Brazen careerist
Where ambitious young professionals connect and grow
Email
Print
We know art school grads are trained to have expensive taste, so why ask them to compromise when everyone else has to? Check out the nouveau hedonism for today’s poor epicure, from Salon’s Hipsters on Food Stamps,
In the John Waters-esque sector of northwest Baltimore — equal parts kitschy, sketchy, artsy and weird — Gerry Mak and Sarah Magida sauntered through a small ethnic market stocked with Japanese eggplant, mint chutney and fresh turmeric. After gathering ingredients for that evening’s dinner, they walked to the cash register and awaited their moments of truth…
Magida, a 30-year-old art school graduate, had been installing museum exhibits for a living until the recession caused arts funding — and her usual gigs — to dry up. She applied for food stamps last summer, and since then she’s used her $150 in monthly benefits for things like fresh produce, raw honey and fresh-squeezed juices from markets near her house in the neighborhood of Hampden, and soy meat alternatives and gourmet ice cream from a Whole Foods a few miles away.
“I’m eating better than I ever have before,” she told me. “Even with food stamps, it’s not like I’m living large, but it helps.”
Mak, 31, grew up in Westchester, graduated from the University of Chicago and toiled in publishing in New York during his 20s before moving to Baltimore last year with a meager part-time blogging job and prospects for little else. About half of his friends in Baltimore have been getting food stamps since the economy toppled, so he decided to give it a try; to his delight, he qualified for $200 a month.
“I’m sort of a foodie, and I’m not going to do the ‘living off ramen’ thing,” he said, fondly remembering a recent meal he’d prepared of roasted rabbit with butter, tarragon and sweet potatoes. “I used to think that you could only get processed food and government cheese on food stamps, but it’s great that you can get anything.”
What are these so-called artists learning in art school? How not to make an honest living and how to mooch off others? Apparently, I should not be so judgmental, and assume these highly-educated artists are entitled to this support because of their creative output.
“At first, I thought, ‘Why should I be on food stamps?’” said Magida, digging into her dinner. “Here I am, this educated person who went to art school, and there are a lot of people who need them more. But then I realized, I need them, too.”
I’m really quite appalled at her rationale. Even from a graduate just out of school, I might understand, since this is the worst economy in decades. But these people are just a few years older than I am, plenty of time post-graduation to realize they might need to diversify their potential streams of income. I’m also an educated person who went to music school. Once I realized that I, too, was unwilling to eat ramen to make ends meet, I did not seek ways for others to subsidize my chosen career path. I found additional work and education that allowed me to support myself and my family while maintaining a level of artistic output I am happy with.
Am I totally alone in thinking other (admittedly) able-bodied, educated artists should find honest work, even if not in their chosen field – and save the food stamps for those who really can’t afford to live?
For more timely, relevant, and engaging articles,
subscribe to Brazen Careerist.
- A New Kind of Business Mover and Shaker
- How To Find a Writing Partner Who Can Help You Achieve Your Goals and Make More Money
- The Anti-Stalker’s Guide for Converting Online Contact into Real World Collaboration
- Why You Might Be Better Off Without a Job After College
- Continuing Education: Extending Learning Beyond Your Campus Years
Comments
03.25.10
Hi,
Jimmy this side from Canada. The things mentioned are unanimous and needs to be appreciated by everyone. This blog really have useful information for everyone.
Thanks
Peter
dell laptop parts
03.25.10
I understand and appreciate that the point you're making is that these artists are accepting food stamps to help make ends meet rather than finding jobs that are perhaps outside of their fields of expertise but that may more easily support them. However, this plays into something I have been thinking about recently, which is that it is frustrating that our society does not appreciate or care to subsidize art for its own sake. These days it is extremely difficult for an artist to subsist solely on being an artist unless they are doing so as though it is a business-- that is, for profit, which means they are making art to the specifications of what they find others want to purchase, and not as a realization and pursuit of their own creative impulses. I worry that this indicates that in our society we equate professions that make more money as somehow more worthwhile, while discriminating against people in less lucrative but more creative artistic fields.
