot and show in only one gallery now, but don't worry much if things don't sell right along. My advice to younger artists? Keep at it! If you're the genuine thing you will anyway, without my advice.

Don't people in Canada have free health care? Doesn't that fact alone raise their income level?

So much is stacked against commercial success in the art market. At every level. Our local Festival of the Arts is no exception. Visual artists must pay to even be considered to be shown, even though it is well known that sales are few. The musicians that participate in the festival are almost all paid to some level. If most of us aren't sufficiently happy with the process of making art, we're setting ourselves up for grief. Anything else that happens for us, no matter how hard we strive for it, is really gravy. If it comes your way, enjoy it.

As a recent graduate of a Master of Fine Arts program, the suggestion that artists with more education actually make less money doesn't surprise me whatsoever. The drive of academia exists in its own bubble, and is progressively detaching itself from reality year by year. My repeated suggestions that, as artists, we have a responsibility to the public, were dismissed far too easily and completely. If the rationale for this dismissal was that an artist's 'vision' should not pander to mass appeal, that would be one thing. I would still debate this conclusion, but I would soften my stance considerably. The default belief that appears to be present in academia is that it represents the 'avant garde', and is therefore naturally beyond the understanding of an uneducated public. It got to the point that it seemed to be thought of as a fatal flaw in a work if it could be understood outside of academia ("it's too didactic.")
Contemporary "Art Theory" has little or nothing to do with art. Thesis exhibitions from students tends to be judged primarily on the written support material (in reference to 'art theory') rather than on the work itself. Why? My belief is that this is because we've already concluded that judging the artwork itself is largely a subjective experience. 'Art Theory' provides a more structured basis that can, at least ostensibly, be judged objectively (again, even if it has nothing to do with art).
I could go on, but it would undoubtedly turn into a rant...
The goal of an artist, in my opinion, should be to create good (or great) art. I would say that the more that these qualifications refer to the CONCEPT of the work, particularly if it's at the expense of the OBJECT itself, the more that the artist should consider being a writer instead. The 'art' becomes merely the shell for a completely different endeavor. And making a living from its sale is not even on the map, that is, until graduation brings one back into reality.
As far as I'm concerned: academia's weariness of commercialism, ironically, ties its hands more than the commercialism itself. The avoidance of something can dictate as much as the adherence to it. Either way the artist's 'vision' is subjugated to the expectations of others - the public on one hand, the academy on the other. If we as artists forget about all that and just concentrate on what drives us personally, I can easily imagine the income statistics changing for the better.

I would be interested to know if that Canadian study was broken down by gender and how the income levels compared between the sexes.

Female artists, by tradition, have far more additional responsibilities than men and find it more difficult to devote 40 hours to studio time in a week. Figure in childcare, household management, caring for elderly parents and perhaps helping in a husband's business. Add to those the hours of book keeping and marketing duties that many of us spend to further our careers.

I am speaking of male and female artists who do not have an outside job to support their art career. Usually, a spouse is the breadwinner in these situations, and the woman artist is still at a disadvantage due to all of the traditional roles that she fills on a daily basis. I don't mean this as a whine; I mean it as a fact of life that should be considered when surveying artists and their incomes.

I was already aware of these statistics before Robert’s email – and quite frankly I was more disappointed and shocked by Robert’s blanket statements about educated artists feeling like they are “entitled” than I was by the sad reality of the economic status of Canadian artists. This shows a lack of character on his part since he is judging a large population of artists without digging deeper into the issues. I am also offended by his statement “Highly educated artists may make art that is too sophisticated or esoteric for people to buy”. I think it is insulting to insinuate that the general public is too unsophisticated to understand or appreciate art that is more than simply a copy or representation of a familiar object or face.

I am also disgusted by his studio comment – obviously the majority of artists would choose to spend all of their time in the studio if it was possible. Unfortunately that is not realistic for everyone –all artists do what they can to survive and making them feel inadequate because they have to work multiple jobs on top of their art practice is counterproductive and less than generous.

I found his comments shortsighted, judgmental, and somewhat holier than thou. I’m concerned that some artists take his word as gospel – and I think he has used poor judgment by sending these comments out to a large population.

Well said, Rick A. Pilling!

I reject the notion that because I strive to sell my art, I am not committed to excellence and do not also strive toward a higher plane of artistic understanding and achievement.

It is not an either/or as those so-called purists would have us believe. It is a matter of staying true to one's Muse and always being open to learning and experimenting in the pursuit of excellence.

As usual, you are right on ! Your comment about 'some' Artists being too sophisticated for the average buyer is true.
I recently attended an exhibit of the work of Norman Rockwell. The attendance was amazing. It seems that everyone found a memory or situation to relate to in his work. The "Art Snobs " are still not giving him the recognition he deserves as a Painter who was true to himself. Was it the fact that he actually made a living at his art that was offensive ? Most of us have "real jobs" unless there is someone else paying those pesky bills. And "Illustrator" is not a four letter word.
What is the "right way" ? Being true to oneself, making Art that is truly yours? Or appealing to 'the average Joe' ? Trying to please a juror? Lowering your standards? All tough choices, but as you stated , only a small percentage of Artists are living the high life.

Tammy,
Try to read Robert's letter at another time of the month...you may be able to get it!

