It sounds like / I feel like there's two categories of artists; the one is in it for the art (and would benefit from e.g. a patron or subsidies like the Irish one mentioned elsewhere / also currently on the front page) if their stuff isn't commercially viable.

But the other, and this is the vast, VAST majority of people, create content. Not to be too disparaging, but if the objective is a paycheck then that's what is being made. And this is everywhere - marketing, digital design, video game assets, book series, commissions, etc.

Yes it takes artistic skills to do it, but is it "art"? Is it something (as the comment I'm replying to says) "novel or contextually relevant"? Or is it doing what needs doing because the boss says so?

I think it's important to make this distinction. And that's also the gist of people who want to do art as their day job - there's plenty of work, but you have to accept you're doing what other people want you to do instead of try to do something new.

You’re making a point mostly about aesthetics. But regardless of aesthetics, to be a working artist, the artist needs to make money.

Sounds like you make money partially by teaching and partially by gallery sales. Which are two of the commercially viable paths that are mentioned in this essay.

> Then over time, if you get paid for the art, cut down on the part-time job, and repeat.

The point of this article is simply that the above will not happen by accident.

Post your work