This is a question that requires a little explanation, so bear with me.
We all know that to make any real money from being a musician, or a writer, or an artists, etc., you generally have to be exceptionally talented. I would loosely define ‘real money’ for our purposes not to mean getting rich, but to be making enough money from whatever your endeavor is not to have to work full-time as well - you can either support yourself financially from it, or need only work part-time.
I’ve got a few pals who fancy themselves writers (novelists, strictly), and many who play instruments and dream of being able to support themselves with their art. The question I have is borne from the fact that in talking to any of them, one thing they are all quick to point out is how hard it would be to ‘make it’, to turn a hobby and a passion into a primary source of income. The thing is, I know the majority of these people are not really what I would reasonably term ‘dedicated’ - the sort of people that see themselves at some vague, uncertain point in the future, supporting themselves by writing books, but as we speak they don’t really write all that much, either seriously or for practice. The same with musicians; they seem comfortable in the thought that one day they’ll be selling enough albums to live a good life, but I know for a fact they are more the kind of people that pick up their guitar two or three times a week for half an hour and not the kind of people that dedicate hour after hour to their craft, every day.
My question is, is ‘making it’ in such industries (supporting yourself financially through your work) said to be so hard more due to the fact so many people underestimate the dedication needed, than to it actually being all that hard? Are these people simply ignorant of how much effort is needed to even have a chance at living that life, and they are just foolishly expecting one day to make a living at it? Obviously there are more variables than sheer effort and a lot more goes into the story than just ‘work hard, profit’, but I can’t help suspecting that part of the reason it is thought to be so hard to make a living off of music or any of the other arts is because the majority of people who try to do that simply don’t try hard enough.
If this is too vague a question I can elaborate, and my apologies if it’s in the wrong forum.
I think there are many, many more talented and accomplished musicians who choose to work day jobs than there are FT musicians – IME, most FT musicians also teach and play all kinds of jobs that a purist would sneer at (I guess weddings are the classic example, but also cocktail music, corporate parties, and so forth). Most good musicians I know are hobbyists, no matter how much local or national press they get – even touring quasi-FT isn’t really enough to hope to do more than break even to pay for the tour, for the average outfit. But a good musician will always practice and improve, every day – that’s not what’s required to be a good businessman or find an audience for your thing, though. I suspect those people who pick up their ax a few times a week just aren’t that good – they may be talented, but that doesn’t mean shit if you don’t work at it.
I’d imagine the same is true for plastic and visual artists. The equivalent of a wedding job might be making some macrame for the lobby of an office building, maybe. I believe teaching and the making of one’s art should be considered entirely distinct – teaching is, in many cases, the day job of lots of “artists.”
I know one author that is finally making it - she is now able to support herself through her book sales. She started writing in 1986 and finally quit her day job in the late 90s.
I don’t know – it’s pretty easy to break into a “field,” it seems. Just start performing or creating in 2D. The “work hard enough” seems to admit multiple sub-categories. Primarily, IME, the business aspects – from basic things like having cards printed, to self-promoting, to drumming up business, to writing (and attempting to enforce) contracts for payment, to “supervising” people with whom you might collaborate.
Here’s why it’s hard to make a living as a writer. The average advance for a book is about $5,000. It probably takes a year to write, edit, and sell it. If you want to supplement that work doing free lance articles for major magazines, you gotta compete with 20,000 other people to spend a month writing a piece for $500 or $1000. If you really bust your ass, you might clear $20,000 – before paying taxes, social security (!), and your agent’s fee.
At the end of the day, you’re probably gonna make about $2 an hour. You really have to be passionate about “the art” to keep that up for long.
I don’t think the problem is simply under estimating the amount of work, as the OP says. I think the problem is underestimating the ratio of talented hard-workers to dollars spent in the marketplace.
