Writing Poetry Can Endanger Your Health and Your Life
Being a poet isn't sometimes just a road to poverty. It can also lead to an early death. Gwendolyn MacEwen grew up in Toronto. She was three years younger than Margaret Atwood. MacEwen was a good poet too. In the 1950's and 1960's she and Margaret Atwood were great friends.
Yet MacEwen's literary career just didn't take off like Atwood's. She was an alcoholic and died in 1987.
Sylvia Plath became a poster child of the doomed feminist woman poet. Plath was a Boston-born prodigy who wrote poetry, short stories and novels. Her semi-autobiographical novel 'The Bell Jar' came out in the early 1960's. A short time later this gifted woman killed herself in London, England.
Plath belongs to the haunted generation who came of age in the 1930's and after. One of her contemporaries, Anne Sexton was another gifted poet who committed suicide. She died in the 1970's.
Male poets of this era didn't all get off easily either. John Berryman was another great American poet. "He was one of the founders of the confessional school of poetry," said one critic about Berryman. Berryman had his problems. His demons stopped haunting him in 1974 when he killed himself.
Randall Jarrell another fine poet of mid-20th century America did himself in in 1966.
Some U.S. male poets survived but just barely. Theodore Roethke drank lots of alcohol and had bouts of mental illness.He died at the age of 55. "The greenhouse," wrote Roethke , "is my symbol for the whole of life, a womb, a heaven-on-earth." Maybe Roethke never found that greenhouse on this earth.
Robert Lowell trod down the same path as Roethke though he lived longer. Lowell was an upper class Boston Brahmin who had many bouts of mental illness. He spent some time in mental hospitals. He died in 1977 at the age of 70. Helen Vendler, a critic called Lowell's 1960 book 'Life Studies', "Lowell's most original book." It was acclaimed by many as a poetic masterpiece.
For some poets in 20th century North America, life was a tough road to go down. Yet this wasn't the first time that poets had faced mental and physical problems.
Friday, 9 October 2015
Wednesday, 7 October 2015
Starving Artists - Part Nine
Writing Poetry Doesn't Mean You Earn Much Money
They are both famous Canadians and not only famous. Until recently, they were both rich. Now only one is. Yet at one time they both wrote poetry. But they rarely write it any longer. For poets like many other creative artists don't make much money from churning out poems.
Margaret Atwood is a writer, novelist, poet and librettist and is one of Canada's most famous writers. "Margaret Atwood is an icon in Toronto," one of that city's residents says."it takes guts to criticize her back there."
Montreal-born Leonard Cohen has written songs that are played all over the world. His song 'Hallelujah' has been covered by dozens of artists. k.d. lang sang it at the opening of the 2010 Vancouver Olympics.
Until recently, when Cohen's financial advisor was revealed as a croo, Cohen's assets supposedlytotalled in the millions of dollars. Yet even to-day Cohen's not a poor man. Now both of these artists started out writing poetry. To-day they may still write the occasional poem but they don't make their living writing poetry. Not too many poets do.
"Poetry," writes John Berger, "addresses the heart, the wound, the dead. Everything which has its being within the realm of our intersubjectivities." These are perceptive words about poetry. Still, those who write poetry have to eat and writing poetry these days just doesn't pay the bills.
Margaret Atwood started writing poetry in the late 1950's. She wrote some fine poems but this didn't bring in much cash. In 1969 she published her first popular novel called 'The Edible Woman'. She then followed it up with another novel called 'Surfacing." Atwood was now on her way to fame and fortune.
"Every book that Atwood turns out is usually a best seller," one Vancouver book store worker said back in the 1990's. If she had stuck to writing poetry, Atwood by now would have rated an honourable mention in a Canadian anthology of poetry. Yet she didn't. Fortunately for Canada she turned to writing novels She did well and so did most Canadians.
