Comments on: Facts, for a change

By: Chris Rusak

Chris Rusak — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 23:17:09 +0000

It’s all the inexpensive lentils we’re living on from Rainbow with our 20% off coupons that keep us going, Steven. Definitely the determined lentils.

By: Steven Barich

Steven Barich — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:13:50 +0000

These are very interesting numbers. Thanks Renny, for bringing this to the table. In order to make the "big picture" more complete, it would be great to know as well the percentages of artists to regional opportunities, artists to local art academies, artists to monthly gallery exhibitions, etc. If one took the economic report and the viable opportunities report, for both SF and New York (and maybe LA), stacked them side by side...that would present some challenging facts to assuage all the questions and claims. It seems that in looking at these numbers, one should think about the environment of wealth that is the Bay Area, and how that stacks against these regional/national numbers. Supposedly, the Bay Area is home to 5 of the top 15 wealthiest cities in America: San Francisco, Sunnyvale, Berkeley, Fremont and San Jose. See: http://www.fa-mag.com/fa-news/3409-california-dominates-americas-wealthiest-cities.html. Sure, the determination of wealth is relative to a number of different specs, but if true, then shouldn't greater regional wealth translate into higher regional averages for artist's income than national? Well, first, people need to become invested in the arts...and arts education is very meager in the Bay Area, IMHO. Overall, the art market isn't as good as it *should* be here in the Bay Area, based on total income numbers for artists. Then again, one could have fun in implying Bay Area artists are smarter/better/determined at surviving with less...for those that stay...

By: Renny Pritikin

Renny Pritikin — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 16:54:22 +0000

I don’t want to get off on a technical sidetrack, but the survey results are reporting gross income from all sources.

By: Chris Rusak

Chris Rusak — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 08:34:34 +0000

I guess I saw it more from an independent artist perspective, one without any side- or non-art- work. You would, then, only be able to report income if you actually cleared your own expenses. It sounds like this survey was a “take-home” income type; if you’re an on-your-own artist with a yearly profit and loss statement, it’s unlikely the survey accounted for struggling artists who were in the red; the on-your-own artists who did turn a profit, in reporting for the survey, who likely have reported their year-end profit as their “take-home” income, having already deducted rent expenses. It would seem like working artists are reporting net incomes, and not gross.

I also see Vance’s point, and how that could affect the survey results, also.

By: Renny Pritikin

Renny Pritikin — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 06:18:41 +0000

Still way too speculative for me…

By: Vance Maverick

Vance Maverick — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 05:25:38 +0000

I was thinking along the same lines as Chris, so maybe I can explain. Why would Bay Area artists get less of their income from art, even though art is about as lucrative here as elsewhere? Because living here is more expensive, so they need to supplement their art income with more from other sources.

By: Renny Pritikin

Renny Pritikin — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 20:55:13 +0000

Yes, this was funded by foundations to try to respond to artists’ needs that have arisen from the recession. For example, they found that Bay Area artists were something like 10% more likely than artists in other areas to have lost their non-arts jobs as a result of the recession. I haven’t really given thought yet to the “therefore” part of this, but it does seem that if 60% of artists are making under $40,000, maybe we need a jobs program to get them over that hump into the next (40 to 80k) group. CETA might live again…

By: Joseph del Pesco

Joseph del Pesco — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 20:43:51 +0000

Thanks for this Renny, it’s incredibly helpful to have some of this data put into context. Is it true that these kinds of studies are typically commissioned by funding bodies to help them target funding or respond to specific needs? Based on this data what would you say needs to be addressed in the Bay Area?

By: Renny Pritikin

Renny Pritikin — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 20:17:43 +0000

Not sure I get your last point Chris. Rent is on the expense side, while I only had data on the income side….

By: Chris Rusak

Chris Rusak — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 19:14:50 +0000

Super interesting.

While I think that the economies of artists have much room for improvement, I have to say that some of these figures surprise me, and my expectations were that they were a lot smaller than actuality. It is disappointing that we are six points lower than the national average in terms of artists deriving most of their income from art, but not surprising since rents are at a premium here. I imagine NYC is even lower?