Seismic Shift on Wall Street = “Artists”???
by guest contributor Karen Wang, originally published at Scarlett Cinema
It is a strange feeling to walk down the streets of New York these days. Though the hustle and bustle of commerce may still swarm all about you, it is noticeably quieter than usual. And though the sub-zero wind chills may easily explain why only the tourists and Broadway musical super-fanatics can be lured out to play, I would argue: it is more than that.
I’ve watched, listened, and noticed for quite some time now how things seem to be shaping up; and I’ve come to the conclusion that there are few other places in the country where the carnage and fallout from this blighted recession are more evident than in New York City. The Big Apple has been hit especially hard.
Condos and co-ops sit empty as their selling prices in the New York Times continue to plummet. Five or six businesses on my block alone– establishments that had thrived for years– all closed their doors forever within recent months. A cross-town bus ride or walk down 23rd Street will reveal more darkened storefronts. And perhaps most eerie of all: the empty trains.
Like most people in New York who either have a hand in filmmaking or write about films on the internet, I have a day job. For the last two and a half years, I have worked at a financial firm located somewhere between Times Square and Rockefeller Center. It is this part of town that has, in a way, become the new Wall Street. In fact, the Wall Street of times yore no longer exists– at least, not in the sense of it being the end-all-be-all site of where all the major money makers are housed. Most firms such as Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley now have office space and trading floors as well as run their businesses in buildings all over Manhattan. Dozens of media corporations such as NBC Universal, Viacom, Time Warner, and Conde Nast are also based in the area of town in which I work. Consequently, up until the Dow began its terrifying descent last summer, it was a matter of routine, a normal sight, to wedge one’s way onto packed subway trains full of daily commuters headed towards the Great White Way. These days, however, in the wake of massive layoffs, my wait at the local halal food cart is practically non-existent; I no longer have to dodge and weave between as many brief cases and overcoats walking through Times Square; and most unsettling of all: as I look around during my morning and evening commutes, the subway cars are conspicuously roomier.
Why am I bringing all this up on a feminist-inspired blog about cinema and the media? Because last month, in the New York Times, there appeared an article written by Hannah Seligson about the recent mass exodus of bankers and Wall Street types from the financial industry as they look to the arts and entertainment industry for their future career paths. In other words, they are turning to their “creative plan Bs.”
Seligson writes:
With Wall Street hemorrhaging jobs, bonuses disappearing and the financial sector going through a seismic shift, some bankers and lawyers are switching lanes to more creative career paths. They are putting down their Wall Street Journals and picking up Variety as they try their hands at comedy, filmmaking and writing.
The first thing that came to mind after reading this was what this could potentially mean for both racial and gender equality within the arts and entertainment fields. Anyone who works in finance can tell you that no matter how far race relations and women’s lib may have come in the last few decades, the fact remains that white men far outnumber people of color and women at firms such as the one where I work. Not only that, but the way in which race and gender break down along the types of work within the industry are more starkly revealing: front office groups, or the departments that generate all the revenue for companies, tend to be populated by white men; whereas back office groups, such as human resources and administrative support, remain a virtual repository for people of color and women. It is still very much a white male-dominated game. So, when I read that bankers were jumping ship to work in creative fields, all I could think was, “Oh, great. Because that’s what the entertainment field really needs: a fresh infusion of The Man.”
Don’t get me wrong. I have nothing against white people or men intrinsically. I do not condone, advocate, or believe in “reverse racism” or “femi-nazism.” However, neither can I deny that it is the implicit privilege inherent of being white and male in America that enables folks such as these Wall Street types to presume that breaking into– and succeeding– in the arts is a simple matter of choice.
