Yet another "create art because you love it, not to get rich" post.

[manlybrian]

It's bound to come up again sooner or later so I figured it wouldn't hurt to post it.

http://tennapel.wordpress.com/2012/0...e-cafeteria-2/

[QueenGwenevere]

"Most every artist in the world will likely not make a living from their work"... Uh, say what? Except all the artists who ARE making a living off their work.

Like, y'know, a lot of the people on this site.

What's ironic to me is that he makes a comparison with musicians supposedly never making a living off music, and meanwhile I'm making a living off art and my sister used to make a living playing in orchestras. (And yes, she played classical, she didn't have to play Doobie Brothers...)

What in the world is he basing his conclusions on?

(Granted, if he's mostly talking about indie comics, that is admittedly not a lucrative field...)

[OmenSpirits]

"Most every artist in the world will likely not make a living from their work"... Uh, say what? Except all the artists who ARE making a living off their work.

Like, y'know, a lot of the people on this site.

What's ironic to me is that he makes a comparison with musicians supposedly never making a living off music, and meanwhile I'm making a living off art and my sister used to make a living playing in orchestras. (And yes, she played classical, she didn't have to play Doobie Brothers...)

What in the world is he basing his conclusions on?

(Granted, if he's mostly talking about indie comics, that is admittedly not a lucrative field...)

And WHAT'S wrong with playing the Doobie Brothers!

(Shame on you, QG)

[manlybrian]

I don't think it's an absurd statement since he said most every artist. I doubt he has any statistics but I would guess the majority is not making a living doing it. It also doesn't mean they're not making money from it, it just means it's not the majority's career or sole source of income.

[Stuart DeViva]

I'll admit...I skimmed. I read:

Most artists no matter how good won't make money

(Wait wha-?)

My art led me to god!!!!

It's one thing to say most artists wont make money. But to say that the skill level is irrelevant as well to the profitability is idiotic. And then he went from that to talking about how it helped him find god. -.-

In other words, why are we even wasting time talking about this?

[rem92]

It's one thing to say most artists wont make money. But to say that the skill level is irrelevant as well to the profitability is idiotic. And then he went from that to talking about how it helped him find god. -.-

In other words, why are we even wasting time talking about this?

This^

[QueenGwenevere]

I think it's the way he phrases things. If he'd said "many artists" or "most aspiring artists" or "a majority of aspiring artists" won't make a living off their art, I might buy that. A lot of people think they'll become artists and then end up doing something else after art school, while having an art hobby on the side or something.

But when he says "most every artist in the world"...? I mean, come ON. It's nowhere near THAT bad.

I think he needs to do more research on art careers...

[Elwell]

The thing is, any arts/creative field is a pyramid. There are a very few people at the top making a lot of money, and a ton of people at the bottom making no money. Everybody knows about the people at the top, because they're famous, and everybody knows about the people at the bottom, because there are so many of them that everybody personally knows some. But there's a lot of room in the middle.

[mickeymao]

Last I checked they're making a movie out of Ghostopolis, starring Hugh Jackman. Unless he really screwed up the contract on that one, I can't imagine Doug is being entirely truthful with us about how much money he makes these days.

[dpaint]

This guy is on crack if he says things like this

"Go to a California plein air art gallery in Laguna Beach and look at some of the greatest paintings of our times being sold for $400 bucks a pop. Half of that goes to the gallery. Good luck on that get rich thing."

He is off by a factor of 8 to 10. I don't know what he is smoking but it just sounds like an excuse to be mediocre at something and ignore the successes around him.

[Deadlyhazard]

This guy is on crack if he says things like this

"Go to a California plein air art gallery in Laguna Beach and look at some of the greatest paintings of our times being sold for $400 bucks a pop. Half of that goes to the gallery. Good luck on that get rich thing."

He is off by a factor of 8 to 10. I don't know what he is smoking but it just sounds like an excuse to be mediocre at something and ignore the successes around him.

Exactly. He sounds like a lazy POS that never had the work ethic/drive to become skillful and now he's taking it out on the world with these blog posts.

A little bit assumptive, sure............but that's what it seems like to me.

[Alice Herring]

Exactly. He sounds like a lazy POS that never had the work ethic/drive to become skillful and now he's taking it out on the world with these blog posts.

A little bit assumptive, sure............but that's what it seems like to me.

Unless you actually know the person, it's probably better to avoid those kinds of statements.

[Deadlyhazard]

Unless you actually know the person, it's probably better to avoid those kinds of statements.

Yeah but the fact that he said the greatest paintings of our time are making 400$ a pop....makes me think that he doesn't really know what he's talking about. I went overboard with what I said. But note that I said he sounded like a 'lazy POS,' not that he was one.

Whatever else one might think about Doug TeNapel, you can't say he's not skillful or successful.

Okay now that I've searched this guy up more, I still don't understand why he said that thing about 'the greatest paintings of our time' selling so low. He seems like he would be more knowledgeable than that. The statements he made created a feeling that the guy was an amateur and he clearly isn't. Maybe he was exaggerating.

[Elwell]

Exactly. He sounds like a lazy POS that never had the work ethic/drive to become skillful and now he's taking it out on the world with these blog posts.

A little bit assumptive, sure............but that's what it seems like to me.

Whatever else one might think about Doug TeNapel, you can't say he's not skillful or successful.

[Alice Herring]

Whatever else one might think about Doug TeNapel, you can't say he's not skillful or successful.

You missed an 'n' there, Elwell.

