How much should an artist earn?

Recently, I had separate conversations with a couple of artist friends. I respect both artists and their art a great deal, and I would put the quality of their work (although very different in style) on the same plane. During the course of the conversation with Artist 1, he mentioned he had a very good 2007. It begged the question, "How good?" He obliged and told me he grossed a little over $70,000 in sales. I didn’t have to ask Artist 2 because I already know he has struggled the last couple of years to make ends meet. My guestimate is that he grossed $20,000 which barely covers his cost of materials. It also should be mentioned that both artists have gallery representation(s) and sell out of their respective studios. I was happy for Artist 1 and his fiscal success, and I was sympathetic to Artist 2 and hope he receives the fortunes he deserves in the very near future.

This got me thinking… There are many occupations that tend to have a fixed annual salary ranges associated with them. A teacher probably knows what they will be earning, the same for police officers, nurses, attorneys and accountants. This is supported by "salary calculators" like this one and this one. While playing around on one of these sites, I found out that the median wage for an "artist" in Charlottesville is $44,000. Really??? A little digging revealed the definition of "artist" to be:

Develops, sketches, and/or prints creative ideas for a variety of mediums. Provides support for company advertising and/or promotional efforts. No formal training required, although may require 2-4 years of experience in the field or in a related area. Familiar with standard concepts, practices, and procedures within a particular field. Relies on limited experience and judgment to plan and accomplish goals. Performs a variety of tasks. Works under general supervision; typically reports to a supervisor or manager. A great deal of creativity and latitude is expected.

Of course, this isn’t exactly the type of "artist" I was thinking of – the one who toils in their studio creating one-of-a-kind pieces (in whatever medium) for commercial sale through a gallery, art fair, or through their studio. For my questions, I was not considering graphic designers, advertisers or anyone who works under supervision (i.e. an office). Regardless, I was surprised to see the $44K associated with a Charlottesville "artist."

However, should we think Artist 1 is making far more than the norm? Is Artist 2 making far less than the norm? Or vice versa?

Throughout my life’s experiences in the arts, I’ve witnessed the general image or perception of the proverbial "starving artist." Should the poor soul who pursues a career in the arts be destined to starve? Is an artist required to starve before/during/after the blossoming of their career? Is it their hunger that drives their creative energies? Keeps them edgy? Attuned to the human condition? Or, can an artist earn a healthy wage from their work and still be able to be creative and prolific?

Back to my initial thought… What is the public’s perception of what an artist should earn annually? I think we all agree that the average office secretary (administrative assistant) probably is earning less than $75,000 and more than $25,000 – I remind you, I am still in Virginia. Or a 3^rd year associate attorney in a mid-sized firm is likely to be earning $100,000.

So what do you believe? Is it preposterous to believe that someone who chooses to be a full-time artist could think that $100,000 is a reasonable wage (such as a young attorney), or should the artist be happy with earning $20,000 and believe he has topped out in his field?

I have created a Poll on this blog’s sidebar to dig into this question further. What do you think an artist should consider a reasonable annual wage to be? Vote today. Or share your thoughts with a Comment.

Comments

[Barbara]

Greetings!

What a question? And where are the potential answers? In a market society, people are paid not exactly what they are worth, but what the market will offer. For centuries, artists (painters, composers, actors) have had patrons of one type or another. But not all artists have had the support and recognition before they die. Is it true that Van Gogh sold only one painting in his lifetime? And is it also true that he relied upon support from his brother to survive? That was so long ago. Perhaps nowadays, artists rely upon their spouses and family members to support them. The few who are able to make a living may do so for a while, but what happens when their art work goes out of fashion, or they lose their gallery support? No easy answer there. I guess it's art for arts sake not for money. That's not fair, but probably realistic. I wish it were otherwise. I think we need more artists than politicians to help us find our way in the world.

Thanks for raising this topic, Rob. Worthy of careful thinking.

[Daniel]

I began to weigh in by taking your poll but found my answer was weighted down with more questions. The most distracting is the reason for the huge range in salary of 2 artists that create work of equal caliber?Style of work? Level of gallery representation? Location or marketing of their own work and studio? I would be interested in hearing your theories about that.
Some would say that decisions based on money have nothing to do with the creation of art.Yet how can you make a living off your art work if it does not connect with a large enough group to support your habit?
Do you create in a vacuum and ignore your potential audience?
Is an artist less of an artist if they use their creativity to generate work that is more "saleable"? I find an interesting wrinkle in the "starving" artist theory. Traditionally it is noble for the "starving" artist to make creative decisions based on what they don't have or can afford (which is not much.) Yet it is considered less noble to base creative decisions on what would help them survive more comfortably.Why?
Finding a base salary for the artist is tricky because time spent in the studio doesn't always bear fruit and should a folk or outsider artist receive less than an artist with a master's degree? How about a painter more than potter?