My dad and stepmom supported themselves for about 15 years strictly through playing music. They formed a cover band, perfected enough songs (both classic rock and newer hits - they got into Nirvana before I’d even heard of them, for example) for 3 sets of two hours each. They performed 4 - 5 nights per week in a regular circuit all over the southeast. So, in order to support themselves by playing music, they had to:
get their skills to the level of being a group that people wanted to hire
practice twice per week for several hours to bring new songs into rotation
play 4 - 5 times per week, usually from 8 pm to 2 am in smoky bars to loud drunks
book all those shows themselves
buy, insure, and keep running a tour van and trailer for all their gear
hire in new drummers and bass players when the other ones flaked or moved on
keep up on their taxes, because they were self-employed
Of course, they also never had insurance for themselves. Basically, making a living by playing music is hard work.
Pretty much my experience. I burned out after a couple years of conservatory training. I could push myself to practice 4+ hours per day (with plenty of rehearsals and classes to keep me busy for the rest of my waking hours). But it didn’t take long for me to lose any enjoyment in playing. I was sort of a middling talent at a top conservatory, so even if I stuck with it I was probably going to spend my career scraping by with chamber music gigs, teaching, and maybe a part-time regional orchestra position. With luck and continued improvement, I was expecting to make a decent living only after a decade or two of really struggling.
At the level I bailed out, the top 10% had a pretty good shot at modest success, and only the top 1% any chance at “stardom” in a solo career or a seat in one of the top orchestras. And even the most talented can’t make it without a great deal of dedication – the savant that can play brilliantly but doesn’t work very hard will be quickly surpassed by a more modest talent who has the dedication.
Of course in music, much of the technique comes down to muscle memory which can only be formed with long hours of practice.
“Breaking in” to me is defined as “having someone pay you for your work.” Anyone can put work up on the web; the trick is having people pay you for it.
None of these have anything to do with succeeding in the arts. They are useful, but self-promotion is useless if you don’t have the talent to back it up (Gene Steinberg promoted “Attack of the Rockoids” obsessively on the Internet. If you’ve heard of it at all, it’s due to that promotion – and the observation it’s a truly wretched book that no one would spend money for).
As for having cards printed: when was the last time you bought a work of art because the creator had a really nice business card? Take your time.
It’s the same for drumming up business (you can’t do it until you’ve succeeded in the first place).
Until you are a success, you can only work on spec and hope that your work is good enough to impress someone who is willing to pay for it. You can work on the business end all day, but it’s not going to help your career until you’re creating art that people want to buy.
Many kids think at some point that they’d like to be a doctor. A much smaller percentage take the courses in college that are considered pre-med. Not all of them get into medical school. But the vast majority of those who get into medical school become doctors or succeed in some other professional field. Same for lawyers, architects, journalists, teachers, and other professional fields.
The arts are different. Many more people would like to become artists in the broad definition of the term. But there is no real training and no sieve to sort out the people who have interests without the ability and allow all the rest to break through. A second but is that if you can’t be a lawyer there isn’t any call to do it on an amateur level. Tens of millions of people can casually play an instrument or write fan fiction.
It’s every bit as difficult to become an artist who makes a living at it professionally as it is to be a doctor. Maybe harder. This government site says Physicians and surgeons held about 661,400 jobs in 2008. Were there that many artists supporting themselves? I doubt it.
The arts are very, very, very hard. Nobody who hasn’t gone through it has any idea.
I remember reading an interview with a professional writer (Dammit, I can’t remember who. P.D. James? Elizabeth George? Someone of that caliber). She said that writing required talent, passion, and dedication, and that you could make a living with just two of those attributes. This sounds like a fair assessment to me. I’ve known mediocre writers who make a living because they love to write (passion) and are constantly sending stuff to new markets (dedication). They don’t make a great living, but they pay the rent and rarely moonlight at other jobs.
How do you define “artists?” According to the same government site, there were 151,700 “writers and authors” employed in 2008. When you add in all the musicians and actors, it’s probably about even with physicians and surgeons.
Maybe. I would bet that many people listing themselves as writers and authors don’t make their living off it, though. And the vast majority of people in the Screen Actors Guild don’t even make minimum wage over a year. What do they say their job is? Actor most likely, nevertheless.
