tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20645140.post8465976901829981939..comments2023-06-13T08:29:39.914+00:00Comments on MAKING A MARK: Fine artists in decline in the USA?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20645140.post-56449166599534763852008-07-04T08:44:00.000+00:002008-07-04T08:44:00.000+00:00For further clarification on what 'being an artist...For further clarification on what 'being an artist' means when you complete a census return or survey.<BR/><BR/>These are the occupational codes and categories as identified in the Appendix of the NEA report <I>Artists in the Workforce</I>.<BR/><BR/><B>Artists in the Workforce<BR/>Appendix A.<BR/>Census occupation codes, 1990 and 2000</B><BR/><BR/>"Artists and related workers<BR/>(called “Fine artists, art directors, and animators” in this report)<BR/>2000 PUMS 260<BR/>ACS 2600<BR/>SOC 27-1010<BR/><B>27-1011 Art Directors</B><BR/>Formulate design concepts and presentation approaches, and direct workers engaged in art work, layout design, and copy writing for visual communications media, such as magazines, books, newspapers, and packaging<BR/><B>27-1012 Craft Artists</B><BR/>Create or reproduce handmade objects for sale and exhibition using a variety of techniques, such as welding, weaving, pottery, and needlecraft.<BR/><B>27-1013 Fine Artists, Including Painters, Sculptors,<BR/>and Illustrators</B><BR/>Create original artwork using any of a wide variety of mediums and techniques, such as painting and sculpture.<BR/><B>27-1014 Multi-Media Artists and Animators</B><BR/>Create special effects, animation, or other visual images using film, video, computers, or other electronic tools and media for use in products or creations, such as computer games, movies, music videos, and commercials.<BR/><B>27-1019 Artists and Related Workers, All Other </B> All artists and related workers not listed separately."<BR/><BR/>Appendix 2 identifies that as a result of the change in occupational codes in 2000 that<BR/><I>"Most of the new groupings include the same people who would have been called artists under the old scheme. Art teachers—there were about 21,000 in 1990—are no longer identifiable as artists because they are included in the new detailed category “Postsecondary teachers”..........Many of the changes reflect the increasing technology in the art world, like the inclusion of “Multi-media artists and animators” in the<BR/>“Artists and related workers” group.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Census data necessarily means that it's a measurement of what is happening at a point in time. Therefore Appendix 3 makes clear that the occupation data usually refer to the person’s job in the week before the interview or questionnaire. The information about income and weeks and hours worked refer to the job held longest in the reference year. <BR/><BR/>For decennial census data, the reference year is the year before the census (1989 or 1999). <BR/><BR/>For the American Community Survey data (which aims to eliminate the need for a long form in the 2010 census), the reference year is the 12 months before the interview. Thus, the ACS numbers refer to a rolling time period, while the census numbers refer to a fixed calendar year.<BR/><BR/>For all those who are still reading at this point, I guess the 'when push comes to shove' question could well be "What are you going to say your job is on the day you complete the census form in 2010" and "What is the job you held longest in the previous 12 months"?Making A Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13509483023337008890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20645140.post-56870862258516231942008-07-04T08:16:00.000+00:002008-07-04T08:16:00.000+00:00I do so agree that labels are really difficult in ...I do so agree that labels are really difficult in this field. I think we all recognise too the difficulties involved in generating a decent income.<BR/><BR/>Art, like a number of other activities, is one which can be followed by everybody from hobby artists to internationally recognised artists with a multi-million pound annual income. However if you are analysing data from an occupational perspective - which these studies are - then you have to draw a line somewhere.<BR/><BR/>The line this study draws is what did you declare yourself to be on the census form. It's that simple!<BR/><BR/>Tracy - you sound very much like you might be one of the 300,000 people identified right at the beginning of the post for whom art is a secondary form of income. <BR/><BR/>It needs to be emphasised, <I>as both the NEA and Scottish Arts Council studies do,</I> that many professional fine artists do NOT make all their income from their own artwork. That's not being negative - that's just a fact of life. Many professional artists supplement their income with jobs in arts-related fields. Examples include teaching art, curating art, working in museums and art galleries. Others take work in other fields which allow them time and space to do their artwork. Jobs which provide the bread and butter/roof over your head income stops you worrying all the time about whether you can afford to try and make it as an artist for 100% of your working time. Or, some would say, stops you making the commitment to really going for it. There are all sorts of perspectives on what it takes......it's certainly not a question of passing exams!