Following Your Dreams vs. Real Life Being Real Life and not a Dream

Pages

This is a spin off of this comment and the subsequent conversation in the post an image thread.

Jayhawker wrote:
TheHarpoMarxist wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

IMAGE(https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xat1/v/t1.0-9/12108819_10153120519499147_8673499692209370120_n.jpg?oh=d500c4c666939b668e13754f959e2094&oe=56C5D589)

Has Doc Wasabassco said quite brilliantly on Facebook:

Doc Wasabassco wrote:

Dear god I hope the third side of this reads:
and practical business sense.
and hone your skills.
but make sure you get paid a fair rate.
and developing social and diplomatic skills.
the limitations of the game you’ll need to play for…
as you sometimes might
but not at the expense of common sense.
excluding the possibility that you’ll end up
accomplishments and always
to get to work
how they’ve succeeded is a smart idea. Without knowledge
in small ways for yourself, but the big picture is harsh and unforgiving.

God bless Doc Wasabassco for thoroughly not understanding the point of the photo. I'm surprised he didn't just say the art without jiggling titties is worthless.

Which pretty much sums up my philosophy too.

The whole "follow your dreams"/"get a job doing what you love" pablum isn't just sold to aspiring artists, it's sold to everyone. It took me seven years to get a job I like, and I did that not by following my heart but by following a pragmatic side interest (with detours).

To hell with the disingenuous second side of that pillar without Wasabassco's addendum.

Mike Rowe disagrees.

The second side of the pillar is all nice and good for people who have resources, connections, and no obstacles. That third side is pretty essential for everyone else.

I follow my dreams when I'm not working to keep a roof over my head and food in my kid's mouth. My dreams don't pay very much and people keep insisting that I give them money whenever I want things.

I really like the motivational quote but also agree that if you're going to try and make it professionally you need to approach it as starting a small business in a highly competitive field. Is there an easy answer? We live in a society where the Kardashians get book deals and NFL players criminally misbehave and still get millions while Olympic athletes live out of their cars and nationally ranked poets work at the local greasy spoon. As much as Id like to push for more funding for the arts, that money is probably better spent on meeting greater needs. There's also an argument that you can use your talents to change your community as a part time pursuit of as an unpaid volunteer.

jdzappa wrote:

As much as Id like to push for more funding for the arts, that money is probably better spent on meeting greater needs. There's also an argument that you can use your talents to change your community as a part time pursuit of as an unpaid volunteer.

I get where you're coming from--what good is a new statue when kids are starving? But when I consider the larger implications I have to disagree with you.

First off, art is a pretty powerful communication tool. Even if you don't see the point of an abstract sculpture, there are forms of art that are necessary for communication and indirectly contribute to solving problems. Even stuff like TV ads, infographics, documentaries, paintings, and so on can have a huge impact. Not to mention the very deep human need to memorialize tragedy and celebrations: an artistic expression can become the cathartic focus for the grief or joy of countless people.

But maybe the artistic merits don't matter to you. Fair enough, let's talk about the business aspect: commercial use of art is at an all-time high. Not just in media, where they need images to get people to click on their articles, but in other forms of business as well. Advertising would be nowhere without artists. You're surrounded by the results of creative work of one kind or another. Your chair was designed, not just by engineers but by furniture designers who put a lot of work into it.

The huge problem here is that the commercial artists are often criminally underpaid. Not always, but there are a lot of people who don't see the point of art, even when it can be directly demonstrated to be the thing that brought them their revenue. Too many people are trying to get artists to work for "exposure". That's why I try to push back when someone implies, even accidentally, that art isn't worth paying for.

Should most people chase after artistic careers? I actually think that they shouldn't, that art is so undervalued on the one hand and so attractive to creative people on the other that I'd council most people to be very realistic about their chances and to, as you said, run it as a small business. (And these days that also means learning how to generate attention for your own work, but that's another subject...)

Lemme move this down to the other post and tl;dr it.

edit: eh, on third thought, all that will probably just make people angry.