Having coterminously worked in the film industry for the past few years, and being a woman of color myself, I can attest firsthand to the widespread sexism and racism that still pervade and are built into the system. One of my fondest memories happened at an industry party, where a Hollywood producer (you guessed it, a white dude) told me point blank: “Sorry. I don’t work with women writers.” Similar stories abound amongst women in production and development circles. The anecdotes become even grimmer and more nihilistic among people of color who are trying to get a foothold in the business. For them, the tide of resistance to projects either produced by or about Asian Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, or African Americans is significantly greater– regardless of how much more original these stories might be than the same old schlock that Hollywood continues to crank out each year. Hence, it is almost safer, less humiliating, and far less devastating for people of color to assume that they shouldn’t even try to make it in “the biz” at all. It is for this very reason that programs such as the Tribeca Film Insitute’s All Access program exist: to give people of color and women a platform by which their projects might gain exposure to the industry at large– an opportunity that would otherwise not likely exist, given the predominant white male sensibilities that continue to rule the business. Consequently, I cannot help but feel somewhat biased that this influx of implicitly white male “talent” may not be exactly the jolt that the art world or Hollywood really needs.
Which brings me to my other point.
While the prospect of the arts being deluged by white male bankers only slightly irritates me, Seligson’s assumption that these career shifts may be tantamount to the arts’ salvation is downright incensing. It both trivializes the meaningful work of cultural production as well as denies the sanctity with which the arts should be properly regarded. In her article, Seligson quotes Richard Florida, author of “Who’s Your City” and director of the Martin Prosperity Institute at the University of Toronto, who says: “The economic downturn is going to free up top talent to do other things that are going to change the metabolism of cities like New York in a very good way.”
If this is in fact true, then what I want to know is: what have all of us who have been slaving away in the literary, studio, audio-visual, and performing arts been doing all these years? Why didn’t someone tell us that rather than training, practicing, and honing our crafts, rather than sacrificing our time, money, and effort, and rather than developing our God-given talents, we should have been crunching numbers as financial analysts so that we could some day render the finest works of art this world has ever seen?
Again, please don’t misunderstand: I do not begrudge Wall-Streeters their creative urges. Just the fact that some of them would only deign to pursue those urges if making a six-figure salary working in finance was no longer an option to them. Seligson recounts how a number of bankers have recently decided to accept– and in some cases volunteer– to take their severance pay in order to be able to concentrate more fully upon their dreams of literary, cinematic, and comedic glory. The mind-set being, in other words, that in these dire economic times, if the pay in finance isn’t going to be substantially greater than what one would earn working in the arts, then why not simply work in the arts?
I find this line of thought particularly obnoxious.
As someone who has been working in the arts and arts administration since my college days, I know scores of people who have not only trained and worked in the arts for years, but who have possessed the courage and passion enough to put their art above all else– including their earning potential. For most honest-to-God writers, musicians, filmmakers, and performers, the notion of “art” is not simply a romanticized concept. It is the way in which they perceive and experience the world around them; it is also the medium through which serious thought, hard work, and oftentimes penury is able to help them render those experiences wondrously apparent for the rest of the world to see. The reality of having to subsist in New York (or anywhere, really) typically dictates that these artists hold down day jobs while earnestly practicing their art at night. There is no shame in that. However, to suddenly deem the arts as “worthy” of one’s time simply because the cash cow of finance has run dry implies that art forms such as film, theater, and music have an intrinsic value that is inferior to the dollar as well as devalues the level of commitment and talent that true artists actually possess.
In closing, it may seem odd that on a blog generally devoted to film criticism, news, and top ten lists, I’ve chosen to respond– and so vehemently– to a news article that many would simply qualify as “filler.” A fluff piece. Human interest. However, because our readers are mostly concerned with cinema, it is important to note that film as an art form is never created within a vacuum. It is also a business. An industry. A product. And like any product, what we see on the screen is always materially derived from the decisions made not just by the director, but by industry standards and trends, studio executives, and lawyers: in other words, Wall Street types who aren’t as concerned with a project’s artistic integrity as much as they are with its profitability. So what happens, then, when hundreds of finance-minded suits migrate over from Wall Street, interested in creating “art,” but have never studied or developed their craft, never cultivated a sense of the history of what it is they are now attempting to do? Is this truly the “top talent” that Richard Florida claims will help to redefine the creative fields? And if so, will it be for the better?
I wonder.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
K.lo wrote:
Word.
