It's Wednesday afternoon. I finally got to Holland Cotter's article, The Boom is Over: Long Live the Art in the Sunday Times. I am a huge fan of Cotter's. He consistently goes outside the box, connecting all kinds of dots --cultural, sexual, political--with insightful and interesting comments. We are a better art community for his writing.
The central tenet of his article is that there will be changes for art and artists in the coming year. He's correct, absolutely. We need to do more than think outside the box; we need to bust it open. But I jumped out of my seat when I read this sentence: "It's day-job time again in America, and that's OK." Artists may indeed be forced to seek income elsewhere. But, holy shit, OK?!
Holland, would you be "OK" with working as a copywriter at, say, an Internet firm Monday through Friday and pursuing your career as an arts writer/critic after hours? Do you think you could fit in all your gallery and museum going on Saturday and Sunday, hit the openings on Thursday nights, and then be sufficieintly inspired and energized to write every evening (and squeeze in activities like exercise, eating and sleeping and any semblance of human relationships) in the time left over?
I don't disagree that as times get more difficult, artists who have been self supporting may have to look elsewhere for income--just as many artists have been doing all along. Hell, even dealers may need to find a way to support their galleries--just as some have been doing all along. However, I have no wish to go back to a day job. If I had to, it would be, uh, what's the very opposite of OK?