Gremlin wrote:

But maybe the artistic merits don't matter to you. Fair enough, let's talk about the business aspect: commercial use of art is at an all-time high. Not just in media, where they need images to get people to click on their articles, but in other forms of business as well. Advertising would be nowhere without artists. You're surrounded by the results of creative work of one kind or another. Your chair was designed, not just by engineers but by furniture designers who put a lot of work into it.

Heh, that reminds me:

The college I attended was in part designed to give people entrepreneurial opportunities and skills in all areas of study. That gives everyone the opportunity to work around obstacles (or tackle them head on) whether they are in the arts, the sciences, business or whatever. You can indeed enjoy your life even while struggling and working hard on skimpy money. You just have to have the drive and learn or develop the skills for your particular idea of what a good life is.

I think a big part of the problem is that we've moved away from the classical, wide-ranging "liberal" education to a much more job focused system. People are having to roll the dice by picking a set of skills that will get them a job out of college (they hope), and if it's boring with no chance of advancement, well, tough. They are not being taught how to learn, just sets of skills, and that locks them into what they are trained for, for the most part.

We need to get away from all the *functional* testing in education, and go back to teaching useful skills and information and allowing students the *financial* latitude to make mistakes, to develop their own skills and interests in high school and college. Stuff that actually prepares them to do different things as their life circumstances require.

This is not to say that specialisation is a bad way to go; many professions require it. But most of us will probably benefit more from a set of *learning* skills mixed with some practical skills, than just a rote education suitable for a small range of jobs. We have created an educational system that is biased against entrepreneurs and social mobility, and much of it is actually run for the profit of the *school*, openly, which should be a hanging offense.

Robear wrote:

I think a big part of the problem is that we've moved away from the classical, wide-ranging "liberal" education to a much more job focused system. People are having to roll the dice by picking a set of skills that will get them a job out of college (they hope), and if it's boring with no chance of advancement, well, tough. They are not being taught how to learn, just sets of skills, and that locks them into what they are trained for, for the most part.

Yeah, this is a problem. It's even more of a problem because it's the big unspoken lie about college in the US: the myth is that you go to college, get a degree, and then that degree is your ticket into a job. Lots of people go to college based on that idea, and stress a lot about getting a major that gives them the right vocational training.

The catch is that the American university system isn't set up to do that, no matter how much they pretend to themselves that they are. There's very little relationship between most degrees and what you do afterwards. It's a little stronger with STEM careers, where an EE degree will probably get you work as an Electrical Engineer, but even there it's hardly a given. And even there, at the top end it's often about what work you do that sets you apart from the pack.

I believe that most valuable thing you can get from school is exactly what you said: learning to learn.

I've seen way too many students who want to make videogames, but try to treat the somewhat videogame-related degree as an automatic ticket. You want to make it into the industry you need a good portfolio and to start forming connections, on top of whatever classes you took or degrees you got.

(Note that you don't need a degree to have a fulfilling creative career. But that route is often like trying to become a pro athlete straight out of high school. Without the potential of million dollar contracts. You can do it if you're good at it, but it'll take a lot of hustle.)

The problem I have with that third side is that it assumes the worst, totally ignoring that the second side was already a response to that line of thinking. As a parent of a child that just began her college career as and art and design major, I can tell you that there is no shortage of that message. Students get it.

So I took that third side as a derogatory look at students wanting to produce art by someone, for better or worse, decided that stripping was an easy way to monetize creativity. I'm sorry, but sex really is the shortcut to profits in art. Not really interested in telling my daughter to either strip or exploit others in order to make a profit.

When we were in Boston for one of the PAX Easts, my family and I went to the Boston Art Museum. By chance, Patti Smith was speaking about her new book, which covered her early years, living with Robert Maplethorpe. Both my daughter and her friend were surprisingly engaged with seeing her.

But the best part was when an audience member asked about what artists should do when they are poor and needing funding. Patti Smith, who was a poet before she was a singer, told the guy, "Get a job. I waited tables." It was so obvious, but she went on to talk about life feeding art, and how you shouldn't shelter yourself from any experience. I'd say that was one of the moments that connected with my daughter the most.