I struggle with the reverse everyday. As someone who works in arts administration, crunching numbers, doing spreadsheets, pitching ideas, being the bridge between art and commerce, I think about the people I went to undergrad with who are doing the same things are making 4x my salary.
Now the people who snubbed me, claimed to not understand my commitment to the performing arts, that I’ve been an artist my whole life and that I would continue to be, are now going to jump into an already overcrowded competitive field and try to take over?
blech.
They can take their bonuses and salary overages and suck it.
If it sounds like sour grapes on my part, it is.
Posted 23 Feb 2009 at 11:56 am ¶
RJG wrote:
This article bothers me a bit because I feel like it gives the argument that if someone doesn’t do B as a full time serious thing from the start, they never wanted to do B, and to move from A to B is a sign that they’re not “dedicated enough to the craft.” It gives me the impression that there’s a lot of sour grapes (”oh you made lots of money and NOW you want to do this because you can’t keep making all that cash?”) mixed in with any real concern over how the power art has will falter because it turns out bankers want to be creative now, and that makes me question the article as a whole because I don’t know how biased the sour grapes part made the other parts.
I fully understand (or hope I do) the concern of a notably privileged group of people apparently deciding to go “you know what, this sounds fun enough to do as more than a hobby, and now I have the free time to really go for the gold!,” but at the same time I also always dislike when people give the “I’m more indie/artsy/real than you” arguments, and here they both are in the same article.
I think part of the whole thing is that with the job market being what it is in NYC, part of me is wondering that if I lose the opportunities I have to do graphic design work, maybe I’ll want to become a public school teacher instead. Does that mean I’m not dedicated enough to it? Am I doing the entire teaching profession a disservice because it wasn’t the first thing I wanted to try out? Should I be concerned of there being some “See? Economy goes to crap and now the white dude wants to be more useful!” dialogue that I’m helping create?
I’m not saying it’s right that these people may be able to jump past the hard parts of what it takes to enter a new profession as more than just a hobby, but at the same time I don’t know if it’s right to disapprove of someone entering a new field. While it’s important to recognize privilege, should someone just not do something because they may benefit from an unfair system?
Posted 23 Feb 2009 at 12:00 pm ¶
Lisa J wrote:
Point taken, but how can you be sure that none of these Wall Street types spent their spare time writing, painting, etc or that they did not study these things at some time in their life? I’m sure they all didn’t but some of them may have had serious pressure placed on them by family and other loved ones to deny their artistic pursuits . Not to say your thoughts are wrong but I’m sure that for some of them they are taking advantage of the released pressure from making tons of cash to do something they’ve always wanted to do.
Posted 23 Feb 2009 at 12:16 pm ¶
jen* wrote:
After reading about the devastation in Detroit, and several towns in the West that have been hit hard by job/industry loss and foreclosures, respectively, I think NYC may be among more than just a *few* places that are struggling because of this financial crisis.
It is interesting to note that there are that many people from Wall Street interested in getting into the art, but maybe that’s due in part to the fact that they’re already located in NYC and the arts are a critical part of the economy there.
Posted 23 Feb 2009 at 12:36 pm ¶
A.D. Nix wrote:
@ RJG
I think you and I have landed in the same place.
Posted 23 Feb 2009 at 1:34 pm ¶
gatamala wrote:
Read the entire Seligson article.
I find the tone and underlying attitudes disgusting. It appears that Karen objects the the sentiments it displays, not having dual/opposing careers. Her beef is not that i-bankers have other desires. The issue is how the financial, gender and racial power imbalances will increase exponentially.
As being a loya is what I do, not what I AM, I understand that us suit types have other interests and need creative outlets. I also know that financial pragmatism make sense for many people. I made my choice. My choice may make my dream of opening a salon possible. However, we should have some consideration for how our financial advantage gives us the ability to indulge our passions that others have sacrificed for, and to alter the context in which art is produced. This is the point Karen is making.
Upon reading this article, I gagged. Just what the creative arts needs more CONNECTED white, male-centric number-crunchers.