Then there was Leonard Cohen. "I'm going to be big," Cohen told his friend Ron Halas in the mid-1960's. "I'll be bigger than everybody including Bob Dylan." Cohen never achieved the kind of fame he predicted basically because his music never became very popular in the United States. Still, his song writing and performing music gave him money and fame. His poetry like 'Let Us Compare Mythologies' and his novels 'The Favourite Game' and 'Beautiful Losers' were quite good. Cohen I think was a better poet than a novelist. Still, none of his prose works brought in much money. Song writing did.
What happened to Atwood and Cohen as poets was just typical. Thomas Stearns Eliot moved around London in the 1920's and after as head of a publishing company. The St. Louis-bornT.S. Eliot just about invented modern English language poetry with his long poem 'The Waste Land'. Poetry opened the doors for Eliot to enter British society. Yet it was his job as a the head of a publishing company that paid the bills, and not his poetry.
Wallace Stevens wrote some great poetry in the U.S. in the first half of the 20th century. But once again poetry couldn't keep him alive. In the daytime Stevens worked as an executive in an insurance company.
They are both famous Canadians and not only famous. Until recently, they were both rich. Now only one is. Yet at one time they both wrote poetry. But they rarely write it any longer. For poets like many other creative artists don't make much money from churning out poems.
Margaret Atwood is a writer, novelist, poet and librettist and is one of Canada's most famous writers. "Margaret Atwood is an icon in Toronto," one of that city's residents says."it takes guts to criticize her back there."
Montreal-born Leonard Cohen has written songs that are played all over the world. His song 'Hallelujah' has been covered by dozens of artists. k.d. lang sang it at the opening of the 2010 Vancouver Olympics.
Until recently, when Cohen's financial advisor was revealed as a croo, Cohen's assets supposedlytotalled in the millions of dollars. Yet even to-day Cohen's not a poor man. Now both of these artists started out writing poetry. To-day they may still write the occasional poem but they don't make their living writing poetry. Not too many poets do.
"Poetry," writes John Berger, "addresses the heart, the wound, the dead. Everything which has its being within the realm of our intersubjectivities." These are perceptive words about poetry. Still, those who write poetry have to eat and writing poetry these days just doesn't pay the bills.
Margaret Atwood started writing poetry in the late 1950's. She wrote some fine poems but this didn't bring in much cash. In 1969 she published her first popular novel called 'The Edible Woman'. She then followed it up with another novel called 'Surfacing." Atwood was now on her way to fame and fortune.
"Every book that Atwood turns out is usually a best seller," one Vancouver book store worker said back in the 1990's. If she had stuck to writing poetry, Atwood by now would have rated an honourable mention in a Canadian anthology of poetry. Yet she didn't. Fortunately for Canada she turned to writing novels She did well and so did most Canadians.
Then there was Leonard Cohen. "I'm going to be big," Cohen told his friend Ron Halas in the mid-1960's. "I'll be bigger than everybody including Bob Dylan." Cohen never achieved the kind of fame he predicted basically because his music never became very popular in the United States. Still, his song writing and performing music gave him money and fame. His poetry like 'Let Us Compare Mythologies' and his novels 'The Favourite Game' and 'Beautiful Losers' were quite good. Cohen I think was a better poet than a novelist. Still, none of his prose works brought in much money. Song writing did.
What happened to Atwood and Cohen as poets was just typical. Thomas Stearns Eliot moved around London in the 1920's and after as head of a publishing company. The St. Louis-bornT.S. Eliot just about invented modern English language poetry with his long poem 'The Waste Land'. Poetry opened the doors for Eliot to enter British society. Yet it was his job as a the head of a publishing company that paid the bills, and not his poetry.
Wallace Stevens wrote some great poetry in the U.S. in the first half of the 20th century. But once again poetry couldn't keep him alive. In the daytime Stevens worked as an executive in an insurance company.
Thursday, 1 October 2015
Starving Artists - Part Eight: The Life of One Film Director.
Starving Artists - Part Eight
You often meet very interesting people at a Starbucks restaurant.