I want to comment on Karen Baker Thumm's comment. I am so glad you've spoken to this issue. I have been brooding in my lonliness for a while, now, trying to figure out "at my age", how in the world do I grasp all this, let alone conquer the new technology (i.e., Twitter, Facebook, My space...), what about copyrights???, I don't do any of them, because I can barely see to my family and household responsibilities, put in the studio hours and learn marketing, making a business plan, trying to "meet the demands of learning how to write for a grant and go door to door, selling my art; yeah, I go there; money for entry fees to even exhibit in a descent juried art show... The Almighty made me an artist. It is what I've done all my life. No one taught me business. Hell, until lately, I didn't even know I needed a license to sell my art, and a Seller's Permit to sell my art under a "fictitious" name... A m I ranting? LOL - I might as well. I'm not going to quit making art. It's what I do.

Barb,
How unfortunate for you that you think women are hindered by their biology. Everyone participating on this forum is entitled to their own opinions as long as it is done respectfully and thoughtfully. I carefully read over Robert's email and responded accordingly. Perhaps you should take less time trying to belittle people who are participating in the conversation by offering an alternate point of view - and spend more time seriously evaluating and critically responding to what you are reading.

My main issue with being an artist is the word "exposure". Why do we do anything for free? If we stop donating art for charity auctions, be much more judacious in where we agree to hang our art, think seriously about how we price our art and most importantly how we present our art, all of us would be better off. When we have respect for that which we produce, and for ourselves, we will make a better living. Stop giving your talents away.

Maranda's research on artists' incomes confirms the results of a 2005 Ontario study entitled “A Statistical Profile of Artists”.

I think the fact that so many artists are willing to work at their art in spite of the poverty that results – a group of people this highly educated in any other field would likely be making twice (at least) the income, speaks, in spite of the low number of “studio hours” they put in, to their commitment to their craft. The other half of this figure is that, at $20,000 per year, these artists are making almost as high a wage as clerks and restaurant workers.

I would like to note a couple of points. As far as grants are concerned, I think the figure of 34% of artists receiving a grant is probably quite high. My own research suggests that 8% of full-time artists have received a grant from one of three government bodies that dispense grants in this geographic area (in a recent year, 655 of 5,240 full time Ontario artists received a grant; Ontario Arts Council information indicates that less than 1/4 of artists that apply are successful ). The impression provided by the granting organizations is that the granting process is open and fair. The Canada Council indicates that “professional artistic excellence or comparative artistic merit” are the primary criteria. However, it would appear that the most reliable predictor of success in obtaining a grant is previous success in obtaining a grant: 40% of the aforementioned 655 artists have received more than one grant. Some have received as many as seven or eight; one artist 12. One significant reason for this is that although the government granting organizations take great pride in the fact that grants are “peer-reviewed”, what this means is that grants juries are comprised of artists who have received these same, very rare, very precious, government grants. In a random sampling of 15 Ontario Arts Council jurors randomly selected, 10 jurors had themselves received these grants. Peer assessment may be the best way to distribute grants, but when the majority of jurors are themselves grant recipients – while most visual artists are not – the type of work that is rewarded may not have the breadth, depth and excellence of artwork being produced and displayed.

Clearly, the time I have taken to do some of this research is time that I wasn’t working alone in the studio. However, I think there is value in analyzing these results.

Another note, in response to Wendie Thompson: Canadian health care is not “free”: however, it is considered a basic human right, and therefore, is paid through our taxes.

I’m not sure that highly educated artists have a sense of entitlement; it may just be that they are trying to address more esoteric art concerns than those artists whose work is fairly traditional, such as that often produced by ex-illustrators, immigrants, and sign painters. Commercial viability is one criterion of success; self-satisfaction may be another, and peer esteem may be a third. All are valid. Yes, artists will always whine about being under-appreciated, and yes, many are "duffers". The marketplace is a valid arbiter of success, but it isn't the only one.

Aw come on! Remember the dictum: "90% of anything is crap" (actually the percentage is closer to 95%, I think). Do you think all self-described 'artists' deserve to make money on their stuff regardless of lack of quality, drive, craft, market-savvy, content or vision?

I was always far too practical to ever think I could earn a living as an artist. I opted for a job in retail, married and had a family. All the while I worked on my sculpture, and took classes. It was more or less a hobby. My goal was to retire early, and then be able to “get serious” about my art. I have been able to do that, but have never come close to supporting myself with my art. I never want my art to be “work”, instead I prefer to make it my “play”. So, maybe that doesn’t make me a “real” artist, but I love what I am doing, and that is good enough for me.

I'm a musician who writes and produces, and generally feel I have underachieved in the last couple of decades. I am happy if I put in 15 constructive hours a week, so I am shocked to hear you talking about 60 hour weeks. I have to eat you know!

I also fear that applying rigid structure and discipline will diminish the magic of the creative process. Please set me straight cause I only have so many decades left!