The guy with a severance package that will allow him to survive 2 years in NYC has parlayed his hobby into a successful career. Certainly he isn’t the only who works (e.g., waitstaff that Karen mentioned).
What do you think these guys will talk/joke/paint/write about? Being wealthy, white and male in NY.
That was certainly the calculus for Benjamin Cox, 33. After leaving his job as a vice president at Goldman Sachs in August, he immediately began incubating his plans to work on his screenplay — he calls it a cross between “Swingers” and “Annie Hall” — and start a production company.
How fresh and exciting!! I bet he’ll have a tough time finding support for his production company. :-/
I just love this one:
Are they fucking serious? The people responsible for the near-destruction of a global economy via their inhuman creative activity are lauded for not only being top talent on WS, but in the creative sector too?
The man who said that runs this:
http://www.martinprosperity.org/projects
http://creativeclass.com/creative_class_group/workshops/
Please try to understand what is going on here before getting defensive about your hobbies.
Posted 23 Feb 2009 at 2:17 pm ¶
Rob Schmidt wrote:
Good points about these artist wannabes and the racism and sexism in Hollywood. The producer who won’t work with women writers…appalling.
Coincidentally, I just wrote about Native Americans’ efforts to break into Hollywood:
http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/living/artsandentertainment/39793537.html
http://www.bluecorncomics.com/2009/02/no-bottom-line-for-native-movies.html
Posted 23 Feb 2009 at 3:00 pm ¶
Jess wrote:
I think I agree with both RJG and Karen.
Here’s why: Yes, a bunch of “connected” white dudes who were wealthy to begin with (and are hardly starving) is irritating.
But, that said, Karen is assuming that it will change things that much — and historically, it just hasn’t.
Think of the last several economic downturns. Loads — I mean loads of Wall Streeters lost their jobs in 2002, and loads more lost them in 1987. In both periods you could have written the very same piece Seligson did. In fact, they did.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE5D9133FF936A3575BC0A966958260&sec=&spon=&&scp=23&sq=Wall%20Street%20professionals%20arts%20career%20changes&st=cse
That’s just one from 1990. There are hundreds of other results on the query — all predating the current downturn. Seligson could hav just changed the names and dates.
And what changed in the arts? Well, many things over time, but none of it is traceable to Wall Street guys suddenly finding their creative impulse, I don’t think. Let’s look at it another way: I bet loads of analysts and bankers wanted to try the arts back in the late 80s. If that many were successful you’d expect a load of now-successful artists (people in their 50s, say) to be in the field, given that 20 years have passed. They aren’t there – it isn’t like all the galleries I see have “Former Wall Street Banker X left his/her job in 1987 and went into painting.”
Just because you are a wealthy i-banker doesn’t mean you have any talent in the arts. Just because you have the luxury of pursuing a dream on a fat severance package doesn’t mean you’ll suddenly displace everybody with your connections — which will be nonexistent in many areas. You think the guy who bought a nice piece of art at the SoHo gallery is gonna get the owner to show his stuff? Just because?
So yeah, there are issues of white privilege and such, but in one sense I’d say that applies to any field where a huge professional workforce with skills and wealth is suddenly out of work. Karen is certainly right about that, but I think she takes the sources in the piece –people whop are really just talking out of their asses, let’s face it– and taking it to heart in a way that it doesn’t merit.
It’s like “Oh, Wall Street guys will change the arts, and I say so because I think it is an interesting idea. Even though there is no evidence of such in past downturns.” Were I Karen, I’d be chuckling. If those guys think making it in the arts is easy, let ‘em rip. They’ll be disappointed.
Again, I agree that Wall Street is white male dominated, that the arts themselves have huge issues with dealing with PoC and women (Jerry Lewis, I am looking at you). But in this particular case, I think RJG is right in detecting a little “More artsy than thou” vibe.
I know a lot of people who would happily have gone into the arts from day one but went to Wall Street or a law firm because they just plain needed the money, and fast. College being expensive, you need to make that first 100K posthaste if your loans are anything like most people I know. And working on Wall Street doesn’t automatically mean you are a Philistine. Or even an Evil Representative of the Man, necessarily.
