Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The feedback in this thread has been serendipitous. I had forgotten about it and I'm the OP. All I have at this point is an intense interest in what it would be like to live in New York; a great eye for a photograph; a "professional photographer" course under my belt with cityscape as my favorite photographic subject; a pension that automatically increases by 1% annually with no FICA deduction; health insurance; a built-in roommate in the form of a 54-year-old partner with a brand new BS in social work who's in need of full-time employment; a BA in English; a house to either sell or rent out; a sweet little cairn terrier; and my 56th birthday coming up Saturday - oh, and the ability to type about 50 words a minute - and an interest in getting one of those entry-level day jobs described in this thread. Or I might just stay here.
Problem today as it relates to you is that sadly being "older" is rough in NYC. Of course if you have talent and or can make a name for yourself then that is different. However despite all the hoopla over "gay marriage" and "equality" plenty of gay males, especially those >40 are in dire situations all over NYC.
The worse of course are those just as with straights that can no longer find employment for a host of reasons in their past craft/profession and pretty much are left to making do as best they can. A number of these are performing and other artists that for whatever reasons never found "big money".
Plenty of actors, dancers, writers, etc... were simply "jobbing" sort, that is they found work in this or that play, film, dance troop, etc... but never broke into "star" ranks, always in the core or background etc.... These persons would have relied more upon their "day jobs" to make money as pay back then wasn't so great.
I find the concept of being "left to making do as best they can" in NYC fascinating. Does "the best they can" in many cases mean living on the street even with a decent pension? Does it mean scraping by with several roommates and hoping you can come up with enough money by the time you have to pay the next month's bills?
I think a lot about what "dire situations all over NYC" look like on the ground. Practicing and marketing nothing more than a talent for enough money to "make it" well enough to keep a roof over your head in NYC and eat on an ongoing basis doesn't quite match up with the common refrain of how expensive housing is in the city.
I find the concept of being "left to making do as best they can" in NYC fascinating. Does "the best they can" in many cases mean living on the street even with a decent pension? Does it mean scraping by with several roommates and hoping you can come up with enough money by the time you have to pay the next month's bills?
I think a lot about what "dire situations all over NYC" look like on the ground. Practicing and marketing nothing more than a talent for enough money to "make it" well enough to keep a roof over your head in NYC and eat on an ongoing basis doesn't quite match up with the common refrain of how expensive housing is in the city.
Housing is expensive in NYC, especially Manhattan but as with many other goods and services it is relative to one's particular situation.
There are plenty of persons including no small number of seniors/elderly living in rent controlled stabilized apartments paying rent of say $600 per month. Problem is their total monthly income can be as little as $1500 per month (or worse, less) and much or all of that being Social Security. So after the rent, electric and ever present medical bills these persons can have very little money per month to live upon and that includes buying food. Have posted elsewhere about seeing no small number of seniors digging through rubbish bin liners in front of supermarkets and shops such as Starbucks as the primary or secondary sources of food. Increasingly am seeing middle aged and even some younger persons as well.
These persons are *NOT* homeless, but making do as best they can. One's first concern in NYC is always paying the rent or mortgage. Once that is done there are the rest of the bills, and sadly for some food is a bit down that list.
Yes, there are homeless who live on the streets, in vehicles and otherwise rough even with SS, SSI, veterans benefits and so forth. While they do have money it often is not enough to find housing. I know this personally again from seeing "homeless" persons waiting in line at my bank as they waited to withdraw or deposit money. The federal government has moved to paying out many benefit checks directly into bank accounts which means being homeless per se isn't the obstacle it once was to receive a paper check.
As one said upthread NYC has always been about hustling. You know what is needed versus what you've got or can expect to get. If there is deficit is must be made up the best way you know how.
Yes, for many "doing the best they can" means living with roommates, crashing on someone's couch, turning tricks or whatever to keep/put a roof over your head and food in your belly.
A good number of famous "star" artists both past and present did what they had to do in order to survive early years in NYC. Madonna IIRC lived rough. So did opera star Dolora Zajick CLASSICAL MUSIC - A Mezzo in a Class by Herself - NYTimes.com
Ms. Zajick's story in particular is right up your street in terms of answering your original query.
Bela Bartok, one of the greatest classical composers of the 20th century, basically lived on his friends' charity for much of his life. There's no guaranty art will pay even at the highest level.
