The Bourgeois Life of an Artist
I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.
--John Adams
When given the complete freedom to do whatever one wants, I find it beautiful that so many people make art. It is my belief that humans are inherently creative beings, and given the time and the means we will inevitably find, imagine, and create beauty in the world.
And yet, the plight of the artist remains one of underemployment, sharing one’s work for free, and getting paid in exposure points. Those passionate and courageous enough to walk this path face instability, or given the coveted stable position, are exposed to hierarchical power structures and exploitation. Of course this isn’t ideal for the artist, but it’s also bad news for the art that is made.
Virginia Woolf aptly observed that a writer needed her own space and a liveable salary to write well. Apart from the necessary business of survival, one cannot thrive under conditions of always looking over one’s shoulder, as this creates a defensiveness in the work; writing to dispel imaginary arguments against one’s writing instead of getting lost in creative flow.
Between billionaires hoarding wealth and capitalism’s dissolving of the middle class, this room of one’s own can at times feel luxurious and unattainable. The growing wealth gap has revealed an increasing contempt for things that were once enjoyed regularly by the middle class.
Take Daisy Miller who was eviscerated on Twitter for tweeting "my husband and i wake up every morning and bring our coffee out to our garden and sit and talk for hours. every morning. it never gets old & we never run out of things to talk to. love him so much." The tweet started to go viral when users on the platform showed outrage for this privileged and out of touch lifestyle. To me this is the perfect illustration of the increased conflation between daily comforts and ultra-rich money hoarding. Flying in a private jet and having coffee in your garden are not the same.
It is this same conflation of small luxuries with immense wealth that breeds the perception that artists are not really hard workers, or contributing anything valuable to society. In fact, detractors say, it is their immense privilege that allows for them to dilly dally professionally.
The Woolfian room of one’s own has also become something of a luxury, with space becoming expensive and time becoming scarce. The acceleration of capitalism also demands an increase of wage labor at the altar of profit; meaning artists spend their time working for someone else, with little time left to their own creativity. The people afforded time to think, sit in stillness, and meander, all things essential for creativity, are often wealthy.
A negative feedback loop is created when it comes to the perception of the artist. Time and space are needed to make art, time is the new frontier of luxury, so those making art must be privileged and wealthy. This despite the precarity that most artists live under–sacrificing creature comforts for the chance to let the creations burning inside of them out into the world.
Nepo babies also contribute to this phenomenon as they seemingly waltz into hyper competitive artistic careers. We see Brooklyn Beckham dabble in photography, only to abandon this pursuit which requires expensive equipment for a new dream of being a chef. This dream would not be the final iteration of Beckham’s abandoned projects. We also see Lily Rose Depp runway modeling despite being only 5’3. The children of wealthy celebrities are allowed to try on different identities and abandon their pursuits whenever they get bored. Nepo babies are not born bad, or necessarily causing harm, but we resent them as they skip several rungs on the ladder us regulars are left behind to climb. They reach an apex in their careers that many spend decades building towards, simply because they had the thought to try it out.
Additionally, neoliberalism has created a narrow rationale for the value of art. That is: art’s value lies only in its profit making potential. We see the commercialization of the arts: with many of our generation's greatest talents putting their art into a product that will be sold to the masses (not art for the sake of itself). We also see the attempt to critique this commercialization in the Tom Sach’s-esque McDonalds art that some would say remains derivative of Andy Warhol’s earlier work.
Because of this, those left to make art for art’s sake are often well off, furthering the notion that the artist is a lounging aristocrat to be envied and even ridiculed for their laziness.
When taken together, that is a shrinking middle class, a contempt for small luxuries, an increased visibility into nepo baby artists, and the rise of neoliberal ideals, we are left with a tattered and confused perception on who artists really are.
Are they bereft outcasts on the fringe of society? Or are they wealthy elites, the only individuals remaining with time and money enough to bring a vision to life?
The artist on the fringe of society is uniquely positioned to make meaningful art, specifically because their exclusion makes them most adept at critique and observation. The outsider has a truer perspective looking in. This is why queer folks and minorities have always been at the forefront of culture making.
Conversely, the elite who are afforded the right to make art can never truly critique society, because their very existence is made possible by existing power structures that they actively benefit from. In past essays, I have mentioned billionaire Madeline Sackler, a documentary filmmaker uniquely interested in prison reform in the United States. Her work contains massive blind spots due to her family’s oxycontin dynasty. Despite the war on drugs playing an integral role in America’s carceral system, it is seldom mentioned in Sackler’s work. Neither is the opioid crisis (caused by Purdue Pharma, the source of her generational wealth) that led so many incarcerated individuals down a path of addiction.
Where does this leave us? Must we sus out the trust fund kids cosplaying as starving artists? Where do we draw the line? Transparently, in my first year of freelancing as an artist, my partner has been massively financially supportive in making my dream a reality. His support has given me room to breathe and create, something I wouldn’t otherwise have the money or time for.
Perhaps selfishly, I don’t think the answer needs to involve finding a hard line and excluding those that fall above it. Instead, we should strive to create the conditions where artists from all walks of life have a room of their own to create freely. Ireland provides a great example of a society that has actively chosen to support artists. Despite its small size of 5 million people, Ireland remains a massive exporter of culture in the world. We have writers rising to global prominence like Salley Rooney, and some of the most well known bands and musicians like U2, The Cranberries, and Enya. This isn’t a coincidence.
The country has actively and consistently provided funding and safety nets for artists. In 2022 the Basic Income for the Arts (BIA) was launched as a financial support, providing €325 a week to artists and creative arts workers over the span of 3 years as a pilot. Artists could apply for a lottery to receive this income scheme and if they were chosen, could spend more time making art, and less time doing wage labor.
The beautiful thing about this program is it casts aside neoliberal ideals of art entirely. Often arts funding requires some exchange: artists receive a grant to work towards a project that will enhance the city they’re in, or bring acclaim to the country providing funding. This program, however, simply gives artists money to live off of with no expectation of them creating something in return. They have complete creative freedom.
The Korean government, while also actively supporting and promoting the arts, represents an opposite approach. Their investment in the “creative economy” is part of a greater economic strategy that recognizes arts and culture exports as a mechanism for Korea's economic growth. The staggering popularity of boy band BTS bringing billions to the country is a prime example.
This doubling down on the idea that art has untapped profit making potential shows a symptom of hyper-capitalism’s quest for all things to be made consumable by the masses. I say this to point out that while the two countries appear to be similar in their fervent support for the arts, the value systems implied by the programs available are widely different.
I think when we look at the bourgeois life of an artist, the resentment felt does not come from a lack of understanding of art’s intrinsic value. Instead, we feel envy, logging hours in a cubicle instead of a studio.
The truth is artists are really lucky when given the chance to make art. My stint as a corporate crusty was some of the most uninspired years of my life. Being able to find what you love and do it full time is rare and should not be taken for granted. We can acknowledge this and still understand that art is invaluable. It can open your mind, help you see the world differently, and foster empathy and appreciation of diversity. It adds a texture and pleasure to life that simply cannot be produced under industrial conditions.
Creating is a thousands-year-old tradition that is core to humanity. Even if you are stuck doing a job you hate in the middle of nowhere, I encourage you to find a little slice of the artist’s life by creating for yourself. Take a class, doodle at home, and enjoy the freedom and curiosity of being a beginner. In the end, the bourgeois life of an artist is one we all wish we could live.