And really, art is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. They aren't underpaid, they are just producing something that can be had by many. Supply and demand works for the arts, too.

Even if you're passionate about something, and really good at it, and it is marketable, you still have to beat out however many thousand other people (or more) ...

and of course there's another little problem..

Getting paid for doing what you already enjoy will sometimes cause your love for the task to wane because you attribute your motivation as coming from the reward, not your internal feelings.
krev82 wrote:

Getting paid for doing what you already enjoy will sometimes cause your love for the task to wane because you attribute your motivation as coming from the reward, not your internal feelings.

I think the problem here is that people are unwilling (or unable) to change out of those situations, because clearly when you've reached that point, it's time to change what you're doing.

krev82 wrote:
Getting paid for doing what you already enjoy will sometimes cause your love for the task to wane because you attribute your motivation as coming from the reward, not your internal feelings.

I tried writing reviews for music, and then later video games, and this was always the case. It made me hate music and video games.

@ Gremlin - I hope my post didn't come across as anti-art because that wasn't my intention. And I think there's also a key difference between commercial and non-commercial art. Creatives can certainly make a living but it's much harder if they go solely the non-commercial way. From what I've seen working with graphic artists, sound designers and content writers, not everyone is willing to sacrifice their artistic vision for their employer and those who don't often don't stick around. At any rate, completely agree with you that too many artists are pressured into giving work away.

@ Cheeze Pavilion - my views on the role of govt have softened over the past few years, but I also recognize our govt is heavily in debt with trillions in unfunded liabilities, not to mention all the money that dealing with climate change is going to cost. At this point in history I think massive arts funding would be the wrong move.

@ Robear - great post about the dangers of turning education into little more than vocational training. On the flip side though I've seen a lot of people get bamboozled into attending expensive art or theater colleges when they really have no business being there. My buddy who used to teach at Digipen quit because he saw too many mediocre students shelling out 20k a year for a degree that wouldn't get them a job in the gaming industry.

That's part of the danger in for-profit schools, jd, but it's also a good argument for free or subsidized college education. Having a more diverse education for lower cost lessens the likelihood of students putting all their eggs in one basket.

Mike Rowe on following your passion

I don't agree with everything he says here... but the idea of doing what you love for a career has never really made sense to me. I do what I need to during my work hours so that I have the money to do what I enjoy outside of those hours. I do it to fund my video game hobby. I do it to fund my occasional art project. I do it to help support, buy gifts, and take out the person I love (missing that exact person as of late, but my ex-wife was a big motivation while we were dating and married for getting up every morning and going to work and pushing myself at work to rise).

My friends are constantly talking about how I should find a job I'm passionate about... as if the topic or type of work I'm doing has to be my passion. It's not. My passion is being the best I can be at whatever I'm doing, trying to make as much money as I can doing so... then promptly forgetting all about it the moment I clock out and enjoying the rest of my time. At the same time, my friends talk about how hard and stressful it is, how they can't really do the things they want to all the time, and how they just want to get away. Whereas, I take vacations for specific events mostly, or to do the thing I want to do, and "getting away" isn't really a part of that.

I dunno... I think I'm weird on this one.

jdzappa wrote:

@ Cheeze Pavilion - my views on the role of govt have softened over the past few years, but I also recognize our govt is heavily in debt with trillions in unfunded liabilities, not to mention all the money that dealing with climate change is going to cost. At this point in history I think massive arts funding would be the wrong move.

My edit wasn't quick enough! : D

Maybe this is the way to put it: our money isn't just going towards meeting greater needs. It's going towards subsidizing parents living their dreams with how much tax money goes towards the things the government does for families. Not all of those kids will become something like climate scientists. Most of them will be a part of a consumer consumption cycle. They'll only increase the level of unfunded liability you're concerned with.

I just think that's something we should keep in mind when it comes to criticizing the choices of young people. In the end, that arts degree will probably cost society a lot less than the decision to become a parent. If we're talking about society's needs, if we're not going to encourage them to become artists, we shouldn't encourage them to be anything but something like climate scientists.

