Hargrove: "making a living as a working artist" is not an impossible, unrealistic idea... And lots of artists are bad at (c)... If you don't want to think about these things, don't try and make a living as an artist. It's TOTALLY FINE for art to just be a hobby. It doesn't make you a lesser person.
Lol well thank you for not thinking less of me for not trying to make a living as an artist. I am... not trying to be an artist... I am doing something else, though I still write. I make more than the EIC of the NY Times, a fact which actually makes me sad, and if doing that for a few years gets me the freedom to be a starving artist later (without the starving), well, that became my plan. Making money as an artist is unrealistic as a job prospect. Not even training usually prepares you for the business aspect. Most people I got my degree with thought you got it, left the university, and people threw jobs at you - they were right if they went with a business or finance degree, but not with an arts degree. Anyone but not everyone, as another poster mentioned, can be an artist. Anyone could maybe quit his/her job and be a mime in NYC. But very few people proportionate to the whole can/are making it work. It doesn't mean this one person you know who is good and has business sense shouldn't try if that makes them feel like rainbows and unicorns. And, it does mean that the general advice that art is a great career path is not really helpful. +10 for "poncing," thank you.
(Mara): Hargrove, I still think you are mistaken.
I would love to be. I think it's objectively true what I said about modern Western society not clamoring to throw money at art. You seem to separate fledgling freelancers from the Real Deal™ on the basis of resume credentials, which I don't think is quite right, but it is also true that a mountain of people who can draw things have no business sense (an unfortunate number only want jobs from the internet, which makes it more unlikely). But I never said wanting a job and
doing the right stuff to get it were the same.
A sad part of the business, which may be what is influencing your opinion, is that unqualified people think they will get work as graphic designers and will be surprised when they don't. I know whereof I speak because I own a graphic design firm.
My understanding is that it's more a problem of production vs hobby for many of them (your earlier point, perhaps). "I don't care that you make Swivels the Hero dazzling if it takes you 12 hours and should take 1." For another bunch it's not wanting to network. For another bunch it's not being good enough. Regardless of your willingness to sweep away the seriousness of these people, the fact remains that there are enough "bunches" that there's an army of free labor working for "exposure," just like in writing, objectively reducing the real and perceived value of production. I learned InDesign myself and created a journal layout from the ground up with it, represented at two major national conferences, edited freelance, and mentored an author who published and started a web comic. And, the bottleneck in both arts is IMMENSELY exacerbated by degree-holders living with parents and working for free.
If you want to do journalism or art, you walk into the university department and demand to see the computers. Then you check their InDesign and Maya and whatever else versions. If they're not there, or not up to date, you might as well pay 60k to your buddy for a sheet of paper to light on fire instead of getting your degree, because the most employable person will work with JUST THAT their whole academic career. Worse, your degree costs more than your entire first-year salary tax-free. And when you graduate there's a new InDesign or Maya or whatever anyway. Clock's ticking!
I have reviewed many, many resumes and interviewed many applicants. It was amazing how many people could not meet the minimum job requirements, such as experience with page layout software. Part of the problem is that many graphic design schools teach art theory but not how to use the everyday software designers need to use. This is fact.
I know it's fact. I have also reviewed many resumes - it's basically every field you get more job spam than you can read. The problem with what you're talking about is not as simple as "get the right credentials," however, because you can't separate the fakes from the real ones unless you have a test or hire them first. I have been an employer and can sympathize that you would totally hire the right person who learned the wrong version etc. if they were good and could learn, but you must also be aware that you can't figure out who is lying on their resume and who is good and who can learn until very close to or after the decision is made, and many potential artists get filtered out at that step. People who get weeded out for no prestigious degree but know InDesign are up a creek. People who are smart and capable in most capacities but don't know InDesign and are honest have a similar issue. And besides, graphic design isn't the only art job, so many never learn InDesign, and even universities with it often have the wrong one. None of this is the artist's fault, but MBAs don't exactly suffer from "had the wrong book/software, didn't get the job."
Same with fine art. It's highly unlikely that a person with minimal skills and without a consistent body of good work will get into galleries. The funny thing is, I never took a course in graphic design in school, but I did study fine art and later worked hard to learn graphic design software on the job and independently. The really good thing about graphic design is that your skills, portfolio, and work ethic are the only things that do count. The ones who lie may get a foot in the door, but they don't last.
I don't understand why you won't acknowledge competition is an extremely wide group in art. It seems a simple step to acknowledge from there that it's unusually hard to do what you're saying vs a different field. I believe you're a successful artist. I am not sure why you think it's just as accessible as the average job.