Artist Income Study
I was recently reading Robert Genn’s twice-weekly newsletter titled The Art Income Shock. I found it intriguing and thought I would share.
A recent Canadian study by Michael Maranda, assistant curator at the Art Gallery of York University in Canada had some surprising results. It suggested that Canadian artists earn less than the median income.
The average visual artist works 26 hours a week doing studio work, supplemented by 14.5 hours on art-related jobs, and 7.6 hours doing something not related to art.
Okay that is probably not so surprising. But this is.
Maranda’s study finds artists as a group to be older and better educated than they were a few years ago, having an average of six years of post-secondary education. The real shocker comes with the revelation that the higher their education level, the less artists earn from their art.
At the risk of being taken out and shot, I’m offering a couple of possible reasons for this. Highly educated artists may make art that is too sophisticated or esoteric for people to buy. Further, a formal education often gives artists a sense of entitlement that may hamper their access to or interest in the commercial gallery system. In my experience, the higher incomes are enjoyed by workers with previous design experience–ex-sign painters, illustrators, ad-agency people, etc. Further, immigrants with traditional art experience and the benefit of prior poverty frequently thrive.
Estimating the average incomes of artists is like estimating the average incomes of golfers. Many at the low end don’t collect a plug nickel, no matter how many birdies they sink. The Tiger Woodses at the other end nicely pull the statistics up to $800 a year. . . According to a study done by Grumbacher a few years ago, four percent of the population have paints and call themselves painters. That would make 900,000 painters in Canada. Maranda’s respondent-driven sampling appears to include a high percentage of sophisticated duffers.
I would like to add an additional thought as to why some with a high degree of learning, sell less. Art schools teach how to create art, but they completely neglect to teach anything about how to sell it.
The real shocker comes with the revelation that the higher their education level, the less artists earn from their art.
One last thought from Robert Genn.
A key to the lousy fiscal performance of artists could be the low number of hours they apparently spend alone in the studio. A twenty-six-hour week is not enough. Forty is more like it. Sixty is better because you can start to get good at sixty. Show me artists who have put in ten thousand hours and I’ll show you a chicken in every pot.
You can read the whole article and what artists have to say about the subject on Robert Genn’s Painter’s Keys clickback. The comments were almost more interesting than the article itself.
Clearly their is a big division of thought on this topic. I’d love to hear what you guys think.
Tags: business
Hmm… I’m not really sure what I think. I hear so many people say “you can’t make money through art” and yet you do!
I think a lot of people want to be artists because they think it’s easy money, when in reality those who do earn a living through art have to work hard. As you say, you need a business head and not just a flare for art.
Maybe these ones who are highly educated think their qualification is enough? That people should want to buy their art because they can prove their worth with lots of letters after their name? Some would say it’s because they have spent too long in a classroom and have not experienced life - so their art is shallow.
I don’t know. Money and art is such a complicated subject, and the art world is so fickle.
That point about esoteric and non-accessible art rings so true. I had some college art classes and I’ve also learned a lot from books and also had classes from working professional painters who were making a good income. Books and mentoring did a lot more for helping me grasp the complex techniques involved.
There are a host of skills involved in self employment no matter what that’s in — but I think schools that don’t add any small business courses to the curriculum are doing a disservice to the students who want to be full time artists. I’ve found no guidance in how to price art other than from the street painters I knew in New Orleans — they were more than willing to talk nuts and bolts about how they set their prices and how to tell what the market will bear.
A few basic bits of information are priceless. The more solvent artists with higher incomes do invest in prints and market their prints. It’s a way to get paid decently for the amount of time and work that goes into the original, especially if they’re using techniques that are lengthy and difficult. Print sales were the majority of income for a great many of the wealthier artists I knew.
Yet they didn’t say anything about that in the college art classes and so people who are trying to live on just what the originals bring in are going to be running a Red Queen’s Race, they won’t sell it much more than what the market will bear but they’re not getting the full harvest either. A lot of people who love their art can’t afford the originals but enjoy good archival prints. Heck, I collect originals but will also sometimes buy a good archival print too.