...A quick thought: Could it be that many of the more highly educated artists become TEACHERS of art, rather than full-time working artists? Also agree that the 34% of artists receiving grants is a really,really wrong number. (Maybe he meant 3.4% !! )

I can offer a few opinions that might get me shot, too. Having supported myself as an artist for 20 years, and deciding that I was burned out and not interested anymore, I have a bitter view of the whole art career thing. I would offer that many of the highly educated artists who are making $20,000 or less are doing so because they have a spouse who brings in more money, they have done well in a previous career, or they were just born into money (Plus the fact that they could afford all that education in the first place). In other words, they can afford not to earn more. Morna and I always worked a lot more than 40 hours a week to modestly make ends meet. The old romantic concept of the struggling artist is somewhat of a rarity. Successful artists often make it because they can afford to and struggling artists often give up or compromise their vision because that is the only way they can survive. At one point I was probably one of Canada's best known hot glass artists but I make more money in the seafood department at Thrifty Foods and I don't have to worry about my Mercedes-driving gallery owners not paying me anymore.

My guess would be that the income stats in your piece were gathered in relatively healthy financial times. If the incomes of artists in the '30s are any indicator, we can expect private sales to head south like their dropping off a cliff. Mine already have.

Robert...
Are you familiar with The Alphabet Versus the Goddess: The Conflict Between Word and Image by Leonard Shlain? I put a link below, the summary of which, at least for me, picks up where Maranda left off, though his assumptions don't begin to lift the scab covering the abyss between the linear and creative aspects of the brain.

I enjoy your writing, being a writer myself, though have always wished I could paint, sketch, draw...
http://www.alphabetvsgoddess.com/

I think that artists in Canada are highly undervalued... The Canadian government sees fit to pour millions or billions into winter games so that athletes can shave a second off of their personal best... with that kind of income I bet I could shave a few seconds off the time it takes me to finish a painting...

I work hard at my chosen field and have done relatively well, but I never got a grant... have applied many times and even paid $65 to take a class to teach me how to apply for one... the only thing I learned from that $65 was that I was doing it correctly to begin with... And, if you don't get a grant you don't get any feedback on why you don't, no matter how many times you ask... this has been my personal experience.

Maybe if our government looked at art the way they look at athletes we would be better compensated for our talents... we bring a lot of joy to people's lives, we make them think and show them another side to life... and we CAN shave a second off our personal best... we are in it for the long haul... I know I am.

I'd like to know if there are artists, especially women without any other source of income or family support, who can spend 50-60 hours a week in their studios...

Ten hours a day, 5 or 6 days a week = 60 hours. Three hours a day for personal care (dressing, bathing, preparing, eating and cleaning up after meals), and another 2 hours or so for other stuff - doing laundry, getting food in, making necessary but not art-business phone calls, and some time for excercise - walking/ jogging to one's studio, perhaps - as well as a little bookkeeping or accounting now & then. That adds up to 15 hours a day, leaving 9 hours for sleep, which is probably reasonable as it allows time to fall asleep and time to gather one's wits on awakening. This sort of schedule is why some women call themselves Art Nuns.

I know lots of painters who don't attempt to make a living painting... so why should we consider them in a survey on artist income? So who did this study consider to be artists? Clearly you only consider painters as artists, what about those who work in other media? Did the surveyors define artists and if so how?

I'm not saying 26 hours is enough, but to make any income from art you also must spend time other than in the studio, i.e. promoting yourself to those galleries, updating a website, applying for grants, working somewhere to pay the rent on your studio, buy supplies, ... furthermore... Hard work and a large number of hours does not guarantee success. Look at the number of artists of the past who earned little from their art during their lifetime... that happens today too, no matter the hours they spend on their art...

May I suggest that if the survey says artists are better educated than they were "a few years ago," perhaps it is that over those several years they have been going to school? This might account for the low amount of hours in the studio.

Statistics. Say a lot, and yet nothing at the same time. Like the words "interesting" and "different" -- without further examination, one can conclude what one wishes.

Well in some ways I am an exception to the statistics, because I am highly educated (PhD) but also fairly successful, I am a signature member of the Federation of Canadian Artists and am represented by the most prestigious gallery in my home City. However, I still make considerably less than $20,000 per year. I think you are right that we need to spend more hours painting to get good, and we need to get good to be successful, but how do you find the time to paint more when you have to work at least a part/time job in order to survive? Even great painters like my hometown artist, Emily Carr, had to spend painful hours running a boarding house she hated, in order to support herself. Only after her death did her amazing paintings start selling for high prices, so Canada benefits from her art, Victoria attracts tourists because of her art, but she herself led a difficult, impoverished life.

Art needs to be valued by society and artists need to be supported with greater tax benefits and more support from all levels of government, not only in grants but in the form of actually buying paintings to hang in city halls, hospitals and public buildings and galleries. Right now it seems that only the occasional sculpture seems to be bought as public art, to be installed outside of airports and other public places. What about filling the walls of airports and universities and sports centers with paintings by local artists? This would not only put some money in our pockets, but would make our art accessible to the public as well, including those who seldom venture into galleries. It’s shameful that artists are not more highly valued, for our contribution to our society lasts long after we have gone.

Art income is a function of marketing. Many artists in all media are not very good at marketing. If you want to be an economic success as an artist, you need to be as good at marketing as you are at producing art.

"Highly educated artists may make art that is too sophisticated or esoteric for people to buy." Well said Robert! The word esoteric is so abused and more an excuse for dysfunctional art for a better word of art that is not art? ...as one should read Rudolf Arnheim on Visual Thinking a great book! He states in a nutshell if your work doesn't speak to an audience in some manner it is not functional... as we humans are a social bunch; a reason for the French in the success of their abstract and new art as it no matter what the audience was able to read something from the artwork.