In the summer of 2015 I started to chat with Ross Munro, a 52 year-old teacher at a west side Vancouver high school. He was having his morning coffee at a Starbucks restaurant before going off to work.
Munro not only helps young people learn to cope with everyday challenges, he's also directed and scripted two feature films and two documentaries. "my first feature film cost me about $50,000 in 2000," this energetic native of Winnipeg says. "My second film will cost me about $75,000."
I saw Munro's first film called 'Brewster McGee' on my DVD machine.. It's shot in black and white and takes place in a parked car and a nearby fast food restaurant. I liked parts of it but it seemed to me to be incomplete. When I gently suggested to Munro that the film needed maybe more background or introductory material, Munro smiled.
"I could have done a lot more," he said if I'd had even more money."
In this story on underpaid if not starving artists, I've left out film directors and specifically Canadian film directors. This short piece is an attempt to fill that gap. "The film is the art " or most important art, "of the first half of the twentieth century," wrote John Berger way back in 1964. Even to-day with the rise of the Internet, a movie or at least a well-made one is still the most important work of art to-day in 2015.
Films are incredibly expensive to make and take a long time to complete. I can paint a small watercolour picture in less than three hours. my painting materials cost me less than twenty dollars. I may never sell my work but I always get a great kick from doing a watercolour.
Contrast this with a director like Munro. Munro writes a movie script in maybe two or three months. He directs the film too. Yet before the film gets shot, he has to find backers to finance his film. He has to line up actors and seek loacations where he's going to shoot his film. Then he and his wife, Maria who is his producer and comes from Venezuala, have to attend to a myriad of other details.
Once the film is complete where will it play? Only the big and well-publicized American films usually get shown at your local cineplex or mega- theatres .As one Canadian film director once said in effect, "I'll believe that I've made it as a director when a film of mine plays in Penticton, B.C. and all across Canada in towns like Penticton." Only a handful of Canadian directors have reached this stage of their careers.
Only once has Munro been able to get one of his films shown at the Vancouver Film Festival. His movies so far as I know, have never played for any length of time in a movie house or a cineplex. And the total amount of money he ever got back was a measly eight American dollars.
"I got that from one movie house in Seattle that showed ones of my films," Munro says.
Yet this middle-aged man keeps on pursuing his dream. He's already planning two more feature films, one about a novelist the other about a visual artist. Both will be taking place in the period from the 1930's to the 1950's.
Like me Munro is an insatiable reader who's always finding new novels to devour. He can discuss in detail many of the novels he's read, including many from Latin America. Of course he's got a family connection here since his wife is Venezulan-born.
I'm hoping one day that a Ross Munro film will break into the big time. Until then, I must remember the Canadian film directors who struggle on to get their films shown to a wide audience. "Socially," writes John Berger, "the film depends on large urban audiences."
Ross Munro hasn't found those audiences yet. I hope he will one day. And I wish the same for many other underfinanced and underpaid Canadian directors.
You often meet very interesting people at a Starbucks restaurant.
In the summer of 2015 I started to chat with Ross Munro, a 52 year-old teacher at a west side Vancouver high school. He was having his morning coffee at a Starbucks restaurant before going off to work.
Munro not only helps young people learn to cope with everyday challenges, he's also directed and scripted two feature films and two documentaries. "my first feature film cost me about $50,000 in 2000," this energetic native of Winnipeg says. "My second film will cost me about $75,000."
I saw Munro's first film called 'Brewster McGee' on my DVD machine.. It's shot in black and white and takes place in a parked car and a nearby fast food restaurant. I liked parts of it but it seemed to me to be incomplete. When I gently suggested to Munro that the film needed maybe more background or introductory material, Munro smiled.
"I could have done a lot more," he said if I'd had even more money."
In this story on underpaid if not starving artists, I've left out film directors and specifically Canadian film directors. This short piece is an attempt to fill that gap. "The film is the art " or most important art, "of the first half of the twentieth century," wrote John Berger way back in 1964. Even to-day with the rise of the Internet, a movie or at least a well-made one is still the most important work of art to-day in 2015.
