On the other end of the spectrum, "experimental artist" (whatever that is) Lawrence English wrote "A Young Person's Guide to Hustling (in Music and the Arts", which seems more like what you're after.

https://collapseboard.com/a-young-person%E2%80%99s-guide-to-... https://lawrenceenglish.bandcamp.com/album/a-young-persons-g...

Sure, you are right. For the article author's market, many are literally and metaphorically pedestrian, popular and colorful but uncomplicated.

I read a quotation recently that said in essence, the work of creativity moves from creating something no one else has ever seen or thought of, towards creating new and different insight into something almost everyone already knows about.

> The article does point out exactly this problem, but glosses over the fact that most artists don't want to change to popular art. Only a few can, and most don't want to.

I don't think author hides the fact. It's plain as day that to make a living, you need to sell art which resonates with people. You can still find room to be creative within that constraint, but you can't ignore the audience.

Artists should quit the illusion that they can create whatever they please and expect the income to automatically follow.

Yeah but I mean it does make sense though right?

> Most people who enjoy making art should not try to make it their full time job. When you turn an avocation (hobby) into a vocation (job) you have to do new things you do not enjoy. Emails, events, meetings, accounting, and more. These are not only a drag but can actually strip the joy from the rest of your art practice.

You'll have to do things you do not enjoy if you want to treat it as a business, including changing your artistic vision if needed etc.

> Art is absolutely an expression of yourself. But your art is not you.

A pragmatic approach could be to work on commericially-proven styles for money and your own style just for yourself (and potentially others if you make a branding that's famous enough).

At the end, yeah, it's a job if you want to make a living with art. There will always be market forces and to extract value from that, you need to understand and conform with it. But that's only if you see yourself as a business and not purely as an "artist" which I think is what you're reffering to when you say "most artists don't want to change to popular art" etc.

Also I don't think it's true overall. Like you say the "person is making very popular art" and that's why they're successful but there's many like them who are also making popular art but are not successful at all. It's also the process they follow and how they approach their business that sets them apart. That part is valuable info/guidance for any artist that does want to be commercially succesful imo.

> This is obviously not the case for art projects that target only a few people, or art practices that do not result in tangible objects.

Indeed, it's not like Tolkien worked on the Silmarillion for four decades before LOTR was published because he was trying to sell it.

great point but I think that even people who create "difficult" art can derive some sort of income from it. in fact, the solopreneurs section points to an opportunity for AI to be a helpful co-pilot on each of those mundane and dreaded tasks listed there. In additional fact, I asked Gemini Pro a while a go to spell out the steps to a successful fine arts career and the output was very similar to this blog's so square-one/concept validation, decision making (eg. given this list of business-relevant events and attendees, which should I prioritize and prepare for) are actions it can take on your behalf or help with. That said, once a critical number of people start getting the same advice, take the same action then you have another issue to navigate but it would be the same with any tech advancement, eg. the first artists to get their own phone line or a fax machine or a computer ...

As a resident of SF I've only ever heard of fnnch in the context of people hating his art (I still don't understand why). Is it a case of any publicity being good publicity?

I was thinking the same: we have all become pop-artists now since that seems to be what "sells".

Andy really knew what he was doing (from the classic interview): https://youtu.be/n49ucyyTB34

The author is fairly clear about it to me:

>One of the biggest mistakes I see artists make is painting things that don't resonate with people. Once you have an aesthetic that works, the market rewards you for exploring adjacent aesthetic territory. You might not make a living right away — it took me over two years from when I painted that first Honey Bear until I took my art full time — but it is totally necessary if you are to make a living off your own art (as opposed to teaching or commercial art). Until then, if what you're doing isn't resonating, you just need to just paint something else. Experiment with different concepts and directions until you find something that works.

He doesn't spend a whole lot of time deliberating on the literature versus television question, but it's easy to see what he's chosen.