And be aware, it isn’t that many people from the Street who will get into the arts as plan B. I mean, let’s say there are 100,000 people who were former bankers out of work, who all had severance packages (and a lack of responsibilities — no kids or mortgages) that would allow them to have no income for two years. Now, that’s a wild overestimate, as most severance packages are 3-6 months pay if you are very, very, very lucky.
All of them want to be screenwriters? Painters? Sculptors? Playwrights? All of them? None of them want to open a business, become a venture capitalist, move overseas, or go into some other field? Seligson, I think, overdraws a rather large number of conclusions.
Posted 23 Feb 2009 at 3:04 pm ¶
A.D. Nix wrote:
First things first: The NYT does these “trend” pieces all of the time wherein Two People I Know Through Friends + A Professor = Trend. And Seligson has put together some pretty abysmal/wrong-headed/bullshit pieces before.
Please see her piece on why young chicks just ain’t fairing as well in the workplace(?!). Major culprit? Inability to use the “feminine tendencies” we should have been trained to use in college but equality got in the way.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/jobs/31pre.html?scp=1&sq=hannah%20seligman&st=cse
I’ve been working and producing work in the (visual) arts in NY for a while now, where people of privilege who are terrible/untalented (see: Dash Snow) have little problem selling work and selling stories – and this has always been the case. People have also been transitioning from finance to “the pure arts” (Jeff Koons, Jeffrey Deitch) or Hollywood to fine art (Larry Gagosian) for decades. I may not be so alarmed because (in addition to not numbers will be huge) this isn’t really new. (In fact, the influence of the finance world on the art world is waning due to the recession – no more hedge fund managers buying out thesis shows.)
That said, I would question the blanket assumption that, privilege aside, none of these men could possibly have anything to contribute (is the market really overrun with novels about South African Jews?) Or that they merely “deign” to take up their creative pursuits when they could be re-evaluating the lives they want to live, what is important and what is not – just like the rest of us. I’m fine attacking their privilege, but assuming they’re all wholly disingenuous isn’t sound.
@ gatamala
I, for one, read (and wrote about) the Seligson article at the start of the year. I wouldn’t assume that everyone not on board with all things stated in this article just didn’t bother to read the piece or don’t understand what’s going on.
Posted 23 Feb 2009 at 4:01 pm ¶
RJG wrote:
@gatamala: I do understand that with a new influx of rich white males that there may be some new or strengthened issues involving privilege and that allowing someone to get an EZ Pass off to artistic fame and fortune, but even then there’s still a certain level of “Oh so they think they’re artists now? FEH I been doing this for years!” going on.
The author says that “[Privilege] enables folks such as these Wall Street types to presume that breaking into– and succeeding– in the arts is a simple matter of choice,” and to me that translates into someone saying that knowing how to make good art isn’t possible unless there is struggling, suffering, or difficulty involved. Do all artists have to struggle, suffer, or live tortured/impoverished lives in order to be true artists?
I agree that the privilege people may experience when getting any kind of job or recognition should be recognized, but I disagree with the notion that someone can’t be good at what they do unless they… something.
It just feels like the “indie cred” argument I sometimes hear. If someone is lo-fi and barely known, they kick ass because all they can do right now is the local bar scene. Meanwhile, a hi-fi rockstar is a sellout because look at that corporate fat cat deciding that money is worth more than _the music_.
There are just too many parts of the article that go from “we should recognize the privileged that goes on when people of power decide to shift gears and have no real difficulty changing their lives*” (which I like) to “oh great more hacks like these people know what it is like to be an artist god damn more bullshit creativity on the way” (which I don’t like).
(*I also want to point out that this really is an important topic. The fact is that people with privilege will generally be able to handle this economic crisis a lot better than those without merely because of the privilege they had. Someone with a low income living check to check can’t just get laid off and decide to do something creative and fun, nor can they just use their connections to get a new job. Not everyone has the opportunity to go and store a few thousand/hundred thousand away in the event of a disaster, let alone go “hey I know a dude over in publishing maybe now is the time to write up that book I always wanted to do”.)