In the end, encouraging kids to become better at wealth capture does nothing for concerns like climate change or unfunded liabilities. Encouraging them to become better at certain kinds of wealth creation does. Just because artists are bad a capturing wealth doesn't automatically make other jobs that are better at capturing wealth any good at creating wealth.

In other words, what will make a kid financially successful on the level of an individual doesn't necessarily make a whole generation of kids capable of fixing the problems you are concerned with, because even granting the benefit of the doubt here, those need better solutions to real problems, not just being more competitive than the other guy.

Demosthenes wrote:

My friends are constantly talking about how I should find a job I'm passionate about... as if the topic or type of work I'm doing has to be my passion. It's not. My passion is being the best I can be at whatever I'm doing, trying to make as much money as I can doing so... then promptly forgetting all about it the moment I clock out and enjoying the rest of my time. At the same time, my friends talk about how hard and stressful it is, how they can't really do the things they want to all the time, and how they just want to get away. Whereas, I take vacations for specific events mostly, or to do the thing I want to do, and "getting away" isn't really a part of that.

I agree. This is a realistic way to live your life and enjoy as much of it as your circumstances allow. I guess that's a part of my thinking which is influenced by Aurelian Stoicism. But it really works. And over time, the better you get, the more you can craft a job that really does appeal to you.

That brings up the other part of "passion", which is that a lot of the rhetoric about being passionate about your job has been co-opted to get works who are cheaper and more complaint. Someone being "passionate" about a job can sometimes be translated to "willing to work for less because they're supposed to be enjoying it" or "will put in unpaid labor rather than clocking out when they leave work". Or, in the recent horrifying Polygon story, willing to work for free for months.

Enjoying your work can be good, but it can also be something that you pay for.

Demosthenes wrote:

Mike Rowe on following your passion

I don't agree with everything he says here... but the idea of doing what you love for a career has never really made sense to me. I do what I need to during my work hours so that I have the money to do what I enjoy outside of those hours. I do it to fund my video game hobby. I do it to fund my occasional art project. I do it to help support, buy gifts, and take out the person I love (missing that exact person as of late, but my ex-wife was a big motivation while we were dating and married for getting up every morning and going to work and pushing myself at work to rise).

My friends are constantly talking about how I should find a job I'm passionate about... as if the topic or type of work I'm doing has to be my passion. It's not. My passion is being the best I can be at whatever I'm doing, trying to make as much money as I can doing so... then promptly forgetting all about it the moment I clock out and enjoying the rest of my time. At the same time, my friends talk about how hard and stressful it is, how they can't really do the things they want to all the time, and how they just want to get away. Whereas, I take vacations for specific events mostly, or to do the thing I want to do, and "getting away" isn't really a part of that.

I dunno... I think I'm weird on this one.

I think you're advantaged, in some sense. You can feel fulfilment without something that other people need to feel fulfilled. In a weird way, your friends saying you should find a job you feel passionate about sounds like well-meaning parents pushing a childfree person to have kids.

Jayhawker wrote:

The problem I have with that third side is that it assumes the worst, totally ignoring that the second side was already a response to that line of thinking. As a parent of a child that just began her college career as and art and design major, I can tell you that there is no shortage of that message. Students get it.

So I took that third side as a derogatory look at students wanting to produce art by someone, for better or worse, decided that stripping was an easy way to monetize creativity. I'm sorry, but sex really is the shortcut to profits in art. Not really interested in telling my daughter to either strip or exploit others in order to make a profit.

But the third side doesn't "assume the worst." Like, at all. And, having worked with a whole bunch of people who work with Doc, I think you're being profoundly unfair in your criticism of him and using a stance that is judgmental of sex. Most burlesque dancers DON'T get paid what they are worth for the gigs they do. Wassabasco is actually one of the few producers that DO pay their talent a fair and reasonable wage.