I can go on but the book explains it better plus many other great things.

No shock for me here, Robert! What you wrote (based on those statistics): story of my life entirely... True, my annual revenue it's about 4000-5000 $ less... I get by with about 15000-16000 $ per year...

I have 5 post graduate years (a BA in History and a Visual Arts Certificate... I could have done more... but it was too expensive and I got also bored by all that academic artsy-fartsy stuff) ... I work 8 h per week in a art teaching job and some in non-related little jobs... I've got one 800 $ grant in the last 10 years...

True, I don't think I work hard enough to perfectionate my art... I could work harder... But, without a bit of lazzyness and dreaming... how can I be an artist?

All this is true. But then, I'm almost free - as free as somebody «poor» can be - I can draw, paint, read and write... I can do almost whatever I want (without money)... I don't worry and yes, I'm happy... I do what I want to do. I do what I LIKE to do. Ok, no south of France travels, no fancy restaurants, no fancy car or women...

So what? Spring is coming and there still are so many drawings to draw, so many paintings to paint and books to read...

I think you are dead on!!!!! on every item you took on.

I am a working professional artist here in the U.S. I work 50-65 hours per week on my painting.

I teach workshops across the US and classes locally. I serve on the Board of Directors for a local Arts Center.

I judge art exhibits and travel to paint on locations.

I earn a nice income between $75,000.00-$100,000.00 anually. I have a family I support and lots of bills.

I pay my fair share of taxes and do my best to donate for great causes.

I have applied for grant money and have never been awarded, (because I make too much).

I am not trying to live off the system or expect handouts from the Government, but I am sick to death of worthless, talentless so-called artist who do. (Because they cannot sell their work) because it's crap, but they are suffering for their craft, YUK!!!!!!!!!!!!

And then there are the constant flow of retired "artist wannabees", doctors, lawyers, dentists, architects, etc. Now flooding the galleries with their art. Making it more difficult than ever to sell to the uneducated, less sophisticated, confused public.

It is extremely difficult to make ends meet anymore. With the rising prices on frames, art suppies, (which have gone through the roof), advertising, show entry fees, dues, web sites, equipment, studio, office and travel expenses. How much more will it take to earn a living?

First, are the income figures gross or after expenses and taxes?? Second, I think you are off base when you say an artist should be forty plus hours per week in the studio doing creative work. When I was "supporting myself" as a professional artist I calculated 25 hours of productive work per week... Then there was marketing, hauling pieces to the photographer, preparing design packages for proposals, packing for exhibits or hopefully deliveries, installing the larger pieces, paying bills, getting materials (for me a big chunk of time), going to shows/markets with the loading, driving, unloading time/set up. My 25 hours of creative work was normally a 55 hour work week. A run on the beach twice a week often was a luxury and after I got a family....?

I was reminded of the joke from my military days, "Trooper if the Marine Corps had wanted you to have a wife they would have issued you one."

The plus side is that as artists we can take a long weekend to Los Angleles or New York (these days Berlin or Milan) and put it "on the Business". I once did that with ten days in Paris. It kicked the hell out of net income for the year but helped the tax bill and did I see a lot of art, on the walls and on the plates.

Maybe painters have a different pace and weekly rhythm!!

A point not made in the survey is, if you are "lucky" enough to get a grant, it is never enough to cover all costs involved, let alone get paid a fee. Therefore, the artists have to cover the shortfall by spending some of their time in other employment. Personally, I think the whole system of grants needs an overhaul.

Anyone wanting to start and new business has the opportunity to more easily obtain a starter grant or financial funding. But artists are not looked upon as "business" people despite the fact that most artists who have a passion about their "work" will also realise that they need some business skills or assistance in order to be successful in selling your work or other means of distribution. The present grant system does not meet this need.

I sell art at our restaurant/bar/art bar for local artists and paint myself. I believe your theory is true about the education or the elite attitude about some artists. The artists I know that make the least amount of money are the very ones that will not negotiate with prices, will not price the work that will fit in to the average buyers budget and that refuse to create uncomplicated work. It is either so minimal, so large or so strange that buyers can not relate to it. I find most buyers, and we have a lot of them, really like all kinds of art but it has to be approachable and the price has to be negotiable. I would rather price a piece higher to be ready for negotiation than less and not be able to. It is just a mental thing for buyers.

I think the art world is too exclusive and should be more inclusive. It scares people away. Most regular people will not go in a gallery for fear of not knowing enough or being blown off by the owner. It is crazy!

Art is like music in that the more complex it is the harder it is to understand and it then attracts a smaller audience. If someone likes country music they do not have to explain it. If another likes hard rock and classical, they don't have to explain why. People feel like they have to be educated to be involved in visual art and it is a shame. That is why no one is making any money.

I love selling art out of an open environment like the place I work. We are formal with our openings but inclusive in that everyone who comes in gets to view and appreciate the art for whatever reason they like. They can walk through with their friends and comment on it or decide to purchase their first piece of original art. It is great!

