Results 1 to 13 of 32
Thread: Artists can now be employees.
October 22nd, 2012 #1
Artists can now be employees.
I've never seen anything like this before.
They hire artists who receive a monthly wage and employee benefits. (to be fair: just "challenged" artists who have difficulties with the business part)
On the one hand, it's cool to just paint without having to worry about the next paycheck. On the other hand, you probably have absolutely no choice but to accept each and every commissioned work you're being assigned. But then, isn't that the same as in every other job?
Hide this ad by registering as a memberOctober 22nd, 2012 #2
October 22nd, 2012 #3
I have to say it looks suspiciously like one of those deals where people send in their snapshots and get them turned into paintings... In other words, yeah, sweatshop-ish... Given the quality and nature of the art in their gallery, I'd be pretty leery of it.
Though if it's a way of giving regular employment to otherwise "unemployable" people, I guess that's cool. As long as they pay decent wages.
October 22nd, 2012 #4
I am curious what these decent wages are. Maybe an ok way to make extra money on top of your 40 hours work week?
It does look like I have to be challenged in some way, and I am definitely not challenged enough. Looks like you would have to make up some sob story.
Either way I doubt their wages are worthwhile. Does anyone know for sure?
October 22nd, 2012 #5
October 22nd, 2012 #6
It's funny, because when I was a kid I told myself..."I want to be an artist and get paid to do what I love".
The most important part of that, though, is "to do what I love". Painting junk things for junk clients isn't what I love to do, personally.
But we don't always have the luxury, I suppose. I guess it's great for the true starving artist.
October 22nd, 2012 #7
October 22nd, 2012 #8
The Following User Says Thank You to QueenGwenevere For This Useful Post:
October 23rd, 2012 #9
On the other hand, it also prevents me from achieving anything else of any note. But I think I'll go the Van Gogh way: go nuts, indulge in absinthe and self-mutilation, and then achieve fame despite lack of ability. :-)
October 23rd, 2012 #10
October 23rd, 2012 #11
I should say, mind you, that I am very much a fan of his work, and rather weirdly, perhaps more of his early work than the stuff he got famous for. He kind of gives me hope: only seriously started as adult, never achieved the slickly professional look required by the academies, produced some work that is almost blatantly crude, yet still managed to speak to many generations.
That means there must be some hope for the likes of me. :-)
October 23rd, 2012 #12
His early work is pretty much an eyesore, if you ask me. (I have to wonder about some of his later work, too...) Van Gogh is weirdly inconsistent that way. When he's good, he's really pretty good, but when he's bad, he's horrid.
Granted, he started late in life and had... personality issues... that must have made him a very difficult student. If he'd been on these forums he'd have gotten banned for persistent obnoxiousness and whining.
October 23rd, 2012 #13