Should artists be paid a living wage?

[GReedDiamond]

92. Response...

...what I said was, no artist is owed a living any more than any other person with any other kind of occupation. Being an "artist" does not confer special privileges. I exclude from that, those who are incapable, for whatever reason, of "earning a living." For example, that would include some, but not all, physically disabled people or those with significant psychological or mental disorders. Those people may need varying degrees of assistance which can only be provided, in most cases, through taxpayer funded programs administered by government.

Generally speaking, I do not believe that artists need government funding to be artists, but I am not opposed to government funding for arts programs and projects. I think that FDR's use of artists on public works projects was a good idea and helped to improve lots of peoples' lives.

On your second question, like I said, I believe anyone may label them self an artist, and work as such, whether anybody else accepts that job description or not. There are "bad" artists who make large sums of money, there are "great" artists who sell nothing, and die trying to live their lives while fulfilling their artistic visions. Kinkade is regarded by many as an example of the former, Van Gogh, the classic example of the latter.

Then there are the vast majority of artists who often toil in obscurity, perhaps able to get by comfortably, but never attain notoriety or fame. And "art workers" who do art-related jobs, sometimes for large sums of money, sometimes not, but who almost nobody has ever heard of.

If one attends "art school," he or she is presented with concepts and techniques for creating art which are standardized according to the accomplishments of previous artists who may have pioneered those methods through their own work, which is why some artists are held in higher regard and importance than others. I suspect that Kinkade will not be held as an example of an important artist whose methodologies and techniques for painting are worthy of passing on to future generations of artists, although, if they taught marketing and promotion in art school, he may get some notice on how to become a household name. Too bad, though, that Kinkade felt that he must resort to fraudulent business practices in order to become as wealthy as he did. Because of that, I would remove him from any curriculum dealing with the business aspects of art, and turn to financially successful artists such as Picasso or Warhol, who knew how to promote and market their work, which is also regarded by most art scholars and educators as artistically significant and worthy of teaching to art students.

So, defining what is art, and who may be regarded as an artist, I leave to those who are involved in it on a day-to-day basis, and those who consume (or reject) the objects/products produced.