Also, nowhere in the third side does it mention anything at all about burlesque. So the idea that he's suggesting your daughter either strip or "exploit" others seems weird to me, and less about the message of the third side and more about your judgment of that particular art form. He isn't suggesting people "strip for money" or that that's the only way. He's just suggesting that you need to be paid. You need to not undervalue yourself, and if you want to make money in the arts you need business savvy. The advice on the third side would be amazing for your daughter, regardless of what kind of art she wants to make. I say that not as the parent of an aspiring artist, but as a professional artist who gets paid to make art.

@Gremlin, I saw that story too - but it is important to note that there was a light at the end of that particular tunnel, since the whole company splits the profits of the game. I think it would have been super horrifying if the company just asked them to work for free without having them all effectively be stake holders in the game. As it is, it is merely regular horrifying.

You can follow a dream but sometimes it takes a kick in the butt to get moving. Two years ago I had a good job and good salary as the North American Operations Manager for a large company. When they were moving offices they asked me to come (along with a generous move package). I said no, it's time to refocus my life. I'm tired of seeing all the fruits of my labor, my hard work and passion go into a company that, in the end, I don't care about.

What I want is to do something good, to work a job where I make a positive, lasting difference. So now I'm 45, back in school to get a degree in Non-Profit Management. My goal is to work for a foundation or charitable organization. Sure, my salary will be half what it was (if I'm lucky), but I'll be doing what I want, something positive and making a difference. I don't give a sh*t about the money.

Anyway, TLDR; you can follow a dream even if it's non-specific like working for a good cause but it sometimes take a kick in the butt to get you out of the routine of day to day life. (and a supportive spouse doesn't hurt)

As for the merits of being an artist I have no specific opinion

On the ideal of the general bromide of follow your passion to guide your career I have filtered my thoughts to an alternate piece of advice:

Passions should inform your avocation, while something interesting enough to get you out of bed in the morning should inform your vocation. If you can merge the two that is great.

I was recently at the gala for the Americans for the Arts (which, total sidebar - was an awesome event.) Time and time again they were able to cite statistics about how much better students performed accross all disciplines when there was some sort of arts education in their curriculum. I'll have to see if I can find the numbers, but I suspect they've got a lot of interesting stats on their website.

Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.

Side note. All but the most astute and highly mature poor kids will skim right past a post like the first one and pay their bills first. When you grow up in a household where you live below the poverty line and there is no safety net it takes a lot of hard work before you even consider the possibility of living an artistic lifestyle as opposed to just trying to survive.

Dr.Ghastly wrote:

This isn't a dig at you Dr, but more about the surrounding vibe of the topic:

The demographics of the audience in this video perfectly encapsulate a lot of my personal problems with the whole 'follow your dreams' sentiment. During the past 8 years or so during the whole economic downturn, I've read dozens of articles about someone losing their job, and then turning their life around by 'following their passion'. 9/10 times it was a white financier or lawyer or some other equally well paid job where they had at least 1 year's worth of living expenses saved up, and now they are an artisanal cupcake virtuoso in downtown Brooklyn.

As for the move in education to a more focused skill driven pedagogy, I would say that it's more of a problem of being knowledge focused. Having worked as a professional development advisor for the past 6 years at a local university, I can say with some confidence that higher education still holds pretty tightly to the Ivory Tower ideals of the pursuit of knowledge for it's own sake. With the exceptions of very specialized areas - engineering, healthcare, etc - many college grads are struggling to find work even in the area they studied. It's even worse for graduate level students, particularly PhDs. The problem is that education still has a bias against preparing students for the reality of the workplace. I got a chance to hang out with a journalism professor from NYU a year or so ago, and we were talking about this, and he made a great comment:

"The journalism department isn't in the business of putting out journalists, they are in the business of putting out journalism professors."

I've frequently read articles where they survey business leaders on what they look for in new hires, and what educators feel important. They never match up. The most striking article was one where HR managers and education administrators/faculty were given a list of 10 traits to list in order of importance. The two groups were almost the complete opposite in how they ordered them.

I think a big problem is that we aren't encouraging people to do self inventories to really reflect on what skills they have, what they like to do, and what is important to them, and then trying to find a career goal that has the most overlap of those 3 areas.

And also having honest discussions that not all of their interests or passions will be met in their work. That's what hobbies are for.

Pages