How many artists have asked me how is it I am selling in galleries and they are not. Most are MFA's and quite talented. But what is common is that they all have a terrible attitude about the business of art. They expect galleries and dealers to come to them and even if they do they throw up all the barriers to establishing a good working relationship. They horde their best pieces as if they will never paint that well again (was that painting just an accident?). And they consider a gallery director's selection process an affront to their massive artistic talent. Let's face it, even if the economy is strong you have to check your ego at the door when it comes to working with the selling side of the business. Listen to your dealer who knows their clientele. You might learn what it is about your work that will be appealing to a collector. Therefore you might even make a living at this.

I have lived in China for the past five years and I paint daily, for anything up to fourteen hours a day, depending whither I'm teaching oral English or not. In which case I fit my art around it. I sell virtually none of my artwork, yet I have my artwork on quite a few sites. I won the Artrom International Landscape painting competition for 2008 making me a Guild Member and was asked to take 20 of my artworks to Brazil this April for a month's Solo Exhibition, which I had to cancel due to my third heart attack, where upon I was advised to return back to the UK for treatment (where I am now.) The fact that I earn nothing on my art has never bothered me until now, living in the UK I can’t afford to do my art and feed my family. While in China I can do both, feed my family and do my art on my small pension. So my art has had to come to a temporary stop, so all I can do here is collect data for my art, on my return to China. I understand the economic climate that has put so many artists under great pressure, but I fail to see how some of the art of today ever makes it into a gallery or justifies the prices that they are sold for, even with the world's economy at its lowest ebb since the depression years of the thirties. Is a fool and his money still easily parted?

I don't suppose you've collected any current statistics for the United States' visual artists? The 1990 census quoted artists as averaging $6,000 per year which is the sum I use to advocate for paying artists for their contributions whenever possible. That such a financially challenged group should continue to subsidize so many wealthy fundraising attendees seems unconscionable.

In addition, it should be noted that sculptors usually make far less than painters. And many of us spend 60 or more hours working every week. Any statistics on that?

Most of the artists I know (3 guilds 2 critique groups = a lot of artists) have another source of income. Either a pension, a supportive spouse, or a part time job.

Making art can be a very expensive 'job'. On Monday I had coffee with a well known artist who told me that he sold $48,000.00 worth of art this year, and when all was tallied lost $300.00. Now most of us don't travel giving talks and doing 'plein air' the way he does, but once the expenses are taken into consideration (jurying fees, guild fees, supplies, overhead, etc, etc), I for one am even further in the hole than that.

Your comment about 60 hours in the studio also hit home, as someone who was recently laid off from her part time job, I've been establishing a routine, that I can now see needs to be ramped up, quite a bit, 6 hours 'ain't gonna do it'. Thanks for your, as always, timely words of wisdom. To the studio....!

I'm surprised by some offended and disgusted victims of this latest edition - are you wounded Tammy? - who should take such objection to Roberts' radical, far out theory that educated individuals might have a traditional bias that conflicts with current tastes or trends. Vicious, wasn't it?! ...almost a human rights violation. (I laughed my guts out Barb, Thanks.) ...and the whining about the "unfair" amount of hours Robert suggests is hilarious! Is it hard to swallow - that success, recognition, independence as an artist requires a tremendous, sustained effort that the majority of people, for one reason or another, cannot afford. So, BooHoo! Baaad Robert! Do you think he should "dumb down" his best advice from now on, to preserve the dreams of those handicapped with diapers, work shifts, cleaning, preparing meals, or being terrific, attentive parents? Robert, Good call! The Truth can be a bitter pill. This was a valuable eye-opener.

My measure of wealth as an artist is the joy I feel during painting, and the satisfaction that comes from knowing I'm making progress as an artist.

"A rich man's hobby and a poor man's way to make a living". I don't remember who defined art that way, but I think it's a fair statement. It's well known that most artists don't make much money, and I'm not surprised that a survey has found that more highly educated artists tend to earn less from their art. I suspect that their higher education levels make them more capable and adaptable to earning money in non art-related jobs.

Maybe we need to question the prevailing paradigm that says something is only of value if it can be sold. And that if you are an artist you automatically have to sell your work in order to justify spending time on it, and calling yourself an artist.

I think artists are working with an entirely different value system than the marketplace one. We grapple with our creative limits daily in the studio developing certain qualities that are essential to living a whole life, not just for artists but for the society too. For example, the willingness to take risks, commitment to a vision, making things that take time (not cost efficient!), bringing together dissimilar elements to create something new, etc.

Society sees art as a luxury, which forces artists to attract buyers if they want their work to sell. We have to spend an awful lot of time and energy convincing people that we and our work are worth it.

I see art not as an extra but as a vital part of creating human culture and as a healing and as powerful force for individual transformation and change in systems. In this way it is central not marginal to human life. Our left brained, logic based society has it by the wrong end. We need more vision and imagination in the society and artists can supply that.

Instead of trying to fit in with the commercial hype of our times, we should be standing up for different values and inspiring people to adopt those. The value of following your heart, the value of individuality, of breaking new ground in your own process, of making things that take time, of trusting the process and constantly renewing one's creativity.

Artists aren't bad at marketing, they just don't care enough about it. To succeed at business you have to be passionate about it. Some succeed in being passionate about both their art and about business, but only a fraction of artists, I think.

I think, if you buy the whole bag and go commercial with your work, you have two choices, play by the current marketing rules or create your own and make them so convincing others will follow.