While the artist who discovers that doing good landscapes works for the clientele doesn’t always realize that another aspect of prints is that you can market the image to greeting card companies to be reduced and sold in the millions. When it’s that good and it happens to be a traditional subject, yes, it’ll also appear in that ephemera.
And then lose snob appeal even though those same card companes are carelessly and blithely lumping their work in with Van Gogh and sundry other famous painters whose reputation is undimmed by being subjected to annual calendar reproduction.
I’d be interesting to run a survey on the same painters to find out how many are doing active prints sales and active merchandising sales. I suspect more prosperous artists are the ones not embarrassed to see one of their paintings on a greeting card or a poster.
“…In my experience, the higher incomes are enjoyed by workers with previous design experience–ex-sign painters, illustrators, ad-agency people, etc. Further, immigrants with traditional art experience and the benefit of prior poverty frequently thrive…”
This I absolutely agree with this, i think if you have experienced poverty, and / or lack of work in your trained field you are more determined to make a living from you art.
On the business side of the discussion, when we went to college it was very practical however absolutely no selling or business skills were even mentioned. Looking back on this i am appalled at whoever created the course we did as i would say 90% of my daily chores are more about selling and dealing with clients than painting! Ok so maybe that’s a little over the top, but it often feels like it! Nick and i didn’t even really know how to answer the phone to a client let alone work out how to get a client!
Making a living from any kind of art is hard and i admire anyone who can create and sustain a full time wage from it, especially in these hard economic times.
Thanks for the input guys. I’ll wait to see if anyone else will weigh in, then perhaps do a follow up post.
Thanks for the link and the food for thought, Mona. I enjoyed reading all of the comments people made. I tend to agree with a comment that stated something to the effect that perhaps the more educated folks have more income producing choices other than direct sales of their work.
I was intrigued about a statement where the artist sold 48K worth of work last year, but was in the hole $300 after expenses.
I do think that universities have historically not taught about marketing much and also tend to critisize “commercialism” in the fine arts side of things, so this effects it all too from my point of view.
In general, I love reading these debates about money/making a living and art.
All I really know is that Maggie S. made me believe that any artist who applies proper markenting techniques can make some decent money from art. I had hoped to supplement my retirement income with money from art. I retired early, partly out f family demands, but also I had always dreamed of retiring early to have more time (and as years mounted on, energy) for doing art. In light of all this, I found it an identifiable comment in response to the post, that those most concerned with making money from art are those without enough retirement or alternative income. I do think that if I felt “secure” enough in my income, I may be less concerned with marketing, at least in the short run. I am concerned with how much money to spend on marketing, since having money is a concern. But then again, it may have more to do with making a connection with my art and not just making money. I do know that I need to work harder on both the art and marketing fronts and that it will cost money.
My hat always been off to you in your ability to make a living from your art, as you know. Doesn’t reading this post and the comments make you feel more proud of your accomplishments? I think it should.
Really good input from all. Thanks. I’ll be making a follow up post soon. I wan’t to ask a few other artists in person what they think.
As to the 48k person, clearly they need a money management class. I know several artists though who have a very similar story, that is making a fair sum but winding up breaking even. Maybe it’s because we actually have to pay for food and electricity and health insurance that I don’t put every penny I earn back into the business. My net to gross ratio is around 30-45%. I think an artist has to make wise choices on what really works.
Maggie S. had several things going for her. She was naturally talented and driven. She had one post that showed how she spent every minute of the day. I think Hitler would have envied her dedication to time management. Here’s the biggie though. She is a talented writer (For those who don’t know, so talented that she quit art and is now a published and successful writer) and she marketed her art by using this, her strongest talent. Also she didn’t need the money she earned right away. Meaning she had the financial support of her husband (as did I when I started) to get her art business off the ground. This is hugely helpful though not necessary to success. It does take alot of the pressure off though.
I am proud of how I took a $500 start up to a business that supports us in less than 10 years. But it also saddens me to see so many with the talent not make it when it is so doable.