Hazard: well. Being successful at something doesn't make them right at everything. Many people are prone to taking a few examples and applying them to a whole situation, exaggeration, etc. (As I am not a plein air painter nor have I visited museums in Laguna, I totally can't comment on that.)

[Elwell]

I'm sure he's been called worse.

[JFierce]

I'm guessing no one figures how this is ya know.... ... a blog post. One also labeled how a cafeteria worker makes more than the author. Looks more like a venting frustration post which if you've ever vented on a blog or other similar outlets. You tend to exaggerate, overlook things, or just not give a fuck in general.

[manlybrian]

Clearly I'm ignorant about some things too or I would have fact-checked a little more before posting this. I read it differently than a lot of people commenting though. I read it less like, "Skill doesn't matter, success is about luck" and more like, "Even lots of top artists won't end up doing it for a living because it's a hard market and if you're going to do it, it will take lots of love and dedication." ...which thinking about it now, is what makes a top artist sooo...Anyway. Hi.

[Candra H]

Once upon a time, the "great" artists didn't make any millions until they died...

[Elwell]

Once upon a time, the "great" artists didn't make any millions until they died...

This is a total myth. With only a few notable exceptions, almost every artist from the past that we consider great today was acclaimed and successful in their own time. It's actually far more common for artists to be popular in their lifetimes and then fall into obscurity after death.

[Candra H]

Yep, I know. I was being facetious.

Never mind me.

[Elwell]

No prob.

[Shorinji_Knight]

I think this guy makes a lot of sense.

Yes, there are a lot of people who make a living with their art, but most don't. I've read before that something like 90% of all art school grads don't make a career out of art. Sure the 10% does... but that doesn't make him wrong. There is a lot of luck involved, and I've seen some very cheap masterpieces in my time. A lot of what we call masterpieces today originally sold pretty low (not all -- but alot).

[OmenSpirits]

I don't want to be an artist, I want to have a career.





j/k

[Wakakin]

People under the assumption that art shouldn't be for money should tear off their designer clothing, don't watch a single movie, and contact their real estate agents to sell their house because all these are done by people engrossing themselves in art and learning to understand their ideas well enough to be made into something. Unless illustration, concept "art", architecture, and design isn't "art".

Everyone "sells" their feelings at some point because nobody goes through work life untarnished with jobs they want to do. If you love what you draw enough to make the work aspect of it a coincidence, then it's no different than neuroscientists, astronauts, soldiers, and physicisists. I don't see why the ever common "do what you like" advice for confused high school kids should exclude arts because the thought processes that art touches is part of what define humans from every other animals.

[Jonas Heirwegh]

"Go to a California plein air art gallery in Laguna Beach and look at some of the greatest paintings of our times being sold for $400 bucks a pop. Half of that goes to the gallery. Good luck on that get rich thing."

Maybe there's his problem. The greatest paintings of our times? With all due respect for those plein air painters but since when are plein air paintings the greatest and most interesting paintings and should go for huge amounts of money? Most plein air paintings are just that, plein air paintings and nothing more. The guys who make or made great landscape paintings with the intention of portraying more than just a landscape are hanging in museums or in good galleries.

[dpaint]

"Go to a California plein air art gallery in Laguna Beach and look at some of the greatest paintings of our times being sold for $400 bucks a pop. Half of that goes to the gallery. Good luck on that get rich thing."

Maybe there's his problem. The greatest paintings of our times? With all due respect for those plein air painters but since when are plein air paintings the greatest and most interesting paintings and should go for huge amounts of money? Most plein air paintings are just that, plein air paintings and nothing more. The guys who make or made great landscape paintings with the intention of portraying more than just a landscape are hanging in museums or in good galleries.

That's as ignorant a statement as you could make. Those paintings are just like any other they depend on the abilities of the artists making them not on their subject.

[bcarman]

That's as ignorant a statement as you could make. Those paintings are just like any other they depend on the abilities of the artists making them not on their subject.

I wondered how long it would take you to respond to this. Surprisingly gentle too.

[dpaint]

I wondered how long it would take you to respond to this. Surprisingly gentle too.

Thats the new me, a big fuzzy gentle giant.

I mean dismissing the most important change in painting in the last 200 years is beyond ignorant. Turner, Constable, Corot, Monet, Van Gogh, Sorolla, Sargent, Levitan Munnings and on and on. Outdoor painting defines the last couple of centuries of representational painting; its what separates it from what went on before outdoor work.

[Jonas Heirwegh]

That's as ignorant a statement as you could make. Those paintings are just like any other they depend on the abilities of the artists making them not on their subject.

True, true but I didnt mean it like that. I'm not talking about the subject matter, which can be anything you want.
I'm talking about his statement that those plein air paintings from Laguna are the greatest paintings of our times, which is simply not the case.

Levitan for example is brilliant because his landscapes aren't just landscapes, they go beyond the landscape. Allot of those plein air paintings from that gallery don't go further then just a landscape. It doesn't have anything to do with the subject. It has more to do with the way it's painted and why the artist is painting it.

Thats the new me, a big fuzzy gentle giant.

I mean dismissing the most important change in painting in the last 200 years is beyond ignorant. Turner, Constable, Corot, Monet, Van Gogh, Sorolla, Sargent, Levitan Munnings and on and on. Outdoor painting defines the last couple of centuries of representational painting; its what separates it from what went on before outdoor work.

Agreed, and I'm certainly not dismissing it. I just explained myself badly