Most artist spend 20 hours a week in the studio as an average, is what I found very interesting because that is what I spend or less every week. But because I can not make a living as an artist by just painting alone, I must work at another job for 40 to 45 hours a week which limits my ability to spend more time in the studio. There by I will never or have as yet got to the point as to where I can leave my job and work as a full time artist. This letter has given me something to think about that has made me face the reality that Most galleries that I have approached do not consider me as an artist but as a hobbyist of art which really gets under my skin. So I have settled into a lifestyle of freelance art rather than pursuing that which I really love to do. My question is Robert, What makes some artist more marketable than others such as some artist seem to have little talent and can make a successful life as an artist while others such as myself seem to struggle with just a messily success enough to buy supplies and to continue to paint. Oh, by the way after several attempts to get a grant none of which to date have been successful. So what is left for me to do? Continue to paint and hope that after I pass from this life that sometime down the road that like van Gogh my art will finally pay off for those who can afford it or the wealthy collectors? The frustrating thing is that no matter what happens either way I still have to accept the way things are now and most important Keep painting as much as can.

I doubt I speak for the majority but for me...

Income is not the point of art (nor life) some artists are quite happy living on what others might consider a pittance some artists thrive in alternative lifestyles and have opted out of the consumer mentality when I make sales, that's nice. When I don't, that's okay.

I am a self taught artist. Although this is really not true because I have been taught by other artist. I follow up the first statement with the last. I owe my skills to other artist. Educated and or not. In saying that I am responding to this with no surprise about the educated artist. In my community I am widely known as a professional artist. I have had great success and have sold paintings for large sums of money. I have broken the "selling rules" in our community. I have to say that my friends that are academic artist, mostly teachers, some graphic designers etc. Come to me for help. Either in Selling their work or know what they need to do next or to demonstrate to their classes. I found this very strange in the beginning of it all but now I see the problem. #1 so many of them are stuck in the academic end of art they can see the paint for the canvas #2 they have pigeon holed themselves to one thing, one avenue of art experience. #3 They are usually too rigid. All of these friends I enjoy greatly and am humbled by their education that I wish I had. Living in poverty I had no guidance other than get a job pay for yourself. I always dreamed of college it tugs at my heart even now at 49 years old. I would die to go to a great art school. I respect these artist for what they did. I am however graetful that I didn't go out of high school I know with certainty that I would not be the artist I am today. I do wish to go NOW though. Doing what I have done, having the experience of an artful life and then going and getting the information I feel I am missing would be wonderful. Thanks for having this site> I love it. Some days you write what we here in Warren PA are always worrying about or talking about. Thanks for the push to think...

I would question the accuracy of any study of artist income. This is a sore spot for many artists and goes back to our whole relationship with money in the USA. In our capitalist society, people are often judged as people by what their income is. You are what you earn. Naturally people with low incomes suffer a certain feeling of shame or inferiority and are reluctant to reveal their true status. This feeds into the whole public perception of the 'starving artist' , that heroic and or stupid independent individual who shuffles around with his eyes to the ground when not drunk or depressed. Artists often feel bad because they don't earn the money the other professionals command. Hobbyists feel bad because they aren't 'making a living' at art or have to perform a "real job' to pay their bills. The question I often feel people asking me, {even if they don't actually ask me} is how much money do you actually earn from art? My mother in law just comes right out with the big ugly question and wonders why I don't have a 'real job'! The core issue in our country is that people don't value art as a necessary contribution to our society. There is not a tradition of valuing the work of artists as there is in Europe, for instance. Look at the history of art and you see people who were highly valued.......Leonardo, Michelangelo, Rubens, Delacroix, Ingres etc. In America our history is that of intinerant sign painters and portrait artists, oddball adventurers and misfits. The few who actually "made a living' came from or were trained in Europe. Our society does not value artists so they are not highly paid and many struggle at the margins. We value athletes and actors , bankers, corporate executives so these folks often have ridiculously astronomical salaries. It is not pleasant to realize that your work is not of value to many people but this is a question every artist in this country faces on a daily basis.

I agree the more hours one puts in at any task will make them better at it. However grants really help artists who have committed their lives to working essentially in the visual arts. However if as you notice the study indicates that artists are a better educated group as a whole. One cannot apply for a Canada council grant as long as you are a student, but so many artists continue to study to improve their work. So not only are they selling less and paying for education they cannot apply for a grant. Mature students, women artists who return to their studies and continue to sell from their studios are I think an even poorer subset. This would be a group that perhaps some kind of grant should or could be set aside for. We should never take these grants for granted, they are a privilege and a help. But they also encourage artists to come to Canada and continue working in Canada.

The most problematic thing for me is the assumption that immigrants may have experience with poverty... wouldn't like to say that myself... sounds a bit "western world-centric". Further, in my experience, the changes to the average age and education level noted over the last few years, are due largely to the fact that many retirees (from many fields) are joining the artist community. I personally know many wealthy and less wealthy artists who fit into this slot, but without a doubt, the folks most concerned about selling art are the ones who have limited retirement/and or other income!

Maybe it's because I'm one of those older, better educated artists, but these findings do not surprise me. There's a saying about the performing arts of theatre and movies: "You can make a killing, but you can't make a living." Which translates to a few superstars can command enormous salaries but the general community of even working actors/artists don't make enough to live on. I suspect this is true in all art forms.

