4 ms·

> The surprising thing about so many of the artists is that they only work 2 or 3 hours per day, then spend the rest of the day walking around, socializing, etc

> The surprising thing about so many of the artists is that they only work 2 or 3 hours per day, then spend the rest of the day walking around, socializing, etc. But they consistently show up and put in the work and it adds up to some amazing things over time. Artists don't have stand ups, team meetings, planning sessions, one-on-ones, commutes and whatever other office distractions to deal with though. I suppose figuring out how to survive as an artist is distraction enough.

jmilloy 5y ago
Do you know this to be true? Most artists that I know, which is most people I know, struggle with as many work-related distractions as I do. My sanctioned office distractions at least "count" to my employer (I get paid for that time).
- mritchie712 5y ago
  yeah, there someone still needs to sell the art. I'd imagine it's the artist until you're a massive success.
  - whiddershins 5y ago
    No amount of success insulates you from tons of annoying and tasks and interactions. The only way to insulate yourself from that would be to be completely unsuccessful. But then you would have to be either extremely poor, which is exhausting, or make/have money another way, which is likely to be a huge distraction. There is really no solving for this.
    - focus2020 5y ago
      DonKnuth comes to mind.
  - xapata 5y ago
    No, generally that's the gallerist's job. They take 50% of the revenue.
    - hanche 5y ago
      But first the artist has to get a gallery to show his work.
      - mritchie712 5y ago
        exactly, I'd imagine artists spend a good bit of their time schlepping around convincing galleries to display their work.
        xapata 5y ago
        There's a big difference between "massive success" and having a gallery show. Once you have a decent relationship with a gallery, if you don't care so much about money you can just let the gallery handle that side of things. A friend of mine has been a professional painter for the last 50-ish years. He makes a couple trips a year to the gallery to deliver paintings. The gallerist tries to take that chance to suggest a few motifs that seem to sell better, but doesn't get too pushy.
hinkley 5y ago
Someone blew my mind describing why some artists are not appreciated until they are dead. The theory as it went is that most artists aren’t “ahead of their time”, it’s that they see Now in a way that nobody else will understand for years. Eventually, with the aid of the lens of nostalgia we see that they really “get us”, as we now understand ourselves. Being out in the world is how they “get” us. It’s material, not faffing about.
- knuthsat 5y ago
  Of course, but then you have living examples like Bob Dylan. Some people have incredible pattern matching abilities and most artists I’ve met consume as much human culture as possible and great ones manage to conjure up something of their own.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  It is also much safer to praise a dead artist. Famous alive writer might suddenly turn out to be big fan of some genocidal world leader, embarrassing everyone who loves his earlier work. Dead people are mostly safe from this, though not completely - some dirty laundry might surface years after death, forever tarnishing the image, but such occurrences are rather rare.
  - Swenrekcah 5y ago
    I get your point but I don’t think that’s historically been any concern for people. Just in the past decade or so, and only for some people.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
      If you are talking about alive people, then no. It was akways the case. The obvious example is Nobel prize laureate Knut Hamsun, who publically praised Hitler. In the soviet Union it was even more pronounced: the government was regularly doing mythbuilding around dead figures, like polar aviator Tchkalov and cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin: they were famous while alive, but became demigods after deaths. You see, you never have to worry that this famous person would do. What if you build up a hero's image, and then he defects to the west? Also, with artists, only after death you can have his 'complete' works, not having to worry about increasing supply of them, which would push the price down.
p5a0u9l 5y ago
Jeff Tweedy of Wilco fame has a nice new book on a strategy similar to this. Haven't read it, but looks pretty good. He talks about how everyone should try one artistic thing and be willing to fail. That gets the Jitters out the way, then they can focus and do something interesting.
- hallway_monitor 5y ago
  A piece of trivia I loved learning was that in the context of "Roger Wilco", Wilco means "will comply".
Broken_Hippo 5y ago
Well, that depends. Be an illustrator for someplace like Disney, and you'll have all that. Illustrate comics, though? 10 hour workdays, and your arm will probably give out at some point - mostly meeting deadlines. Graphic designer? You have it. Most folks that sell have to arrange meetings with clients, take time to mail art, organize prints, either deal with a printer or printing their own stuff, answer customers, interact on social media... and so on. You might not be creating anything creative, but reproductions of wedding photos and pets. The non-art parts of being an artist add up, and few folks can survive being an artist. At best, most folks have a full time job (or other income) and selling art is, at best, a side hustle. A gallery helps with some of this. Of course, it is pretty common for the gallery to take 40-50% of the selling price, plus whatever they charge to frame the piece. You then have meetings with them, and they'll drop you in a heartbeat if you don't produce enough or don't sell well. A few will let you rent space, but you generally need to care for it.

