Most people in their 20s today find themselves in a frustrating, drawn-out transition, especially the artistic types. No longer a child but not fully an adult, with enough creative skills to be taken (mostly) seriously as an artist, but lacking enough life skills to be laughed out of banks and non-creative professional businesses, being in one's 20s at this point in history is an awkward endeavor.
And yet, despite continued economic instability, there are generally good feelings towards artists, and plenty of good will. Many an article and blog argues that artists should be supported and encouraged, and that young people shouldn't give up on their dreams. But there is a great divide between the cultural belief in the work of artists, and an artist's actual ability to succeed.
What most creatives need is not a pat on the back and a thumbs-up -- they need analytic skills. They lack these skills because their brains are wired in a different way -- just as you wouldn't expect an accountant to suddenly know how to be a DJ or a dancer, you wouldn't expect a painter to suddenly know how to file insurance claims or understand the process behind financing a new car. Accounting, DJing, dancing -- these are all skills that must be learned, and most people know pretty early on what type of person they are: creative or analytic. A few manage to be an even mix of both, and the rest of us glare at them with rampant envy. Therefore, most people begin to nurture either their creative talents or their analytic skills, but hardly ever both.
In the past, most people have been forced into analytic work, whether they were wired that way or not. Number-crunching sorts of job pay, and they pay consistently. Besides manual labor, it's the most dependable sort of profession to get into. It's only within the last century that wide-spread professional artistry has been encouraged. While this is absolutely not a bad cultural step, it does present a bit of a problem: most artists aren't going to make money at their art, even if they're extremely talented. This has to do with a number of things: lack of marketing skills, unwillingness to commodify their art, lack of access to buyers, or, sometime, an actual lack of creative skill.
Thus, most artists have to do low-level manual labor or analytic work to supplement their creative work -- or, in some cases, to support themselves completely. Most artists, however, view this supplemental work as short-term, believing (wrongly or rightly) that their creative work will take off any day and launch them to a level of financial success that will allow them to devote the entirety of their time to creative endeavors.
Again, this simply doesn't happen for most artists. Just as few people become the CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, so too do very few artists achieve that level of financial success. The difference (again) is that lower-level employees in manual labor or analytic professions (let's just call them "number-crunchers") still make, if not an impressive, then at least a decent wage: enough to support themselves and live comfortably, if not extravagantly. Historically, these jobs have been portrayed as soul-sucking corporate positions that cost employees their dignity, integrity, and passion. While I think it largely depends on the specific company a number-cruncher works at, it is a mostly an exaggerated view.
Which leads us to a tangential issue: the great divide between creative and analytic professions. There is a stereotype associated with both: number-crunchers often view artists as lazy, unpredictable moochers who don't contribute their fair share to society, especially in terms of things like taxes while artists often view number-crunchers as soulless automatons with sticks up their asses.
While there may be a grain of truth to both stereotypes, they are not useful descriptions of either group. In fact, the great divide between the creatives and the number-crunchers hurts both parties greatly. In order to survive, creatives need analytic skills: they need to know how to do their taxes as independent contractors receiving non-taxed cash payments from clients, how to sign up for the correct health insurance, how to avoid lawsuits, how to follow health and building codes in their studios, how to invest their money so they have savings to fall back on when projects are scarce. Artists need encouragement, yes, but more than that, they need the support of the analytic community. Not as charity, not as hand-outs, but as a give-and-take exchange between creative intelligence and analytic intelligence.
The same goes for the number-crunchers. While there are creative aspects to most 9-to-5 jobs, it can be somewhat soul-sucking to repeat the same motions day after day, week after week, routine after routine, for twenty, thirty, or forty years. Creative expression -- or even simply observing creative expression done by others -- is a necessary spark of otherness in a world otherwise filled with repetition. Analytics need artists just as much as artists need analytics. The problem occurs when one group thinks they are better than the other: number-crunchers for being dependable and disciplined, and creatives for being spontaneous and passionate.
So, if you truly want to support an artist, help them out with their taxes. Tell them what they need to know before they go into a bank to ask for a car loan. Introduce them to financial managers or business consultants to help them cultivate the professional side of their creative work. And creatives -- understand the importance of business, law, and procedure in keeping employees (and independent contractors) safe, accountable, and productive. Give and take. Teach and learn. Grow together, and develop the analytic (or creative) side to yourself you never knew you possessed. You may just find a hidden talent, or find that your creative expression has sharpened with the clarity that comes from analytic process, and vice-versa.
No comments:
Post a Comment