The only thing better then a cliche is a SPORTS cliche, so let's break one out here.
A famous hockey player attributed his success to his ability to "skate to where the puck was going" which people have translated to mean that the key to success is anticipating and responding to future trends before everyone else does.
So let's think about the future for a minute.
If you are an artist looking to make a living from your art what do need to do now to be prepared for future.
I've got a suggestion . . . Learn a skill.
No, not just an artistic skill . . . some other skill.
Take a look at Scott's brillant post, AND THEN. He talks about building a theatre tribe filled with members who not only have artistic talent but also some key second skill . . . marketing, fundraising, strategy, something.
I can't (and shouldn't) add a word to it . . . so let me just give my own spin on his idea.
If you are a painter . . . and all you are good at is painting . . . then you are in trouble.
If you are actor . . . and you all you can do is acting . . . then good luck making a living.
No matter how much certain parts of our society may encourage the ridiculous image of the artist that wants to do nothing more then act or dance or whatever . . . if you buy into that image then you are setting yourself up for failure.
The artist of the future is going to have a rich toolbox of skills he or she can dip into at any time.
She is going to be able to do a kick ass monolouge and design a kick ass website.
He is going to be able to dance divinely and write a solid sponsorship proposal.
Please don't fall for the notion that somehow the two sets of skills are so separate that no one person can have both.
They can have both.
You can have both.
In fact I think you must have both to be successful.
Updated: Check out the comments
Tony points out that this isn't exactly a new idea and Scott means that Shakespeare managed a theatre, Chekhov was a doctor and Stanislavski ran a textile mill . . . and no one could say that their art suffered because of it.
How much of that is the artist of the future, and how much of it hearkens to the artists of the past?
It seems a fairly new phenomena that there is an expectation, or sense of entitlement, that an artist can live doing only one thing, and anyone who does more is less of an artist.
Did any of the great artists in the past only do one thing?
Posted by: Tony | February 25, 2008 at 12:18 PM
That's an interesting question, Tony. Shakespeare wrote plays, acted, and managed the Globe. Moliere was a playwright and an actor and managed the theatre. Goethe wrote plays, novels, directed, and ran the Weimar theatre. None of the Greek playwrights made their living solely from being a playwright, and none of the actors solely did that. Stanislavski ran a textile mill. Chekhov was a doctor.
Posted by: Scott Walters | February 25, 2008 at 02:13 PM
I can drive several different stick-shifts, including three-on-the-tree. I'm also pretty good at operating forklifts and boom cranes. I remember working at a summer theatre once thinking how useless one of the actors was because all he could do was act. Later he wrecked the truck with the three-on-the-tree. Man, I loved that truck.
Posted by: Chris Casquilho | February 26, 2008 at 04:19 PM