jmilloy 5y ago

Do you know this to be true? Most artists that I know, which is most people I know, struggle with as many work-related distractions as I do. My sanctioned office distractions at least "count" to my employer (I get paid for that time).

mritchie712 5y ago
yeah, there someone still needs to sell the art. I'd imagine it's the artist until you're a massive success.
- whiddershins 5y ago
  No amount of success insulates you from tons of annoying and tasks and interactions. The only way to insulate yourself from that would be to be completely unsuccessful. But then you would have to be either extremely poor, which is exhausting, or make/have money another way, which is likely to be a huge distraction. There is really no solving for this.
  - focus2020 5y ago
    DonKnuth comes to mind.
- xapata 5y ago
  No, generally that's the gallerist's job. They take 50% of the revenue.
  - hanche 5y ago
    But first the artist has to get a gallery to show his work.
    - mritchie712 5y ago
      exactly, I'd imagine artists spend a good bit of their time schlepping around convincing galleries to display their work.
      - xapata 5y ago
        There's a big difference between "massive success" and having a gallery show. Once you have a decent relationship with a gallery, if you don't care so much about money you can just let the gallery handle that side of things. A friend of mine has been a professional painter for the last 50-ish years. He makes a couple trips a year to the gallery to deliver paintings. The gallerist tries to take that chance to suggest a few motifs that seem to sell better, but doesn't get too pushy.

hinkley 5y ago

Someone blew my mind describing why some artists are not appreciated until they are dead. The theory as it went is that most artists aren’t “ahead of their time”, it’s that they see Now in a way that nobody else will understand for years. Eventually, with the aid of the lens of nostalgia we see that they really “get us”, as we now understand ourselves. Being out in the world is how they “get” us. It’s material, not faffing about.

knuthsat 5y ago
Of course, but then you have living examples like Bob Dylan. Some people have incredible pattern matching abilities and most artists I’ve met consume as much human culture as possible and great ones manage to conjure up something of their own.
Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
It is also much safer to praise a dead artist. Famous alive writer might suddenly turn out to be big fan of some genocidal world leader, embarrassing everyone who loves his earlier work. Dead people are mostly safe from this, though not completely - some dirty laundry might surface years after death, forever tarnishing the image, but such occurrences are rather rare.
- Swenrekcah 5y ago
  I get your point but I don’t think that’s historically been any concern for people. Just in the past decade or so, and only for some people.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
    If you are talking about alive people, then no. It was akways the case. The obvious example is Nobel prize laureate Knut Hamsun, who publically praised Hitler. In the soviet Union it was even more pronounced: the government was regularly doing mythbuilding around dead figures, like polar aviator Tchkalov and cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin: they were famous while alive, but became demigods after deaths. You see, you never have to worry that this famous person would do. What if you build up a hero's image, and then he defects to the west? Also, with artists, only after death you can have his 'complete' works, not having to worry about increasing supply of them, which would push the price down.

p5a0u9l 5y ago

Jeff Tweedy of Wilco fame has a nice new book on a strategy similar to this. Haven't read it, but looks pretty good. He talks about how everyone should try one artistic thing and be willing to fail. That gets the Jitters out the way, then they can focus and do something interesting.

hallway_monitor 5y ago
A piece of trivia I loved learning was that in the context of "Roger Wilco", Wilco means "will comply".

Broken_Hippo 5y ago

Well, that depends. Be an illustrator for someplace like Disney, and you'll have all that. Illustrate comics, though? 10 hour workdays, and your arm will probably give out at some point - mostly meeting deadlines. Graphic designer? You have it. Most folks that sell have to arrange meetings with clients, take time to mail art, organize prints, either deal with a printer or printing their own stuff, answer customers, interact on social media... and so on. You might not be creating anything creative, but reproductions of wedding photos and pets. The non-art parts of being an artist add up, and few folks can survive being an artist. At best, most folks have a full time job (or other income) and selling art is, at best, a side hustle. A gallery helps with some of this. Of course, it is pretty common for the gallery to take 40-50% of the selling price, plus whatever they charge to frame the piece. You then have meetings with them, and they'll drop you in a heartbeat if you don't produce enough or don't sell well. A few will let you rent space, but you generally need to care for it.