Posted 23 Feb 2009 at 5:17 pm ¶
A.D. Nix wrote:
@ RJG
There are just too many parts of the article that go from “we should recognize the privileged that goes on when people of power decide to shift gears and have no real difficulty changing their lives*” (which I like) to “oh great more hacks like these people know what it is like to be an artist god damn more bullshit creativity on the way” (which I don’t like).
This is kind of where I get lost as well.
Also: What’s the solution? That is, aside, from bracing for a supposed onslaught of “X Meets Annie Hall”?
Posted 23 Feb 2009 at 6:20 pm ¶
Jess wrote:
A.D. Nix–
cosign. and also, you’re so on about the way they do trend pieces. But I think Lisa Belkin is a worse offender.
Posted 23 Feb 2009 at 7:40 pm ¶
Jessica wrote:
I feel wallstreet has always had a hand in the arts, they just want to be more direct than before.
Can’t say I understand it, I never associated the arts with money unless you were WELL connected or “special”. Thats pretty much what the wallstreet types have going for them. They will make it because they entered the game with money already.
I’ve always seen art as something you do if you KNOW darn well you cant do anything else and be content. Otherwise, its a great hobby.
Art is trivialized in America. Sanctity? what sanctity?In schools and in wider culture. Americans barely even read…..
Posted 23 Feb 2009 at 8:35 pm ¶
Kaonashi wrote:
Ah, empires and financial institutions will crumble, but art is forever. While the knight, his wife, the blacksmiths and others go on to die, the artists live another day to create. That’s how it’s always been, from the beginning of time. But getting back on topic…
Sure, money might get your initial exposure, but talent and “being taken seriously” is a whole different ball game (kinda how Brad Pitt got the W cover story in the Arts issue for basically taking black and white family pics due to connections but doesn’t get 1/10th of the respect [or gallery showings] of people like Viggo and Ron Wood). And considering the nepotism, connections and asskissing one has to do to make it in Hollywood (not to mention the resistance from the old guard to reject anything new, fresh and moderately interesting) good luck to them on that. People who take themselves and their work seriously generally do NOT like people who are “slumming” it.
Posted 23 Feb 2009 at 10:12 pm ¶
coloredhoney wrote:
i had no idea of two things, the meaning of coterminous and that wall street bankers weren’t already a nuisance of a deluge in the arts. corporate record and film companies seem to offer the same 9 to 5 drudgery that wall street offices and their fat ass salaries offer. they seem to also offer the same amount of drugs and alcohol to dull the feeling that there are more dimensions to art/wall street. non-profits can and sometimes overwhelmingly require a fair amount of super exclusive high art knowledge to retain authenticity of being a lesser paid but high end snob “in the know” of what definitively is art. and the good ol’ indie company/start-up manages a circus teetering of selling out or remaining true to the game. these are narrow minded generalizations of course of intelligent genres of available to the pure artist who can’t work on wall street or hold an office job because it runs counter to what is legitimate time spent for the artist’s soul. white male privilege is one of those rubrics that many white people suffer under in all aspects of living. that the scare is hollywood will turn into a numbers crunching sky scraper having an affair with the secretary seems to be a most famous plot.
Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 12:54 am ¶
Lxy wrote:
Forget about the arts or movies, here is a much better opportunity for unemployed Wall Street banksters and corporate flacks searching for a new career path:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XGJq8wrw5I
Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 1:04 am ¶
gatamala wrote:
AD~ good points, I hear what you’re saying.
The author says that “[Privilege] enables folks such as these Wall Street types to presume that breaking into– and succeeding– in the arts is a simple matter of choice,” and to me that translates into someone saying that knowing how to make good art isn’t possible unless there is struggling, suffering, or difficulty involved. Do all artists have to struggle, suffer, or live tortured/impoverished lives in order to be true artists?
Absolutely not (I wish, I could pursue my creative instincts full on
). I get why you would take this as a real artist vs. poseur situation. I believe that it IS more complicated than that. You can be broke and make some utter bullshit (e.g., Gucci Mane).