Films are incredibly expensive to make and take a long time to complete. I can paint a small watercolour picture in less than three hours. my painting materials cost me less than twenty dollars. I may never sell my work but I always get a great kick from doing a watercolour.
Contrast this with a director like Munro. Munro writes a movie script in maybe two or three months. He directs the film too. Yet before the film gets shot, he has to find backers to finance his film. He has to line up actors and seek loacations where he's going to shoot his film. Then he and his wife, Maria who is his producer and comes from Venezuala, have to attend to a myriad of other details.
Once the film is complete where will it play? Only the big and well-publicized American films usually get shown at your local cineplex or mega- theatres .As one Canadian film director once said in effect, "I'll believe that I've made it as a director when a film of mine plays in Penticton, B.C. and all across Canada in towns like Penticton." Only a handful of Canadian directors have reached this stage of their careers.
Only once has Munro been able to get one of his films shown at the Vancouver Film Festival. His movies so far as I know, have never played for any length of time in a movie house or a cineplex. And the total amount of money he ever got back was a measly eight American dollars.
"I got that from one movie house in Seattle that showed ones of my films," Munro says.
Yet this middle-aged man keeps on pursuing his dream. He's already planning two more feature films, one about a novelist the other about a visual artist. Both will be taking place in the period from the 1930's to the 1950's.
Like me Munro is an insatiable reader who's always finding new novels to devour. He can discuss in detail many of the novels he's read, including many from Latin America. Of course he's got a family connection here since his wife is Venezulan-born.
I'm hoping one day that a Ross Munro film will break into the big time. Until then, I must remember the Canadian film directors who struggle on to get their films shown to a wide audience. "Socially," writes John Berger, "the film depends on large urban audiences."
Ross Munro hasn't found those audiences yet. I hope he will one day. And I wish the same for many other underfinanced and underpaid Canadian directors.
Tuesday, 29 September 2015
Starving Artists - Part Seven or How Not to Starve
How Not To Be a Starving Artist
Maria Mildenberger is a visual artist who has made money from her art. She creates wall coverings from her business base in Vancouver. It's called 'The Red Palette' and Milderberger who designs surface, textiles and wall paper, has plenty of clients. She said in effect to 'The West Ender's' Jennifer Scott, "If you want to be an artist you must work hard."
This too is the underlying message of Chris Tyrell's books. Tyrell who's also based in B.C. has written two very fine books called 'Artist Survival Skills' and 'How To Make A Living As A Canadian Artist'.
I recommend both books for any person who wants to succeed in the visual arts. Tyrell's books are full of down-to-earth practical info on how to get your name and your art out into the world and make decent money doing this.
At the beginning of this story I told about an encounter I had with a woman many years ago. "Oh you're a starving artist are you?" she told me years ago when she found out what I did. There's been enough impoverished artists . Read Tyrell's books to escape that fate and learn a lot too.
Maria Mildenberger is a visual artist who has made money from her art. She creates wall coverings from her business base in Vancouver. It's called 'The Red Palette' and Milderberger who designs surface, textiles and wall paper, has plenty of clients. She said in effect to 'The West Ender's' Jennifer Scott, "If you want to be an artist you must work hard."
This too is the underlying message of Chris Tyrell's books. Tyrell who's also based in B.C. has written two very fine books called 'Artist Survival Skills' and 'How To Make A Living As A Canadian Artist'.
I recommend both books for any person who wants to succeed in the visual arts. Tyrell's books are full of down-to-earth practical info on how to get your name and your art out into the world and make decent money doing this.
At the beginning of this story I told about an encounter I had with a woman many years ago. "Oh you're a starving artist are you?" she told me years ago when she found out what I did. There's been enough impoverished artists . Read Tyrell's books to escape that fate and learn a lot too.