Of course the most bourgeois option is to marry someone in a stable profession. This is not uncommon.
Not true at all. Unless they obtain the proper degrees and backgrounds, forgoing the art making.
Not true "at all"? Are you saying only a negligible number of art curators, salespeople and marketers who have a professional background and training in art?
Not true at all. Unless they obtain the proper degrees and backgrounds, forgoing the art making.
Persons one sees selling, working, or whatever in connection with art galleries, high end auction houses etc... are most certainly *NOT* artists. But children/persons from certain backgrounds (read wealthy or at least rich or upper middle class) that went to college and obtained BFA, MFA or similar degrees.
It is no accident you find persons like the fictional "Charlotte York" of Sex in the City to Princess Beatrice of York (daughter of Prince Andrew, Duke of York) working in art galleries or auctions houses or as docents, etc... Such careers do pay very well and or there is very little else one can do with an arts degree (aside from perhaps teaching), however if you are nice White/European background person from a certain class and not the brightest blub in the box.....
Of course much of this comes form the fact the children of wealth and privilege are taught about fine arts from an early age thus gain an appreciation. That and or they are surrounded by such things in their homes and or that of their family and or friends.
The whole process of obtaining a position in an art gallery and or say an auction house such as Sotheby's almost demands one come from a wealthy background. The sons (gay or straight) and daughters of rich or wealthy are well placed to have their meager stipends supplemented by trust funds or money from "PaPa and Mamma", grandparents, etc.. You have interns at Sotheby's who live on the UES (the rich heartland of the UES, from Fifth to Lexington) dress in Chanel, travel to Europe, etc... You are *NOT* doing all that on no money.
Gradually if these persons stick with things they are offered positions or set out on their own to run galleries, become appraisers, collectors, etc.... None of these things bring in a steady amount of money, especially big money. So they either marry it, have a trust fund and or receive financial support elsewhere.
This explains why the "art" world is mostly white/European background and from the same socio-economic demographics. These persons all know each other, marry each other and run with the same pack if you will.
Persons one sees selling, working, or whatever in connection with art galleries, high end auction houses etc... are most certainly *NOT* artists. But children/persons from certain backgrounds (read wealthy or at least rich or upper middle class) that went to college and obtained BFA, MFA or similar degrees.
There are lots of people from modest backgrounds who come to NYC and portray themselves as "artists" but do not pass muster to some observers - or in the eyes of certain beholders. Being affluent/white by itself does not exclude somebody from being an artist. And there are people who do hack it out in the world of art business through hard work and spectacular networking skills.
There are lots of people from modest backgrounds who come to NYC and portray themselves as "artists" but do not pass muster to some observers - or in the eyes of certain beholders. Being affluent/white by itself does not exclude somebody from being an artist. And there are people who do hack it out in the world of art business through hard work and spectacular networking skills.
Post was referring to another poster's comments that those *working* in art galleries and similar places were artists with *degrees*. Said nothing about actual artists themselves.
Persons one sees selling, working, or whatever in connection with art galleries, high end auction houses etc... are most certainly *NOT* artists. But children/persons from certain backgrounds (read wealthy or at least rich or upper middle class) that went to college and obtained BFA, MFA or similar degrees.
It is no accident you find persons like the fictional "Charlotte York" of Sex in the City to Princess Beatrice of York (daughter of Prince Andrew, Duke of York) working in art galleries or auctions houses or as docents, etc... Such careers do pay very well and or there is very little else one can do with an arts degree (aside from perhaps teaching), however if you are nice White/European background person from a certain class and not the brightest blub in the box.....
BFAs and MFAs are not working in auction houses, which are the venues of ART HISTORY.
Studio art and the history of art are two vastly different professions.
Quite seldom do they meet. I do know exactly one person who holds an MFA and is a practicing artist AND holds a Ph.D. in the history of art.
"Charlotte" ? was not an artist but an art historian.
There is no such thing there as an "arts" degree. Be specific, because the professional trajectories are.
Not true "at all"? Are you saying only a negligible number of art curators, salespeople and marketers who have a professional background and training in art?
You do not seem to understand the difference between studio art and the history of art. Entirely different professions.
The former, holder of BFA/MFA degrees, creates objects or concepts and attempts to situate these in exhibition venues. The latter holds advanced humanities degrees, BA/MA/Ph.D. - the last increasingly necessary.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