My concern is that these people, who may already own the keys to the kingdom, will solidify their control of the avenues in which art is not just produced, but disseminated. I know that art has always had wealthy financial backers, who may not necessarily stay “behind the scenes”. You may argue that they don’t (he/she who has the gold makes the rules). I just see a very slippery slope of an influx (which can’t be compared to the 80s) of these folks bringing the restrictive ways that they know into an area that is already difficult for women/POCs.
I think what tipped it for me (A.D.) is this Toronto-linked think tank (I’m not in the NY vis arts world, but I do know DC think tanks) which has popular as well as academic and financial influence deeming the “best and the brightest” of Wall Street, the “best and the brightest” of the art world.
Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 10:40 am ¶
gatamala wrote:
RJG ~ my italics were for you.
Lxy, you are wrong for that link.
Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 10:44 am ¶
A.D. Nix wrote:
@ gatamala
Oh, def def def. That is all definitely suspect. I really do not like any of Richard Florida’s blind-ass books (he was also on Fresh Air the other day talking about how the economy will shape certain cities and it was pretty frustrating) and I seriously (seriously) share your concerns.
I mean, a life in the arts is already so inaccessible to so many people – I don’t want more of that. For example, everything is now soooo extraordinarily credentialized. If you don’t have an MFA, you don’t have a chance and it has not always been this way. But it’s what the gatekeepers have decided. How many people can afford to get an MFA? How many first-in-the-family college students pursue careers in an industry wherein it’s almost impossible for practically anyone to support him/herself without also killing him/herself – not a safe bet if you want to get over. Those gatekeeping Life-Long Producers or Gallerists From The Womb or 3rd Gen Legacy Harvard Editors trouble me much much more than a Plan B Swoop-in standing next to me at the gate.
But I definitely agree that said Plan B Swoop-in and his (her) compatriots are not, can not be what “saves” the arts (from what?).
Seligosn is high.
Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 11:49 am ¶
blip wrote:
I can’t tell you how many untalented, ball-less lawyers and bankers I’ve met in my travels as a filmmaker who’ve snubbed me for not breaking 20k a year and ‘thwarting’ my two degrees to dedicate my life to creating art. These lowlifes seem to have an arrogant attitude and believe the rote, logical, step-by-step route to becoming a lawyer is the same for making films. The good thing is, they usually quit when they realize that you often have to be smarter, more resourceful, and willing to sacrifice plenty to make meaningful films.
Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 1:00 pm ¶
blip wrote:
Lisa J wrote:
I’m sure they all didn’t but some of them may have had serious pressure placed on them by family and other loved ones to deny their artistic pursuits . Not to say your thoughts are wrong but I’m sure that for some of them they are taking advantage of the released pressure from making tons of cash to do something they’ve always wanted to do.
_______________________________
Sorry, Lisa, but I would call them wimps, cowards and jump-on the-bandwagonists who didn’t have the balls to set out to do what they were passionate about in the first place. Their lackluster dedication is not needed in indie films. We have too many people like them making terrible films already. If these people want to be involved in films, maybe they should bankroll them.
Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 1:23 pm ¶
waxghost wrote:
I understand this post in such a fundamental way. Just last night was a practice in demanding visibility for me; being female apparently means being required to prove myself to men as an independent actor in the very music scene that I spend so much of my time on. The thought of the ratios being even more unbalanced – of facing the possibility of being treated like a unimportant tag-along by an even larger group of men – makes me cringe.
Kaonashi, being taken seriously and considered talented is a lot easier if you are a white male. That’s a huge privilege that these people are bringing to the arts, regardless of the money involved, that many of us who are female and/or people of color have to jump a hundred hurdles to get to.
That said, I hate to complain and not offer possibilities. If anyone here makes “weird” music (examples at http://www.digitalisindustries.com), you should email me; I’ve got one established label that I run with my husband and a smaller, newer one that I run myself that I’d like to be primarily women and/or women of color.
Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 3:39 pm ¶
Kaonashi wrote:
Waxghost, I agree with you. It IS more difficult. But there’s a difference between having talent but struggling, and trying to buy your way in. Here’s a situation where we have a bunch of right-brained people trying to break into a left-brained world, and I daresay it’s not going to play out the way a lot of these people would like. The strong-arm aggressive Wall Street tactics don’t work here. In fact, I think in a lot of circles it will have the opposite effect because Blip’s attitude is NOT uncommon by a long shot.
ps. Congrats to doing it for yourself! ^_^
Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 4:21 pm ¶
waxghost wrote:
Kaonashi, I see what you’re saying now. Sorry for misunderstanding.
Well, thanks, but I had a lot of help from my “friends” White Skin Privilege, Middle Class Privilege, Apparently Heterosexual Privilege, and coat-tailed it on my husband’s similar “friends” too. I just hope that I can use that to pull some people who don’t have it up with me.
Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 4:46 pm ¶
waxghost wrote:
Er, my email address is tryptaminebutterfly at hotmail dot com. Thought it would show up on my name.
Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 4:51 pm ¶
Evan Carden wrote:
@Blip “I would call them wimps, cowards and jump-on the-bandwagonists who didn’t have the balls to set out to do what they were passionate about in the first place.”
Well, I’ll just call my sister and tell her she’s a wimp, coward and jump-on the-bandwagonist for daring to work at Shopko to have, you know, money, before going on to work in the field she’s passionate about.
I’m glad you can get by on less than 20k a year, but could you do that with a family to support? What about with, as Jess says, 100k in college loans due?
All that said, I do have to agree with the artist who looks at the financial world, looks at the banker and says, “Thanks, but no thanks, find some other world to save.”
Of course I’m blaming an individual for the actions of a group over which they’re unlikely to have any control…
Bad me…
Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 6:27 pm ¶
RJG wrote:
@blip’s “Sorry, Lisa, but I would call them wimps, cowards and jump-on the-bandwagonists who didn’t have the balls to set out to do what they were passionate about in the first place.”
…really? Wanting to financially secure yourself before doing what you want is seen as being a wimp? Reconsidering what you’re doing in light of your current situation means you’re a coward?
See, this is my main problem with the article. It makes the points I do support, but then gets into this “I am better than these people because I am the TRUE ARTIST” mindset that makes me question the actual intent of the article.
Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 11:56 am ¶
Kaonashi wrote:
No disrespect to RJG and Evan, but it’s true. I’m not going to sugarcoat it because most of us creatives see it every day.
Professionals have a tendency to get pissed off at dilettantes who think that what we do is so easy and fun, ANYONE CAN DO IT. It also doesn’t help that while people in the financial world might enjoy what we do, they don’t consider what we do as, you know, ACTUAL WORK. Finance is “gainful employment” while writing small screenplays or short stories that get published or performing at Comedy Shack warrants a “Okay, so when are you going to get a REAL JOB and grow up” from this crowd.
We work in fields where we frequently see idiots with bootleg copies of Photoshop and Indesign calling themselves “designers,” kids with cameras calling themselves “indie filmmakers” or “photographers” and every “performance artist” who has rolled across a stage in paint, chicken bones and glitter demanding that the world take notice of them because they are the most SPESHUL SNOWFLAKES EVAR without wanting to put in the work to get there. And when you have to deal with the Client Wife who has “taken a fine art class from time to time” and had her husband build a 50 grand attachment to the house for her hobby (that she uses maybe 3 times a year) trying to tell you how to do your job you start to have a very dim view of people like this. I have a thousand times more respect for the person who worked on the Street who quit their job and went back to do what they always wanted than the person who lost their job, wonders “Hmmm…I lost my well-paying job, what to do? Oh I know! I’ll become a creative! It’s soooo popular these days, and we can SAVE THE ARTS!”
Only someone whose arrogance is off the charts can even suggest that art needs saving. The financial markets are in the toilet, but somehow they are going to be the “saviours of art?” Give me a break; these people couldn’t even save their jobs! Art doesn’t need saving; it’s doing quite nicely, thanks. DO NOT WANT.
Posted 26 Feb 2009 at 8:10 pm ¶