Thursday, 24 September 2015
Starving Artists - Part Six by Dave Jaffe
Starving Artists - 19th Century U.S. Artists Drew Money
James Boggs who draws one side or two of currency bills has many imitators who copy his art work and try and pass their work off as something made by Boggs. Their art work is a version of a version of a dollar bill drawn by Boggs. How do the power structures deal with these people because they could be breaking the law at least twice?
Then there's artists who lived long before Boggs and sort of did what he did. 19th century artists like William Harnett, John Peto and John Haberle painted pictures that included very realistic looking dollar bills.
"Though their work never enjoyed intellectual prestige," writes Edward Lucie Smith in his book 'American Realism' "some had moments of popular success beyond the reach of more ambitious artists.
One of these artists William Harnett was warned by U.S. Secret Service agents not to paint dollar bills. They told him he was a counterfeiter and could go to prison."Harnett", says Edward Lucie Smith, "accepted the warning, abandoned this kind of subject." Yet when Secret Sevice agents warned John Haberle, he kept on painting pictures that included portraits or copies of dollar bills. Haberle painted a picture called 'Reproduction' that included a copy of a U.S. ten dollar bill.
These paintings belong to a type of painting called 'trompe-l'oeile' or 'trick of the eye' paintings. They were painted to be so realistic that the person looking at them would think the objects in the painting were real.
In Europe in the 19th century 'trompe-l'oeil' paintings were still filed under the heading of 'still life paintings'. About this time they disappeared in Europe as artists turned to other subjects. Yet at this time in the U.S., this type of art became very popular.
To-day, the paintings of Harnett, Peto and Haberle could sell at auctions for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Their works were of course popular in their lifetimes too.
Still, the careers of these men and the career of J.L.S. Boggs proves it's sometimes hard for a visual artist to make money no matter what he or she draws, sculpts or paints. Yet these days there are books that show visual artists. We'll look at them in the next part of this story.
James Boggs who draws one side or two of currency bills has many imitators who copy his art work and try and pass their work off as something made by Boggs. Their art work is a version of a version of a dollar bill drawn by Boggs. How do the power structures deal with these people because they could be breaking the law at least twice?
Then there's artists who lived long before Boggs and sort of did what he did. 19th century artists like William Harnett, John Peto and John Haberle painted pictures that included very realistic looking dollar bills.
"Though their work never enjoyed intellectual prestige," writes Edward Lucie Smith in his book 'American Realism' "some had moments of popular success beyond the reach of more ambitious artists.
One of these artists William Harnett was warned by U.S. Secret Service agents not to paint dollar bills. They told him he was a counterfeiter and could go to prison."Harnett", says Edward Lucie Smith, "accepted the warning, abandoned this kind of subject." Yet when Secret Sevice agents warned John Haberle, he kept on painting pictures that included portraits or copies of dollar bills. Haberle painted a picture called 'Reproduction' that included a copy of a U.S. ten dollar bill.
These paintings belong to a type of painting called 'trompe-l'oeile' or 'trick of the eye' paintings. They were painted to be so realistic that the person looking at them would think the objects in the painting were real.
In Europe in the 19th century 'trompe-l'oeil' paintings were still filed under the heading of 'still life paintings'. About this time they disappeared in Europe as artists turned to other subjects. Yet at this time in the U.S., this type of art became very popular.
To-day, the paintings of Harnett, Peto and Haberle could sell at auctions for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Their works were of course popular in their lifetimes too.
Still, the careers of these men and the career of J.L.S. Boggs proves it's sometimes hard for a visual artist to make money no matter what he or she draws, sculpts or paints. Yet these days there are books that show visual artists. We'll look at them in the next part of this story.
Tuesday, 22 September 2015
Starving Artist - Part Five by Dave Jaffe
Starving Artist - Part Five
So far this story of poor artists has been a predictable one. It's message is very simple and sad: Most visual artists don't make much money, the message goes, and never will. Yet there are exceptions to this rule. One of them is the American visual artist named James Stephen George Boggs or 'Boggs' as he's known in the art world. Boggs makes money simply by drawing excellent copies of U.S. dollars.