Paul de Marrais,
I liked your addition to this thread. I am an American artist living in Holland and the situation of artists is no better here in Europe, I promise you.
Years ago at an art opening, an artist quoted a member of the Dutch parliament saying in effect,'' Artists are on the fringes of society, creating for a few by a few. They are in the entertainment industry and don't deserve grants'.

There were some drastic subsidy cuts this year , leaving dance companies, theatres and other cultural ventures gasping and wounded. Some had existed for years and were simply judged by a panel as not being viable. While others were. Go figure.

I have been a contributor to this forum for a while now but no subject has had such an outpouring of insightful, thoughtful and heartfelt comments as I've read above. I too had a "day" job most of my life to support my artwork. I've put more hours after work and weekends in my studio than I care to mention, more hours preparing for and exhibiting in shows, creating work that had to be expelled from my soul. I was always aware that I would never make a fortune with art, especially in America where art lives a second-class existence. But all that was okay because I've been given a gift though unappreciated, is a way of life I could never give up. Being an artist is not something I do, it is something I am. I have always been an artist and can no more change that than change my history.
I’ve tried to conform, I’ve tried to be commercial, but that was not me and my work suffered as I did with every attempt.
With age and maturity comes awareness that if you are not truthful in your endeavors, you cheat yourself of the true riches in life. I’ve always felt that art enriches the soul and that artists should strive to lift the human condition and show others different views of life.
If I am fortunate enough to paint for the rest of my life and sell every piece, I would never recoup the costs in education, material, and personal struggle I have spent to be able to do this.
It would be foolish to say money isn’t important for artists. It’s our lifes blood to continue creating art. But as many have said above, we will do and have done whatever it takes to pursue making art, no matter the cost for no other reason than we are artists.

I have been amazed at the rancor and hatred that has been sent Robert's way after this last letter. You would think that he got up and told each and every person that their art sucked and was of no value whatsoever.

He is somewhat right in the idea that the more highly educated an artist is, the more sophisticated their art is and thus, wholly unappealing to the mass of art viewers. Those that do appreciate this type of art remind me of those people we see in movies all the time, standing around at some highbrow function, with their martinis in one hand and cigarettes in the foot-long gold-plated cigarette holders, pontificating about the state of the art, or politics or whatever. Precisely the kind of crowd you couldn't pay me to hang out with.

The highly educated artist that seems to survive and thrive is the one that can put all their education behind them and just create for the sheer joy of creating, trying to bring to life a piece of art that will reach the soul of those that view it. They are not trying to make a statement. They couldn't care less about making art that tries to tear down some societal monolith that, perhaps does need to be torn down, but would much rather turn a piece of canvas into a fascinating view of the bend in the river about a mile from their home, or maybe turn a few pounds of clay into the most beautiful vase a person has ever seen.

There will always be artists that feel the need to put out works that are created to shock and in this world we live in, they have every right to do so. But, when I walk by that piece of "art," the one showing a woman tearing her chest open and pulling her insides out, all done in "wonderful" 3-D realism, I have the same right to say it's junk and walk on my way. The world has room for artists of all kinds, and each artist can define his or her success as an artist in whatever way they choose. But, if the artist of the 3-D gore art whines and cries because he isn't making a good living by selling his art, he is the one that is totally off-base, not the art viewing public.

Can a person become a great artist working only 25 hours a week in their studio? Sure they can. Twenty-five hours a week of practice and dedication to one's art can make a great artist of anyone. I used to put in 2-3 hours a day in my study of music, guitar and piano, and became quite good on both instruments before arthritis did me in. An artist will become a much greater artist at 25 hours a week than if they were only spending 5 hours a week in there. And if they spent 40 hours a week in the studio they would become even better. But, in the end, it's what have you produced in the end that counts. Does the piece of art you produced cause me to stop and look closely at it, to marvel at its beauty and craftsmanship, perhaps to the point of making me want to pull out my wallet; or does it cause me to glance at it as I walk by, not giving it a second thought? I can assure you that I would be much more likely to spend a few hundred dollars on an oil painting of a ballerina that makes me dizzy just imagining the pirouettes that she is doing, than pay even five dollars for some piece of welded together junkyard garbage that is supposed to be some commentary about the ills of some part of society.

I think Robert hit a little too close to the heart, and too close for comfort, for some of those that have replied to this letter of his. While I don't agree with everything he said, I do agree that he has made some valid points and some of those attacking him need to climb down off their high-horses and come back down to earth for a spell because if your art isn't selling like you would like, it isn't the market or the economy, it's because your art doesn't resonate with the viewers enough to make them want to buy it and make it a part of their lives.

I am overwhelmed by many of the comments above. I practice my art as an individual who has no desire to sell or show. I do it for my own gratification. My critics are my friends and family and the occasional stranger that passes through my door. Perhaps, that is a luxury that few can afford and still have time to do their art. But, I do it for myself and my loved ones.

Given that, Robert has his opinion and it must be accepted as just that. It is not proper to attack him for his beliefs. Rather one can express an alternative opinion and/or suggest, in a civilized manner, where Robert may have gone wrong. Personally, I find he goes wrong only infrequently and then not seriously.

