Making a living in Alt.

Richard Sullivan (richsul@earthlink.net)
Sat, 21 Mar 1998 06:37:10 -0700

Message text written by Bill Faulkner
>>
>I assumed that alternative photographic enthusiasts were primarily
>enthusiasts, hobbyists or academics. Is anyone making a living at this
>other than those providing services to hobbyists or teaching? My own
>interest comes from curiosity and the appeal of the non-commercial.

This has been a topic of some curiousity by me for quite some time. I think
the question can be broadened to include all fine art photography and even
art itself.

Question: How many people make a decent middle class income from fine art
photography alone, excluding workshops or teaching teaching?

In the current US I set this at the $45,000.00 per year level. My guess is
there is fewer than 100 and if I'm wrong, I bet it isn't over 200. You can
run down the list real quick: C. Sherman, J.P. Witkin, S. Mann, K. Izu, A.
Modica, Serrano D.M Kennedy.. and so on. This list is not in any order and
of course I've left out man. No I'm not privy to the 1040's but looking at
sales and auction catalogs gives one an idea. The point is when you go to
list the big ones the list is quite short. There is another factor that
enters in and that is reknown. One can be well known and not sell very
well. Also one can be fairly unknown and sell quite well. I know of a
photographer here in Santa Fe who does quite well selling at swap meets.
Nice work, and he keeps all the money, no 50:50 with a gallery!

So the question isn't as much about alt-photography but about photogray as
an art form itself.

Now we can extend this argument to fine art in general. I've seen estimates
as high as 40,000 per year as the number of fine art graduates turned out
by univesities in the U.S. per year. I am sure there are some accurate
figures around somewhere but let's for example assume that there are
25,000. This trend is also historically accurate, and I'd venture a guess
that the number has gone down as the trend has been towards "money" degrees
lately -- business, finance, etc. What this means is that over the working
lifespan of an artist, say 40 years -- 25 to 65, discounting Picasso and
others similar, that there is produced one million 1,000,000 artists in the
U.S.

The nature of the zero sum game of art becomes really evident when one
considers these figures and then estimates the number of people earning
that sacred middle class or better income from selling art and art alone --
no cheating by teaching income tax preparations courses or waiting tables.
My guess is that there is less than 10,000 earning a living on art alone. I
am also not referring to those working in commercial art which in no way do
I mean to disparage. Digesting these figures says that fewer than 1 in 100
people graduating from art schools will ever earn a living making art.

Question: How many young people entering art school are told the realities
of the career that they are embarking on?

Very few. From what I can ascertain, few graduating have any perspective on
what lies ahead. Back in 1978, I was on a committee formed by Josine
Starells of the Barnsdall Park Art Museum in Los Angeles. This committee
was formed from arts organizations throughout the City in repsonse to the
passage of Prop 13, which forbode far less money for non-profit arts
groups. Josine cited the fact that she had many MFA and BA Arts graduates
showing up with portfolios and without a clue. She said that that very day
a young women, a recent graduate with a degree, showed up, and didn't want
a show but wanted advice on which were the "best" galleries to approach as
she didn't want to sully her reputation by showing in lesser
establishments. Things may have changed in the last 20 years but I think
not. I believe the historical nature of the art departments in the
universities, plays a role in all of this.

Up through the end of the Fifties, it was common for women to plan on
marriage as a career. Many of those who were opting for the marriage career
wanted to go to college, and some of the popular majors were the in the
Arts. I also remember many wanting to get degrees in anthropology. A career
in the field was not a end goal. I think this may have left a legacy in the
art schools where they don't feel the need to train people to be
professional artists. Starving is so much more romantic!

I ramble too long, and though somewhat off topic, it does relate to what we
are about with alt-photo.

--Dick Sullivan


Bostick & Sullivan
PO Box 16639, Santa Fe
NM 87506
505-474-0890 FAX 505-474-2857
<http://www.bostick-sullivan.com>http://www.bostick-sullivan.com