Of the high student debt, she [the program's art director] said, “I feel the real question here is how artists make a living in America, and this points to the underlying issue of how the arts are valued in America, in a transactional capitalist economy.”
Oh those evil capitalists and their transactions. Of course, her school was more than willing to transact with students for tuition payments. Hmm, I wonder how much the school has offered to refund?
Some artists make an extremely good living by creating work that large numbers of people want to look at and own, and by exploiting technology and business systems to allow them to sell to as many of those customers as possible without sacrificing quality. Others make a living by working for an employer or customer, creating and selling pictures or sculptures for money based on a commission. Some make a living by competing for contracts to provide art for public spaces like overpasses or courthouses. In order to do that they have to create large sculptures, paintings, or installations that appeal to enough people to allow them to win the competition for the work. The vast majority make a living by creating advertisements and background material that's part of a larger product or service such as a video game or hotel décor.
Only a very few artists become so popular in their own lifetime that people pay top dollar for their work no matter what they create, so that they can create art solely to express themselves or relieve spiritual or emotional discomfort-- the literary and artistic equivalent of popping zits-- and people will buy it. In this way they're not too different from musicians. To get by, everyone has to generate value for the customer.
The quotation from the art director, taken without context as a stand-alone sound bite, almost suggests that the art director believes the situation should be otherwise, and artists should be able to earn a living without creating work that has enough value for someone to exchange money for it.
