First off, let me say I'm an artist. I've been an artist since I can recall.
I have a question about the old saying about "the starving artist".
In the past, I've always thought that this referred to most artists being unable to support themselves on the income generated by their work.
Now I'm doubting whether or not the old saying is quite right.
A bit of background story:
About ten years ago, I left a position in which I excelled in order to pursue my art. I work in glass; not an inexpensive media, to say the least. The materials and equipment are not easily obtained without lots 'o cash. In order to enter juried shows, one must invest in either their own photography equipment, etc. or else pay a photographer to catalog one's art. (Also not without significant expense to the artist.)
Add to this the expense of time away from work to travel to shows, expenses for booth fees/showcases/hotel/restaurants, etc., and it quickly adds up.
So, I'm thinking if the artist is truly starving, how can he/she afford to BE an artist in the first place? Perhaps those who choose to work in media beyond a stick and dirt are in fact NOT starving, but of the upper income bracket?
What do you think? Are there those whose talent is never realized for lack of funds? I would say most artists are "fully funded" in order to realize their "full potential".
And thus is born...the so-called "Patron of the Arts"!
