Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to make a living as an artist

essays.fnnch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 130 posts

Re: How to make a living as an artist

#41

Post by wavemode »

hdra wrote: post #13

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

Probably here: https://store.fnnch.com/

In the blog post he also mentioned doing commissions.

As for the public art, I don't think he was directly paid for the initial honey bear, I think it was just marketing - that is, its popularity boosted his following.

Re: How to make a living as an artist

#42

Post by PandaRider »

a_t48 wrote: post #19

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.

Hmmmmm

> “These bears have become synonymous with gentrification in San Francisco,” he told fnnch, “and the displacement of the artists that come from here.”

I have mixed feelings (i.e. I understand your boredom) of his honeybear art from a pure aesthetic pov. However, (as any modern viral influencer knows), any successful artist will invite haters. This article reinforces the notion that fnnch is very successful...

Re: How to make a living as an artist

#43

Post by the_cat_kittles »

fergie wrote: post #39
andreofthecape wrote: post #2

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

Could go either way- I think that ruthless free market forces are what keeps art good.

yeah! without the threat of financial ruin we'd never get to have the brilliance of thomas kinkade and kenny g

Re: How to make a living as an artist

#44

Post by mchaver »

andreofthecape wrote: post #2

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

There is a program for Basic Income for artists in Ireland, but it obviously assumes you are a legal resident of Ireland. It is limited to 2,000 artists and there are more applicants than there are spots. Property rental is expensive in Ireland. If there are people seriously interested, these links should clarify the details of the program.

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

https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-culture-communications-a...

https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-culture-communications-a...

Re: How to make a living as an artist

#46

Post by shubhamjain »

smokel wrote: post #12

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 maki…

> 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.

I don't think author hides the fact. It's plain as day that to make a living, you need to sell art which resonates with people. You can still find room to be creative within that constraint, but you can't ignore the audience.

Artists should quit the illusion that they can create whatever they please and expect the income to automatically follow.

Re: How to make a living as an artist

#47

Post by amanaplanacanal »

roysting wrote: post #37
cal_dent wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Off topic but always incredible to remember the Beatles only recorded for what 7-8 years. Incredible what a legacy that is for such a short period of being a band

The irony is that knowing all the other things that were going on during that period, it sure is good that they were not at all artificially promoted for social engineering purposes, and we can totally be sure of that without any shred of doubt or question.

Artificially promoted (by who?) for (what) social engineering purposes?

And frankly, isn't all promotion artificial?

Re: How to make a living as an artist

#48

Post by Trellat »

WalterBright wrote: post #15
helloplanets wrote: post #11

> 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 antit…

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.

Of course, but ‘worth’ does not encompass only monetary worth!

Re: How to make a living as an artist

#49

Post by dgxyz »

I worked out it's easier to make a living doing something well paid and do the art on the side. Sometimes people pay me for the art if I'm lucky, mostly photographic prints. I wouldn't want to do it the other way around.

Re: How to make a living as an artist

#50

Post by toofy »

WalterBright wrote: post #15
helloplanets wrote: post #11

> 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 antit…

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.

being “worth it” and being “a hit” are two different things. the parent is trying to point out they made songs knowing full well those particular song would never be a hit, but they definitely thought it was “worth it.”

many artists do things often knowing they won’t make money from that piece. and some artists believe money should never drive why you create a piece of art, different reasons should be at the forefront, should be the driving force, some force other than widespread success.

the beatles were well known for making thing they did not water down for the masses, knowing it would likely not be a commercial success. and conversely they were also known for intentionally watering things down so the masses would take it. it’s one part of why they have stood the test of time.

Post reply on HN