Sustainability in the arts, funny haha...?

Lately, I've been reading some wonderfully hilarious articles about what it means to be employed by the arts. The Top 20 Most Powerless People in the Art World, and the Arts Handlers Olympics, both poke fun at the issue of sustainability in the arts, specially as it relates to young, "emerging" people in the field. I am not going to lie, I laughed so hard reading these, but I kinda also wanted to cry. This is sad.

As someone without a trust-fund, a ton of student loans (thank you year abroad!), who lives in one of the most expensive city in the U.S., and has two other part time weekend jobs, the articles hit a little too close to home.

Every two weeks I am painfully reminded that I am not in this for the money, and although it is refreshing and quite wonderful to meet countless talented people who are so passionate about what they do that they forgo "bigger and better things", hearing them talk about their 3 jobs, lack of 401 (k) and issues with health insurance and stability in general, worries me, specially cause here I am committed to stay in this field (cue my parents saying "why?!!!").

I wonder if we like feeling like martyrs, I guess I shouldn't generalize, but I have noticed that there is a romantic idea about poverty in the arts. The starving artist is not only normal, but cool.

A beloved program director (from one of Intersection's fiscal sponsor projects, don't try to guess there is over 100 of them), who infuriates me to no end, recently wrote in a grant report that his project had found a new sustainability model or "pre-non-profit", that puts all funding to creative risk by making all administrative and staff positions volunteer. Seriously! How is this a sustainable model? "Hey you should work for us for free because we are so cool! How you are going to eat, pay rent or live is of no concern to me!". Ugh! How do you expect to not only attract but retain the necessary talent that will propel your creative endeavors forward if you don't want to pay them! Ok yes, I could possibly see a model where people come together and volunteer their time and make something wonderful. Call me a B!@#$, but what do I get out of it? how is this worth my time? and what guarantees that I will give my best to something when I am tired from figuring out ways to be able to eat?!

I mean don't get me wrong, I volunteer for non-profit organizations often and I got my current gig thanks to an unpaid internship, but assuming that it is ok for your entire staff to be volunteer based, well that is just ridiculous! and the thing that bothers me the most is that, he is not alone in this way of thinking. Seriously! (and please forgive all my "seriouslys", I tend to do this when I get worked up, that and busting into Spanish), seriously! Who came up with the idea that making $25,000.00 or less from a job in the arts, sometimes after graduate work is sustainable? No wonder the arts is plagued with trust-fund babies, no wonder few people of color are leaders in the arts, no wonder government agencies, politicians and some people outside the arts have a hard time taking the field seriously (again!).

I read this great blog at artsjournal.com (I've been doing more reading than writing lately) that talks about art jobs and the fact that when addressing arts funding at a National level, we (artists, arts workers, arts advocates) fail to paint the picture that the arts aren't just a hobby or a form of entertainment, but the livelihood of a lot of people.

In a weird way I guess that having "improper" wages in the arts is assuming that they are a hobby, and I take it personally because it is not a hobby to me. I am by no means saying that arts organizations are "rolling in the dough" or hoarding their money, no way! we get paid what our employers can afford, but something is off. ( I am also not assuming that no one makes a living of the arts, I am actually certain that I could live just fine with what I make, but I love eating out). I guess what I am trying to say....yes, what was my point?....Oh yes, is that I feel like it is disrespectful to assume that only those who are truly committed forgo profit, to say that passion and payment are mutually exclusive, and that making a living from art is ridiculous.

Its sad, I have seen extremely talented people leave the arts, and non-profit for that matter, and not because they were less passionate or committed, but because they got a job that paid more.

My head is now starting to spin, again I feel like I've started with one thing and ended with another. I think that is just how my brain works, and since I have no real solution, all I can say is, that the arts will never stop being in crisis unless we find a way to attract and retain the talent we need to succeed - talent with or without trust-funds.