Boggs, as James Weschler points out in his book on Boggs, makes money by drawing it. He has drawn one side of many U.S. dollar bills. Then Boggs tries to buy a meal or something else with his fake dollar bill.
Sometimes at the beginning of his career, waiters, food servers, salespeople and others would say in effect, "Sorry. I can't accept this. You'll have to pay me real money." Yet as Weschler goes on to say in his book on Boggs, called 'Boggs: A Comedy of Values' in the end Boggs made lots of money and became famous in several countries.
And to-day, his U.S. dollar bills sell for thousands and thousands of dollars. Of course Boggs's road to fame and fortune did hit a few bumps along the way.
In Great Britain where he drew a one-sided version of the British pound he was charged in the 1980's by the Bank of England for counterfeiting the British pound. After a juried trial in the famous Old Bailey court house, Boggs was pronounced 'Not guilty' and he was free, well sort of.
Once back in the United States Secret Service agents raided his home. They seized piles of his art work and other things like the receipts he bought from art work sales. For Boggs keeps the receipts and other things like change he gets from buying things for his art work. Often he sells receipts, change and one of his bills as a complete work of art . The Secret Service people kept Boggs's works and materials but never charged him with anything.
"But isn't this man a counterfeiter?" someone asked me when I told her about Boggs. "He's breaking the law."
This of course was or is the reason that police and others have tried to stop Boggs from making art. Yet so far the law has failed to deter him from making his art. Boggs now uses a computer to do his work and no longer draws his work with a pen. Yet the police are still interested in him.
In 2006 he was charged in Florida with having amphetamines, drug equipment and a concealed weapon in his possession. Yet he's still churning out versions of his currency. He's an artist who makes money by drawing money. In the art world that's a success story And Boggs isn't the first artist who drew a country's currency.
We'll look at some of these artists in the next chapter.
So far this story of poor artists has been a predictable one. It's message is very simple and sad: Most visual artists don't make much money, the message goes, and never will. Yet there are exceptions to this rule. One of them is the American visual artist named James Stephen George Boggs or 'Boggs' as he's known in the art world. Boggs makes money simply by drawing excellent copies of U.S. dollars.
Boggs, as James Weschler points out in his book on Boggs, makes money by drawing it. He has drawn one side of many U.S. dollar bills. Then Boggs tries to buy a meal or something else with his fake dollar bill.
Sometimes at the beginning of his career, waiters, food servers, salespeople and others would say in effect, "Sorry. I can't accept this. You'll have to pay me real money." Yet as Weschler goes on to say in his book on Boggs, called 'Boggs: A Comedy of Values' in the end Boggs made lots of money and became famous in several countries.
And to-day, his U.S. dollar bills sell for thousands and thousands of dollars. Of course Boggs's road to fame and fortune did hit a few bumps along the way.
In Great Britain where he drew a one-sided version of the British pound he was charged in the 1980's by the Bank of England for counterfeiting the British pound. After a juried trial in the famous Old Bailey court house, Boggs was pronounced 'Not guilty' and he was free, well sort of.
Once back in the United States Secret Service agents raided his home. They seized piles of his art work and other things like the receipts he bought from art work sales. For Boggs keeps the receipts and other things like change he gets from buying things for his art work. Often he sells receipts, change and one of his bills as a complete work of art . The Secret Service people kept Boggs's works and materials but never charged him with anything.
"But isn't this man a counterfeiter?" someone asked me when I told her about Boggs. "He's breaking the law."
This of course was or is the reason that police and others have tried to stop Boggs from making art. Yet so far the law has failed to deter him from making his art. Boggs now uses a computer to do his work and no longer draws his work with a pen. Yet the police are still interested in him.