You are lucky that you have been able to find work which allows you to support yourself and to also maintain a level of artistic output that you are happy with, but I feel that you are in the minority there. I am writer who has always worked an unrelated full-time job to support myself, which leaves me very little time and energy for me to follow my true creative passions. It makes me wonder, how are artists generally expected to have the time and energy to be creative if they are also working full-time to support themselves? Why does our government give people money simply because they are out of work, but we do not subsidize people to be productive artists? What does this say about our values and priorities? How is art supposed to move forward and develop in our culture and continue to engage and inspire others to be artists if it is slowly being suffocated through a lack of understanding of the requirements an artist has to be productive and prolific? It seems like the only people who can afford to make art these days are those who are born into wealthy families who are able to support the choices they make. If these less fortunate artists want to accept government assistance to buy food while they struggle to be artists, I don't immediately disparage their choices; I envy their audacity to make that choice: to say that art is important enough to them and to everyone for them to ask for assistance to be artists.
There are plenty of ways to misappropriate and exploit government assistance, but artists who use money that is given to them to buy food, to buy healthy and nutritious food, is not a particularly abusive thing in my opinion. Should they instead buy white bread and American cheese and other unhealthy food, in penance for accepting government assistance? Should they feel bad for being interested in cooking and food? Should other people who receive food stamps not use them to purchase equally healthy and nourishing food (if they do not live in a 'food desert', as many do)? And if these artists are supposed to feel guilty about receiving food stamps, why should others not feel guilty for doing the same thing? In this economy, I also find it difficult to judge the choices anyone makes in order to make ends meet, including artists.
Thank you for your piece; I definitely think that you have raised a very interesting point here that deserves lots more discussion. There are certainly no easy answers here.
03.25.10
@Molly - You bring up some excellent points. I think artists are valued and their activities are subsidized to a great degree via public and private means. I also think in this economy, the arts will suffer because when making a choice to donate to hunger relief versus the ballet, many feel that giving people enough food is the more critical need.
Of course, you may disagree on what level of subsidy the arts deserve, but we should for now just look at what happens when an activity is subsidized: you always get more of it. When the government subsidizes arts, food stamps, or the purchasing of homes for low income families, you just get more and more consumption of it. This is, of course, the intended result. However, the problem is that there is always going to be some portion of the intended beneficiaries who are crowded out from receiving the benefit. When arts are subsidized, it is not as if the money just goes to the current pool of artists and can be reasonably assumed THEY will be the beneficiaries, even if that is how the funding was planned. This is because the government cannot simultaneously give subsidy and then restrict who may be eligible for it. Eligibility is open to all artists. So, as a result, more people become artists. This may mean more people call what they do "art" (Such as in Norway where strippers receive a tax break because they are professional dancers) or more people go to art school since the field is perceived as less risky.
So in this case, what that means is more and more people will want to become artists, since the inherent risk of the lifestyle is being lessened due to subsidy (which as we both know, is still hard to get) but if the government also subsidizes things like food and housing, people can continue to choose risky careers whether they are in the arts or simply working a minimum of hours to be eligible for government assistance. Again you might not think this is a bad thing - but it must be recognized subsidy sets up an ongoing cycle that once broken - can be devastating as well as have set up expectations of restoring the benefits.
You might already know that Norway subsidizes their arts far more than America, however, the result was that far more people decided to become artists (since all it really takes is a declaration on a tax form, or lobbying to code an activity as art, such as strippers above) and the number of "artists" who benefit from the subsidy far exceeded original government projections, putting the program in jeopardy. Furthermore, there is such a proliferation of art in Norway that it fills warehouses and will likely never see the light of day. So we might ask if increased art subsidy really leads to increased art appreciation, or just an increase of art that no one really wants in the first place? It is not like these paintings and sculpture were sold to museums or households that could not previously afford them, but now could since they were created via subsidy.
I recently wrote a piece about art subsidy in London, where a children's art program was created, but too many supposed middle-class citizens were utilizing the program, so it was shut down. Not to mention with government subsidy comes implicit censorship. Just look at recent tax credits in the US for the film industry - where films portraying gay relationships cannot get funding. If you are interested in this topic, I highly recommend the book "Money for Art" by David Smith.
03.26.10
Hi Milena, Thank you for your prompt and very thoughtful response, you bring up a number of excellent points as well! I will definitely have to check out the book you mention, as this is a subject that I would like to learn more about. Thanks again for a thought-provoking discussion!
Got Something To Say?
Got Something To Say?
Not a Member? Brazen Careerist is a career management tool for next-generation professionals. Set up a free account today to comment on this post and start sharing your ideas. Learn more.
Login to view your networks!
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