But even if the numbers are even, think about what that says. It’s as hard to be a working artist as it is a doctor, somebody who goes to school for ten years just to qualify. Who thinks about it that way?
Good points. Some would say that the marketplace functions as that sieve, but one of the big problems with folks entering “the arts” is that they also need ancillary skills, like business management, marketing, etc. There are people with artistic talent who can’t figure out how to make their own break, and people with lesser talent who can make a living because they’re adept at the business side.
There are more doctors than there are people who make a living as actors, rap stars, book authors, and painters combined.
As for writing, I can tell you that talent and passion are not enough. Like many of the arts, the commercial (read “pay you serious money”) side of the field can be very capricious. It’s frustrating how the market rewards comparative hacks while the really talented continue to eat Ramen noodles.
You won’t have any trouble finding writers who are genuinely talented and who work very hard at their craft, yet they haven’t gotten the break that yields them serious money. Some money? Maybe. A pretty good bit of cash but not enough to quit the day job or the mundane writing jobs? Maybe. Enough to subsist comfortably on your creative writing or your books? Rarely.
From my experience, the problem is that while in some cases the genuinely talented can be recognized and rocket to stardom and fortune on sheer ability and passion, in most cases “making it” financially in the arts requires the exact same skill set as selling vaccum cleaners - marketing ability.
The problem is that artistic talent and business acumen only rarely go together.
While this is true in other professions as well, in other professions there exists more of a recognized structure that tends, to an extent at least, to take care of some of the business and marketing details for you. If you are a doc, you graduate from university, do a residency, join a professional guild (the local college of physicians), etc.
The arts are more entreprenureal - but, ironically enough, the financial rewards (except at the extreme high end) tend to be lower. In the arts, even with talent, dedication, pasion and business smarts, making it is tough. But many artists lack the business smarts - and indeed, many see business smarts as inimical to true art.
As someone who earns their living in the arts I can say it was easy for me, but not for everyone. I have always loved the theatre and spent my childhood and teens involved in every play I could, always acting. After that I went to college and discovered the technical side of theatre. It took some serious talks with myself to decided that I didn’t have the personal dedication to make it as an actor, so I gravitated towards the tech side of theatre. I understood my personal limitations, and I knew I couldn’t handle the all the rejection that that is inevitable for actors.
At that point I went to a school specializing in technical theatre. Let see my graduating class had about 15 students, of that maybe five of us are cu,rrently working in the industry. And honestly throughout the years of school you could tell which students would make it, and which wouldn’t. I would say the percentage of students in the acting program, that make a living acting would be much lower.
I think I succeeded because I didn’t really give myself any other option. Sure there was a time when I was freelancing when I felt like I would never make it, but shortly after that I landed a great job.
Admittedly I do have a bit of a bias since I work in the industry and are surrounded by people who did “make it”.
Nope. Not in the slightest. How did J.K. Rowling market her work? She sent it around the publishers until it sold. And it was the publishers who marketed her work.
Now, if you mean that you need to be persistent and and not give up and continue to send your work to people who might pay you for it (while working on new work in the meantime), then yes. If you think that the reason that most writers aren’t selling like J.K. Rowling, is because they aren’t promoting themselves properly, then explain why Gene Steinberg isn’t as successful as she is.
Marketing is the final stage in being successful in the arts. But you need something to market, and all the marketing ability in the world is useless unless you have created something people are willing to pay for.
Now you can point out the hacks who went on to big success, but that misses the big point: that even though their work is hackwork, it appeals to enough people to make it worthwhile for them to pay money for it.
Cite. Other than the shopworn cliche. I know plenty of successful authors, all of whom are sharks when it comes to handling the business end of their careers. But that not necessarily in the slightest until you start selling your work, and you can’t start selling your work unless you can produce something that people want to buy. An artist who can produce marketable work has a far better chance to succeed than one who produces unmarketable work, but has all the marketing skills in the world.