How to Make a Living as an Artist

smokel 21 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

While this advice may work for some, I would like to point out that this person is making very popular art. This type of art is most likely easier to sell than what most contemporary artists produce.

Also, this remark is giving away a fairly limited view on art appreciation:

> While you can learn from failures, only sales strengthen the muscle because only they show that someone actually cares about what you are making

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. (Although there are some exceptions, such as Marina Abramovich, but those are very limited.)

Great for them, but this is not about all art. It just is impossible to live of most art forms. This type of art fits well with our economy, and therefore makes a living. That fit is more important than all the business advice put on top.

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.

	▲	xvedejas 5 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		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?

▲

a_t48 4 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Some interesting context here is that fnnch is disliked as an artist by many - https://www.kqed.org/arts/13896327/fnnch-honey-bears-street-...

I’m somewhat of two minds of the whole thing. I don’t blame the guy for making an income, but yeah, the honey bears are kind of boring, and especially w/ this post he comes off as a bit of a sellout. Art is weird.

▲

helloplanets 23 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> The Beatles wrote 227 songs, but only 34 hit the Top 10. Do you think they would put out a song that they didn't believe could be a hit? Mozart wrote over 600 songs, but only about 50 of them are widely played. Do you think he purposefully wrote duds? Of course not.

This is completely backwards. The Beatles put out songs that they didn't think were hits, and put out songs that they were conscious of being the antithesis of a hit. They wanted to freak people out from time to time. As many artists do.

Just check out Revolution 9. Pretty sure you can't get much out there than that when it comes to music of that era. And still very out there to this day.

Or for a more 'songy songs' that I'm pretty sure they didn't think at all in terms of hit material: Tomorrow Never Knows or Within You Without You. And there's dozens more.

	▲	WalterBright 8 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Writing a song is just the beginning. Then there is all the massive effort with the arrangements and polish for it (see George Martin). I doubt the Beatles would make the effort unless they thought a song was worth it.
	▲	RupertSalt 6 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		In the days of the Beatles, and throughout the heyday of the recording industry, the artists and their management pursued "hits", to be sure, and wanted to be seen on the Billboard charts and in rotation on the radio. But that was secondary to sales figures. It was the RIAA that certified sales figures and awarded the Gold Record, Platinum, and Double Platinum prizes. There were various formats that records could be distributed in, but let's simplify to the "album" and the "single". A single was typically one song on each side, A/B, and the A-side was considered desirable and marketable. Singles were purchased first by radio and dance DJs so they could be played individually on demand. There was a secondary retail market for singles, so consumers could purchase them as well. The record album developed from a set of many 78 discs and coalesced into a single, Long-Play, 33.33 RPM record. Its capacity was about 6 songs per side, depending on their length. There were various strategies for collecting songs into an album, such as a sampler of the artist's best, all their performances in a year's sessions, or even various artists. During the Beatles' fame, the "Concept Album" and "Album-Oriented Radio" (AOR) came into being. So you could sell singles with one hit song, and this would propel the "B-side" into people's homes as well, so they may get curious, flip it over, and play the B-side, but B-sides were often considered lower quality, disposable, or less popular. An album could sell great if it had one hit track. Recording companies would usually peel off the best tracks on an album to release as singles too, so that the radio play would promote the band and drive sales of the entire album. Many people who heard a hit song would be disappointed when they spent a lot of money on an album, only to find "filler" in-between, because the album format usually guaranteed a certain runtime or number of tracks. When the Beatles produced "Sgt. Pepper" it was a foray into the "concept album" where all the tracks contributed to a cohesive idea or theme. This tended to enhance album sales over singles, because the single would be a peek into the larger "concept" and whet the public appetite for the whole thing. When "Album-Oriented Rock" became popular, the DJs were freed from the constraints of playing "hit singles" in isolation and they were more encouraged to explore the unreleased tracks ("deep cuts") from albums, as well as tracks of longer duration that weren't appropriate for hit radio stations. In turn, AOR bands were under less pressure to release their "hit single" for every album and shielded from the phenomenon of "one-hit wonders" while instead their audience was, again, encouraged to invest in an entire album. In the 1980s, a 45 RPM single may cost $1.50 or $2, while a full-length album was $8.99 to $12. The format switch to cassettes was sort of masterful, because for a while, the 2-track single format was abandoned, and consumers were kind of forced to get the entire album on cassette. Yes I've ignored a lot of rough edges here, like the older 78s, and 8-track cassettes, and classical radio, but that was basically the landscape for pop artists, who needed hits but first and foremost, needed sales. The Beatles also capitalized on another enduring method of driving record sales: live performances and world tours. It wasn't called "The British Invasion" for nothing.

▲

lubujackson 25 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As a father of two small children during COVID, I can't begin to thank fnnch enough for his Honey Bear Hunt project: https://upmag.com/honey-bear-fnnch/

Hundreds (if not thousands) of honey bears were posted in windows around SF. It was one of those things that happens in SF every now and then, a mix of whimsy and hustle and unexpected joy. We couldn't take our kids to school, we couldn't take them to the park. Instead, we would drive them around town and have them point out all the honey bears they saw. "Honey bear! Another one!"

▲

hdra 14 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Maybe I'm being thick here, but i still dont quite get how does he earn money from his artwork?

For example, how does he earn from the Honey Bear murals? does the city or building owner commission him for the murals? If so, does he do some kind of outreach or sales call to the building owners or is it the other way round?

Not an artist and nor am I in the art world, just curious how does business work in there

▲

dimgl an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Good post. I'd argue this is very similar to solo game development. There's a lot of extra administrative stuff that simply has nothing to do with actually making games and a lot more to do with making a real business. So the framing there is accurate.

▲

futurecat 9 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

great post, thank you! I recently started showing and selling my art (I do plotter art and paintings). It’s both exciting and frustrating at times to see how pieces “land” or completely miss.

▲

alanning 30 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I appreciate the time and effort they put into writing that. Interesting to see not only their own art but also the examples from other artists.

Any recommendations for getting exposure to other on-the-way-to-being-popular artists like the X-Ray one that was highlighted?

▲

andreofthecape an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Move to Ireland, they just rolled out basic income for artists

▲

WalterBright 3 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

How does that work? How does the government decide who is an artist and therefore worthy vs someone who just pretends to be one to get the free money?

▲

s_dev 27 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Ireland is a great country but I wouldn't move here for that specific reason. There are other great reasons that would be much more important or relevant.

One reason to not move to Ireland is that housing is very expensive, there are plenty of other problems too.

▲

esafak 43 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Don't move for that; it's just $1,500/month.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/unemploymen...

▲

its_magic 27 minutes ago | parent [-]

Also, it's theft.

	▲	iamsaitam 6 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Why?

▲

Knucklebones 39 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I really enjoyed this post. Nice balance of pragmatism while enjoying the enjoyment of a craft in itself.

▲

gregrata 25 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Awesome post - really insightful!