One of those "artists" we've heard so much about.
According to a research study by the National Endowment for the Arts, “There are 2.1 million artists in the United States.” That’s about 1.4 percent of the total workforce.
Here are some other vague, tantalizing discoveries:
- Artists are more entrepreneurial (more likely to be self-employed) than the average worker.
- Artists are more educated than “the workforce at large.”
- Artists work from home from than the average (15 percent to 4 percent).
Revelations all. The way the NEA has defined “artist” is through these 11 occupations: actors, announcers, architects, dancers and choreographers, designers, fine artists, art directors and animators, musicians, other entertainers, photographers, producers and directors, and writers and authors.
We wonder if Rirkrit Tiravanija, who will be cooking Thai curry for MoMA visitors at an upcoming installation in November, qualifies as “fine artist” or “other entertainer.” Or does relational aesthetics explode the NEA’s confining categories?
At least we know for sure now that the terms “starving artist” is totally extinct. You see, according to the NEA figures, the median salary for artists ($43,000) is higher than that of the overall labor force ($39,000). We always thought Julian Schnabel’s paint-splattered clothes didn’t really speak to his income.
No matter what their other differences are, artists and designers should never be grouped to produce relevant statistics. Their indicators are wildly diverging, with both groups skewing the result for the other and rendering the result largely meaningless. You may as well take an average of artists and dentists.
I guess some fields like “work from home” etc. are still somewhat relevant, but that just makes it easier to fall for the FAIL of the rest of the survey.
But is all of that $43,00o strictly from their art?
FIRST BULLSHIT STATISTICS IN UNDER LANDESMAN, headline should read. I know his goal, what with “Art Works” and everything, is to promote the idea that artists are not layabout communists but hardworking contributors to American society and to the economy (an untimely message just perfect for the Obama administration…), but artists would be better served not by having their egos massaged by having the truth — which I do not know but which surely is not that they are generally “successful entrepreneurs” — broadcast. And @mariuswatz is absolutely right. Some of these 0ccupations may be directly involved in the arts, but they are not types of artists.
Oops, I mean “…having their egos massaged BUT by having the truth…”
I’d like to see how much the median income would drop if this were limited to the fine arts.
[...] that’s according to a recent study by the NEA, which has that artists earn, on average, $43,000 annually, 10% more th…. That would blow a hole in the whole “starving artist” mythology if I were apt to [...]
Here in South Carolina we constantly hear about the billions that artists add to the economy at the same time we keep hearing that government MUST pay them for their art or they won’t be able to survive at all. If they make such good money why are they constantly crying for someone to subsidize them?
Consider this…the highest paid actors are actually paid more than the highest paid CEO’s of fortune 500 companies. Oprah made something like $300,000,000 last year. That doesn’t move the median, but consider what it does to the mean. Now consider what you hear about CEO’s, average (mean) wages, highest paid, you never hear the median stated. Apparently if you’re an entertainer you can make an unlimited amount of money and it’s purely reasonable, if you’re paid 1/100th that as a CEO running a major bank you’re nothing but a thief. Michael Moore lives in a 3.5 Million dollar house, claims to be part of the 99%, and that’s accepted without resistance by the 99% crowds.
How much os the $43,000 comes from NEA subsidies?
So exactly why does the NEA exist?
Then why the hell do we subsidize them?
[...] More Entrepreneurial Than Average People: Also, they are better paid”–headline, GalleristNY.com, [...]
[...] Therefore Average People Should Subsidize Them “NEA Study Reveals Artists Are Smarter, More Entrepreneurial Than Average People: Also, they are better paid”–headline, GalleristNY.com, Oct. 28 [...]
My article-length comment is here:
http://grumpyvisualartist.blogspot.com/2011/11/article-my-quibbles-with-nea-artist.html