Robert, I thoroughly enjoyed reading your letter, and all the responses to it. I even commented to a couple of the responses above.

In the Live Comment section, the one above me, Dave C, you hit it exactly on the head! If you want to make money, then you need to make art that "resonates" with the market you seek.

And, Rick Rotante, you also have said it very well.

I think Robert gives us much to think about in every letter, whether we agree or disagree. It still makes us think about what we are doing and why we are doing it. Good job!

Some weeks I spend 2 hours in the studio -- because I have marketing and other art related stuff to do. Then there are weeks where I am in the studio 10 - 12 hours per day, each day, playing with my art, or creating for one purpose or another. Such is the life of an artist. We go with the flow if we are smart.

Thank you Robert, and all that responded. Good reading! Even those that I don't agree with.

Wow, I'd say Robert hit a nerve here! Well done, Robert.....haven't seen so many strong views and (s)word play for a long time....

If you are counting the hours, you are not in your right brain; it can neither count nor tell time, all it can do is deal in shapes and colors and emotions.

Susan, Amen! Time escapes me - and so does efficiency, reliability, production and the money... not to mention the satisfaction and happiness that is just out of reach... I'm working on it. Thank you, Robert.

Making money as an artist is great but not to the degree that you are not painting what means the most to you.
I know a lot of painters but very few artists. The artists are the ones whom will be remembered in the future for the quality of their work and will be sought after by museums. The painters ( for profit ) will simply end up in someones garage sale because it no longer matches the colors of their furniture. I prefer to have my work collected by art lovers not decorators.

Bring on the decorators! Anyone who wants to buy art right now is more than welcome. My issue with marketing and even creating more saleable "commercial" art, is that I just don't have the time. I know that painting local landmarks will always find a ready buyer, especially when they are realist/impressionist with a certain amount of detail and color, are relatively small, and are less expensive. Having done that, my soul yearns for urban grunge, layered calligraphic graffiti burnished by grit and time, large canvases that go their own way and change some more, the excitement of contrasting areas of color and texture, and the intensity of loud music, good paint, new brushes. This kind of excitement you can't equate with buying and selling. This kind of feeling doesn't always come in the scheduled time. But people aren't stupid, they pick up on the excitement that the artist has translated into the canvas; they may not buy a large painting, but they will stop and check it out and smile. But it's not below me to crank out a few dozen "potboilers" to pay the entry fee or the art supplies for the next show. Maybe, also, I spend all that money from painting sales on travelling to another country, getting inspiration and making small oil sketches to bring back to the studio. Yes, i spend all my time on art, but the travel is tax-deductible! The advantage of having a family in troubled times means that there are more hands to help, both in the kitchen and setting up the next show. Even shopping at the local farmers market has brought inspiration in the form of still life of radishes and Japanese eggplant. Having children really made me appreciate life and the simple things it brings. Being involved in the community has increased my collector base and gives me that all important psychological support. Donating art to a charitable local cause is a form of advertising- but cheaper than a 1/4 page in an art magazine & more likely to result in sales or a commission. More than anything, the HABIT of going into the studio in the morning of each and every day (after obligatory morning bike/exercise) makes making art the backbone of my life. I never know what idea is going to bear fruit, make sales, bring respectful collectors, get painted over or make of lovely background in the fullness of time. The day goes fast in a blaze of color. I try to work on six or seven paintings at a time, with many more in reserve, sitting here in limbo, waiting for the final cut, the camera and finally onto my website, into a frame, out to an exhibition and with luck, a home. Can't control the end result, whether the entry fee was worth it, or the shipping costs. Maybe I'll never make it, but one thing's for sure, I'll never stop painting.

Dave C, you're spot on.
I would go so far as to say that "art" should be a word that describes a reaction as opposed to an object or concept. We seem to fight continuously over the word and what it 'should' be attached to, squabble about what 'real' art is, and debate issues of value. In doing so, we forget what makes us interested in art in the first place. At some forgotten point in human history there was no such thing as "Art." Eventually we decided that some objects needed to be distinguished from everything else and Art was born. I mention this because it seems we too often forget that the criteria for distinguishing it existed first and the name was coined as a label after the fact. Now we fight over the name as if "Art" exists as a Platonic form and our goal is to discover what it really is. It is, and always has been, that which we (individually or collectively) deem worthy of distinction. A $5 poster can match my couch. A common bigot can shock and disgust me. Neither is worthy of distinction, and "Art" must do better if it is to be labeled as such, or the word has lost its meaning. Commercial art flirts with considering itself a product like any other; Academic art often assumes that _any_ reaction means success, or that a clever reference to an obscure element of art history is what proves an artwork's value, and its creator's merit.

I am a full-time artist and I live well below the poverty line. I can deal with my work not selling... it'll just take some time. The only thing that has made me question whether I really want to be an artist has been art school.

I am an artist, but I am also working on my Ph.D. in a different area. I run a search for the guys you are referring to. I cannot find them anywhere. Even google scholar doesn't have these articles in their database. This means that these studies were probably not done in a scholarly way and the results are essentially worthless and filled with bias. Probably.

That or it is too recent, I don't have enough data, he wrote in French and I can't read it, the name is not right, or there are other circumstances that prevent me from finding it. Could you provide more information? Thanks!!!