<BR/><BR/>To use an analogy, I guess what I'm getting at is that there are a lot of blokes out there who love their golf, who might dream of making it as a pro golfer, who may well play in and win competitions and beat all the players at their local club out of sight. The point at which they put sportsperson/golfer on their census return or tax return is when they make a serious commitment to 'being a golfer.' <BR/><BR/>What these studies are counting are the people who felt confident 'being an artist' and labelling themselves as such on their census return - even if they did also make some of their income from other activities.Making A Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13509483023337008890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20645140.post-21365201994810395082008-07-04T01:12:00.000+00:002008-07-04T01:12:00.000+00:00All these labels are very grey and nebulous. I gu...All these labels are very grey and nebulous. I guess there needs to be clear-cut definitions of "professional". Someone in my position (and I assume there are many) may be on the fence with respect to labels. <BR/><BR/>I sell my work and have numerous displays, exhibits, and booths over the course of a year. Website and blog, too. In business for 7+ yrs. Yet I do not make the majority of my income from art. (*sigh*) YET. <BR/><BR/>I consider myself a professional artist, but maybe some consider the % income to be the defining factor. Until a study comes along, I guess you can label yourself anything you want!<BR/><BR/>I agree that "churning out" of work is not necessarily a bad thing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20645140.post-28863787377719467622008-07-03T16:48:00.000+00:002008-07-03T16:48:00.000+00:00I'm afraid I've never heard that phrase before - m...I'm afraid I've never heard that phrase before - maybe it's an American one?<BR/><BR/>This latest study certainly echoes some research which was done by the Scottish Arts Council some time ago - which I featured on this blog back in March 2006. See <A HREF="http://makingamark.blogspot.com/2006/03/making-their-mark-audit-of-visual.html" REL="nofollow">"Making their Mark" - an audit of visual artists</A> for about this study.<BR/><BR/>Bear in mind lots of people do all sorts of things - not just art - as hobbies. However the subject of the studies are people who count themselves as professional artists and identify themselves in this way when data is being collected. <BR/><BR/>In other words I think that although the findings may be of interest to amateur or part-time artists it's not really about them unless their part-time art is also a significant part of their permanent income stream. However, for those aspiring to make the jump from amateur to professional it might provide some useful information - and give them pause for thought.<BR/><BR/>One final thought. Have you ever scanned the art history sites for all the paintings by well known professional artists from the past. The number of paintings often rank in the thousands. I don't think those artists would think of it as having a factory mind-set but I've noticed that those who 'get on and do' also tend to produce quite a lot! Artists who earn their income from their artwork certainly tend to think long and hard about how efficient and productive they can be..........Making A Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13509483023337008890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20645140.post-83045160814943064682008-07-03T16:30:00.000+00:002008-07-03T16:30:00.000+00:00It is a very interesting study. The old phrase.."f...It is a very interesting study. The old phrase.."figures lie and liars figure" comes to mind.<BR/>While many aspire to making a living wage from their work, it probably is more true that many artists are supplementing their income with other jobs outside of the fine arts area and listing their profession as the job that provides the most income. It's a profession that is very difficult to verify. We're not even counting the artist's who paint for the love of the craft, rather than the money. The "arts" are always the first to suffer during economic downturns because fine art is a "luxury" item, often forcing the artist to get an additional job. <BR/>There are other factors too...lack of community resources and undervaluing of art on E-Bay and other similar sites that make it difficult for an artist to sell his or her work at a reasonable profit, without having to be of a factory mind-set; churning out paintings one after another just to survive. <BR/>It's a study that does deserve more attention.Her Eye Zone Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05378370315206906992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20645140.post-16181803492776801802008-07-03T14:42:00.000+00:002008-07-03T14:42:00.000+00:00How interesting!I would have expected Illinois (Ch...How interesting!<BR/>I would have expected Illinois (Chicago) to be in the top 10, but I guess not. I bet the increased use of internet has made location a little less important in the ever-shrinking "big picture".<BR/>Thanks for the food for thought!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com