The Artist's Career Path

Recently I was looking at the staff profiles for a nonprofit arts organization, and it should not surprise anyone that everyone on the staff was also an artist. What got me thinking, though, was one of the questions that each staff member answered on their profiles: “If you weren’t working here, what would you be doing?” Almost everyone answered with some sort of art career (running an art gallery, being a professional actor, singing, etc.). Even though I know I’m not really one to talk, I wanted to ask these people, if that artistic pursuit is really your passion, why aren’t you out there pursuing it? Not in a judgmental way-- just because I’m curious.

To be an artist or an arts administrator, that is the question. I suppose it’s not strange at all that these people wanted to be artists- after all, who goes into arts administration, if not people who care about the arts? Clearly these are not high-paying jobs, and like being an artist, you only work in the nonprofit sector if you love it or feel very strongly about a particular cause. The big difference is that unlike being an artist (probably), you will get paid every other week.

It makes sense- you love the arts, but you don’t want to starve, or you’re tired of the uncertainty of wondering where that next commission or performance will come from. It seems that the more typical path is teaching, which comes with some of the same benefits as working for an arts organization (namely, you still get to be involved with your art but you are guaranteed a paycheck). Some might argue that as a teacher or professor, you have more flexibility and are encouraged to create your art, whereas at an arts organization you are arts administrator first, artist second (or not at all). You’ll never get time off (like summers or a sabbatical) to pursue your art (unless you have a very generous boss); however, you will most likely have your nights and weekends free, and you can choose to pursue your art in that free time instead of grading or writing lesson plans.

So why are artists so much more frequently encouraged on the academic path than on the arts organization/administration path? Why is one so much more “prestigious” in the minds of many artists (and perhaps non-artists) than the other? Both careers allow you to have an influence on your field- either through teaching and shaping young minds, or by doing whatever your organization does (funding arts programming, lobbying our government to pay attention to the arts, promoting arts and artists in your city, donating instruments to schools in low-income districts, etc.). But on a personal note, I have never been encouraged by a professor to look into a career with an arts organization, while being constantly told I should continue my career with more graduate school. Even though I am a huge fan of nonprofit organizations, having worked for several, I still feel that being a professor comes with much more prestige (which is not to say I think that should be the case, or that we should even be concerned with prestige).

On a side note, I am ignoring those artists who start their own ensembles, organizations, and even studios. These people are clearly both artists and administrators (although may also have difficulty finding a steady stream of income), but due to lack of space we will address this in a later post.

So back to professors versus arts administrators. Is my feeling that professors garner more respect because they generally have more education than arts administrators? I would imagine that on the whole, professors as a group have accrued more PhDs than arts administrators, but many arts administrators do have advanced degrees, and some even have PhDs (although I suppose some advanced degrees are probably in business or nonprofit management). I don’t think professors are generally paid more than arts administrators, and in our society that’s usually the mark of success and prestige. Is it influence? In this category, I tend to think arts administrators might win, although again, it probably depends who you think is more important to influence (i.e. a student who may go on to win a Pulitzer or writing a grant to open a new performing arts center in a neighborhood that traditionally doesn’t have access to the arts).

Probably many more artists are influenced by arts administrators than the other way around, but of course it becomes a chicken and the egg question – if there were no artists, then there would be no reason for arts administrators to exist, but if there were no arts administrators, perhaps artists would have difficulty getting much done. I’m not sure I entirely agree with that last statement, but for arguments’ sake let’s just say both groups need each other in order to prosper.

But back to my original question- can someone who is truly passionate about their art be both an arts administrator and an artist? Why does it seem that artists don’t consider administrators to be capable of creating art? And if this is the case, why is the conventional wisdom that one can easily be both a professor/teacher and an artist? Or is this just a nagging feeling I have that isn’t based on anything but my own insecurities?  

Posted by Sarah