In 2006 he was charged in Florida with having amphetamines, drug equipment and a concealed weapon in his possession. Yet he's still churning out versions of his currency. He's an artist who makes money by drawing money. In the art world that's a success story And Boggs isn't the first artist who drew a country's currency.
We'll look at some of these artists in the next chapter.
Thursday, 3 September 2015
Starving Artists : Part Four by Dave Jaffe
Starving Artists - Part Four
Emily Carr was just not unlucky being born in 1871 and dying just before the great consumer boom started in North America in 1945. She also was unlucky by being born maybe in the wrong country, namely Canada instead of the United States.
The U.S.'s Gross National Product is at least 12 times Canada's. By the early 20th century when Carr was in her 30's, magnates like the Harrimans, the Mellons, the Carnegies, J.P. Morgan and Leland Stanford, had amassed vast fortunes. A very small part of their money went to buy fine art. In Canada by 1900 there were some multimillionaires too, but nothing of the scale of the American very rich.
So money spent on the visual arts in Canada has rarely come close to money spent on these things in the U.S. of A. Some present day Canadian artists have made some decent money. Yet their proceeds can't come close to the incomes of American artists like Robert Rauschenberg, Andy Warhol or Jeff Koons.
In the 1950's, the Canadian government set up the Canada Council to aid visual artists and other creative people."I'm applying for a Canada Council grant," a musician who played modern music said in the 1970's. Yet these grants that are a good thing can't make any artist lots of money.
Then, too, after 1945 and the end of the Second World war thousands of men and quite a few women went to universities and colleges to study the visual artists. This was a big change in Canada. Yet there was a downside to this trend. Competition for grants and art sales became much more intense because there were many more artists than there were in say 1930. So many artists lost out in the struggle to earn a decent living from their work.
"I can't afford to buy my own work," an artist with the Bau-Xi gallery said in Vancouver just before one of her exhibitions opened. Her paintings on the gallery's walls were priced from $5,000 to $12,000. "My work is for rich people and not for people like me."
For whatever reason, artists of all sorts keep popping up in Canada. Yet most visual artists and probably many other creative people won't get rich or earn too much money from their work.
That's just the way it is in Canada right now and will be for the foreseeable future.
Emily Carr was just not unlucky being born in 1871 and dying just before the great consumer boom started in North America in 1945. She also was unlucky by being born maybe in the wrong country, namely Canada instead of the United States.
The U.S.'s Gross National Product is at least 12 times Canada's. By the early 20th century when Carr was in her 30's, magnates like the Harrimans, the Mellons, the Carnegies, J.P. Morgan and Leland Stanford, had amassed vast fortunes. A very small part of their money went to buy fine art. In Canada by 1900 there were some multimillionaires too, but nothing of the scale of the American very rich.
So money spent on the visual arts in Canada has rarely come close to money spent on these things in the U.S. of A. Some present day Canadian artists have made some decent money. Yet their proceeds can't come close to the incomes of American artists like Robert Rauschenberg, Andy Warhol or Jeff Koons.
In the 1950's, the Canadian government set up the Canada Council to aid visual artists and other creative people."I'm applying for a Canada Council grant," a musician who played modern music said in the 1970's. Yet these grants that are a good thing can't make any artist lots of money.
Then, too, after 1945 and the end of the Second World war thousands of men and quite a few women went to universities and colleges to study the visual artists. This was a big change in Canada. Yet there was a downside to this trend. Competition for grants and art sales became much more intense because there were many more artists than there were in say 1930. So many artists lost out in the struggle to earn a decent living from their work.
"I can't afford to buy my own work," an artist with the Bau-Xi gallery said in Vancouver just before one of her exhibitions opened. Her paintings on the gallery's walls were priced from $5,000 to $12,000. "My work is for rich people and not for people like me."
For whatever reason, artists of all sorts keep popping up in Canada. Yet most visual artists and probably many other creative people won't get rich or earn too much money from their work.
That's just the way it is in Canada right now and will be for the foreseeable future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)