Does Having a Day Job Mean Making Better Art?

We all know struggle is a prelude to strong beliefs. And that much of quality art relates to the struggles of the common man. So why should this be of any surprise?

Re: Does Having a Day Job Mean Making Better Art?

#6

Post by 839083 » Sun, Mar 25, 2018, 6:36 PM UTC

The article is about the creators of “static” art: writers, composers, and artists. Having a day job would affect actors, musicians, or dancers, much like it would affect athletes. The artistic fields that require “dynamic” performance need the hours spent on muscle memory.

Re: Does Having a Day Job Mean Making Better Art?

#7

Post by asdf1234tx » Sun, Mar 25, 2018, 7:00 PM UTC

839083 wrote: post #6

The article is about the creators of “static” art: writers, composers, and artists. Having a day job would affect actors, musicians, or dancers, much like it would affect athletes. The artistic fields that require “dynamic” performance need the hours spent on muscle memory.

Live performance art can indeed impact time resources. But so can other kinds of art at intensive levels.

Indeed I have known, as you call them "static" artists, and "dynamic" artists (poor dividing lines for this conversation), that were so enveloped that they had no time for a day job, career, marriage, or children.

But I know far more artists that have plenty of time for additional choices, such as job, career, marriage, children, leisure, etc.

Back to the original point, I don't find myself engaging readily with people who don't know, or understand, profoundly difficult physical labor, and profoundly difficult mental labor.

Both are character shaping. So an artist who is lacking one or the other, I don't find accessible. It doesn't mean that we are all busy all the time, working and thinking hard, it just means that at some point in life, having gone through that deeply impacts a person.

Throw in a little philosophy, introspection, and reflection, and those kinds of artists can produce static or dynamic (to use your words) art that really pulls one in, and demands engagement.

Re: Does Having a Day Job Mean Making Better Art?

#8

Post by combatentropy » Sun, Mar 25, 2018, 7:06 PM UTC

bobowzki wrote: post #4

Paywall. Can someone provide a summary?

Many artists had day jobs. For example, the composer Philip Glass was a plumber, the poet William Carlos Williams was a doctor. The article explores whether a day job gets in the way of your art or feeds it in some way.

Re: Does Having a Day Job Mean Making Better Art?

#9

Post by jadedhacker » Sun, Mar 25, 2018, 7:37 PM UTC

NYT is always pro-working for people with money. Art freed from working works against the system as a whole because it shows other ways of being and thinking are possible.

I'm sure there's something to artists living and working among the rest of us to make the art relevant, but it doesn't need to be on an employer's schedule or in the quantity they demand.

EDIT: For instance, having a job allows an artist to be a mirror of the current society, but does it help them look beyond it? Maybe, maybe not.

EDIT 2: Note this article is not by an artist for artists. It's aimed at non-artists.

Re: Does Having a Day Job Mean Making Better Art?

#10

Post by ruminasean » Sun, Mar 25, 2018, 7:37 PM UTC

I had the best of both worlds, working as a photographer and in a lighting gig in TV with enough downtime to do all the work on what I shot when I wasn't working. Then, the photography thing took off, the lighting gig got crazy busy and my other other job got crazy too. Now I'm so tired I can't even think about working on photos and I never get time off. Be careful what you wish for....