My Life as a Failed Artist(vulture.com)
vulture.com
My Life as a Failed Artist
http://www.vulture.com/2017/04/jerry-saltz-my-life-as-a-failed-artist.html
20 comments
I enjoyed his thoughts on his youth and artistic struggle, but as an artist I would say the fact that he quit making art is the proof that he just wanted to be an "artist" rather than make artwork. I think there is a difference between someone who wants to be an "artist" and someone who wants to make art and very often that is what determines success or failure.
An as another on-and-off artist I find this an infuriating simplistic remark. I quit the art world, not making art, and quite frankly, your attitude is like someone telling me "then you didn't really love her anyway" after leaving an abusive relationship and not really being interested in talking with that person again.
Being an Artist is so much more than just making work. It's living within a context of fellow artists, and art critics. It's hustling. It's playing by very specific social rules and knowing how to sell your work to fit whatever is popular according to the whims of the public and the art critic. Knowing how to, and being willing to play that game, is just as often what determines success or failure. And most of that compromises the artwork itself.
Being an Artist is so much more than just making work. It's living within a context of fellow artists, and art critics. It's hustling. It's playing by very specific social rules and knowing how to sell your work to fit whatever is popular according to the whims of the public and the art critic. Knowing how to, and being willing to play that game, is just as often what determines success or failure. And most of that compromises the artwork itself.
Was not my intent to make you feel infuriated. I do feel you may be reading a bit more into my post. I agree with your thoughts on the art world. I also notice you say you quit the art world not making art.I think that is very different than what author did.
My apologies for misunderstanding. However, from how I understand the article the author quit mainly because of the mental burden:
> But then I looked back, into the abyss of self-doubt. I erupted with fear, self-loathing, dark thoughts about how bad my work was, how pointless, unoriginal, ridiculous. “You don’t know how to draw,” I told myself. “You never went to school. Your work has nothing to do with anything. You’re not a real artist. Your art is irrelevant. You don’t know art history. You can’t paint. You aren’t a good schmoozer. You’re too poor. You don’t have enough time to make your work. No one cares about you. You’re a fake. You only draw and work small because you’re too afraid to paint and work big.”
I find it very harsh and inappropriate to conclude that the author just wanted to "play artist" from this. I'm not surprised he quit making art altogether - the experience sounds very traumatic, and I have seen this up close with other friends who stopped making art altogether - if anything, for most of them that is because they believe in art much more than many other artists.
> But then I looked back, into the abyss of self-doubt. I erupted with fear, self-loathing, dark thoughts about how bad my work was, how pointless, unoriginal, ridiculous. “You don’t know how to draw,” I told myself. “You never went to school. Your work has nothing to do with anything. You’re not a real artist. Your art is irrelevant. You don’t know art history. You can’t paint. You aren’t a good schmoozer. You’re too poor. You don’t have enough time to make your work. No one cares about you. You’re a fake. You only draw and work small because you’re too afraid to paint and work big.”
I find it very harsh and inappropriate to conclude that the author just wanted to "play artist" from this. I'm not surprised he quit making art altogether - the experience sounds very traumatic, and I have seen this up close with other friends who stopped making art altogether - if anything, for most of them that is because they believe in art much more than many other artists.
Good art != popular art != art that makes money
Art that makes money == art the art-market/world likes and can sell OR art you can sell to people (aka ikea-aesthetics)
I love art, I love making art, but the art-world is horrible.
Another problem is taste: When you are a professional you have a different taste for things than most people. Hence a good ammount of good art can't be popular.
(Of course there are exceptions, it's just like in music: there are a few pop-bands that also make good music (or some good bands that happen to make music in a popular style))
Art that makes money == art the art-market/world likes and can sell OR art you can sell to people (aka ikea-aesthetics)
I love art, I love making art, but the art-world is horrible.
Another problem is taste: When you are a professional you have a different taste for things than most people. Hence a good ammount of good art can't be popular.
(Of course there are exceptions, it's just like in music: there are a few pop-bands that also make good music (or some good bands that happen to make music in a popular style))
That's really an interesting observation, and I can't help but apply it to my own time as a musician that spanned 17 years. In a short period of time it just went away. Maybe I was fueled by the idea of being a musician rather than making music.
I will never understand the need to identify as something. To do so is to reject dynamics. Do the things that sustain you and keep an open mind.
I had identified as open minded, but now I'm conflicted. Thanks a lot, now my life is in turmoil.
heh
Then you're in all likelihood either very privileged, or this xkdc[0] is relevant, or both.
https://xkcd.com/774/
https://xkcd.com/774/
The parallels with my life as a software developer / entrepreneur are disturbing.
I often think of my development projects much as I think an artist must think about their art.
I often think of my development projects much as I think an artist must think about their art.
> I made art obsessively.
It's amazes me how the more control over the creation process someone gets, the more passionate he usually becomes. I've observed this and vice versa in myself and others so many times.
It's amazes me how the more control over the creation process someone gets, the more passionate he usually becomes. I've observed this and vice versa in myself and others so many times.
From reading his story and looking at his artwork, it seems to me that he went off into a feedback loop of making and appreciating a very specific kind of art, which requires a certain mindset from the viewer. It's a danger to anyone who's trying to express themselves as fully as possible. With enough time, you can teach your mind to find depths of meaning in anything at all, so it's sometimes useful to trust other people's first reactions over your own highly evolved (warped) perspective.
In his defense, you can say that about a lot of contemporary art, including the successful stuff.
Part of the problem is the need to be "original": true originality is almost impossible to recognise, because by definition we only recognise (re-cognise) what we already know.
Part of the problem is the need to be "original": true originality is almost impossible to recognise, because by definition we only recognise (re-cognise) what we already know.
If anyone else has read a bunch of Daniel Pinkwater, there are some interesting coincidences. I wonder if they ever met...
10 years of a life...
You're not alone, Hitler was a failed artist too.