
Artists Should Be Allowed to Fail - wallflower
https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-artists-allowed-fail
======
sombremesa
Individuals and institutions do fund artists already, e.g. grants, patreon,
commissions, donations, a plethora of residence programs - I'm all for having
as much of all this as possible, and there is certainly not as much of it as
there could be.

However, I think all of these have some element of the artists needing to have
proven themselves or having a good portfolio - and I think that is more than
fair and true of all professions.

Nobody who values their time and money wants to hire an untrained,
inexperienced contractor who is about to do their first job. They are free to
go to school, they may choose to get loans, it may turn out they suck at
plumbing and then they are back at square one. None of that is society's
fault.

For every successful artist there are thousands upon thousands of people whose
art is unmarketable or unvalued by the market, and you simply cannot bend the
market to your say-so. That's not how any of this works.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
Being an artist is _nothing_ like being a contractor, and markets are the
worst possible way to determine artistic value.

Being an artist can involve doing things that hardly anyone likes, or no one
at all likes, or no one at all likes for a few decades, or no one likes for
most of the artist's working life - but then everyone likes. Or which everyone
likes while the artist is still alive, and then no one likes.

There's no objective test of a "good portfolio". Drawing skills are easy to
assess, but art is about vision and breadth of imagination, not about
mechanical mimicry. That kind of talent is much harder to spot, especially at
18.

~~~
0815test
> and markets are the worst possible way to determine artistic value

...except all the other ways that have been tried from time to time.

~~~
sp332
Check out the movie "F for Fake". It's a fake documentary that makes a point
about art fakes and the experts who encourage judging work based on who made
it.

------
harimau777
One area where it always bothered me that artists weren't allowed to fail is
in public school art classes. In my experience they are generally graded based
on participation rather than on whether the student actually learns the
techniques being taught. In turn I think that's because there's generally not
anything actually being taught. It's basically just crafts time.

Art classes would actually be useful if students were expected to learn things
like color theory, advanced techniques such as watercolor washes, the
characteristics of different materials, drawing techniques, composition,
anatomical drawing, etc.

~~~
yakovdk
This comes about because people can't get past the idea that art is a natural
gift, whereas it is in most part a learnable skill. My thinking on this
changed after watching the Great Course's "How to Draw" lectures [1]. Dr.
Brody explains most people don't realize that with effort and practice they
can learn to draw effectively; that it's not something you're born with.

If you accept that it can be decomposed into small skills, which can be
practiced, and aggregated to create effective art, then it can be tested and
graded.

[1] [https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/how-to-
draw.html](https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/how-to-draw.html)

~~~
lancesells
Many people will say "I draw like a six-year old" but that's really because
that's around the time when they stopped. Some people learn faster the skills
faster than others but that's the same with math or science or any other
skill.

The english alphabet is made up of 52 drawings that billions of people have
learned. Everyone can draw them in some form because they practiced and it was
required in school. Those same skills can be used in drawing anything. It's
similar from being taught addition and then working your way up to calculus.

Having those skills doesn't necessarily produce great art but everyone can
certainly learn how to draw or paint or sculpt. There's really no magic there.

~~~
chrisseaton
When people say they can’t draw, they aren’t referring to being able to draw a
simple geometric shape like a letter. They mean a portrait or a still life or
landscape or something.

~~~
imtringued
It's the same skill, just a different degree of practice. Depending on your
skill level drawing involves a lot of simple geometric shapes and then using
those shapes as a point of reference to draw the final result. The reason why
art seems so difficult is because people don't see the intermediate steps
which were taken, they only see the final result.

------
doodliego
> a project is either "successful" and meets its funding goal, or "fails"
> because it doesn't.

This guy works at kickstarter, so his definition of success should be "when
backers get what they paid for" not when kickstarter gets paid. This attitude
is symptomatic of this company's callous disregard for its own customers and
the proliferation of scams and frauds on its service.

~~~
Finnucane
Wouldn't Kickstarter be in a position to provide the funding he thinks artists
should get? Which is to say, Kickstarter could easily set up a system to allow
this explicitly. Why not allow artists to ask for this kind of R&D money? As
long as it is clear what is being paid for, and what the risks are, and what
the money is being used for, why not?

------
colechristensen
Everyone should be allowed to fail, but how many artists are there out there
that "failed" and got more ordinary jobs? (and how many out there with
ordinary jobs would like to try their hand at failing to be an artist
instead?)

The economy isn't willing to support very many artists, and the support is
very exponential with a small number making more than anybody needs and a very
long tail making nothing or near enough.

So tax Ticketmaster 10% and use the revenue to boost the NEA by a factor of
10.

Or stop spending $200 for concert tickets and buy some art you like displayed
on a coffee shop wall and take interest in the local music scene.

------
pram
How do they determine what failure is, and how many times do they get to fail
before they stop getting funded?

I think everyone would like some money to pursue their passion, especially if
it didn’t come with any accountability! The premise seems to be failure can
lead to success. Yeah, maybe, but it could also just lead to more failure.
You’re asking institutions and people to keep the money flowing “just cuz”

------
inflatableDodo
If as a professional artist, you have dramatic media articles detailing your
failure to produce a particular work of art, then I think that this is
actually a massive success, at least by the terms of the professional art
world.

------
ozim
I remember article that I cannot find anymore about French action of
supporting artists.

They ended with useless crap projects in their storages created just to get
money off of the government.

That is why you don't support every sketch. Market is bad, but bunch of
predatory freeloaders will spoil every good idea. So we are stuck with what it
is, namely prove your idea first heavily and then we can reimurse you.

~~~
ovi256
FWIW, there's a income tax reduction scheme in France that allows people to
invest in film production companies. If the project fails, you get to write
off your whole investment - no harm right ? If it makes any money, you get
your share of the profit.

It's basically a free option on film production profits that the government
gives out.

The total number of film productions is limited by art ministry fiat.
Connected producers get the necessary yearly accreditations, and the companies
are limited in how much investment they can take.

Because of this, France is the 3rd world movie producer, after Bollywood and
Hollywood. They have the lowest median views per film though.

------
Causality1
This author suffers from a serious lack of what is termed in some communities
"shut up and multiply".

>few articles highlighted the positive side of her Institute morphing into its
current form. MAI is now a roving institution, traveling and running workshops
all over the world, effectively reaching more diverse and far-flung
communities.

Except in doing so the number of artists the Institute can actually serve is
crippled in comparison to an actual physical institute.

>The piece wasn’t fully realized, but, in fact, the outcome is actually
somehow perfect

No it isn't. It failed to deploy at all and is currently a misshapen mass of
orbital debris that doesn't even slightly resemble his intention. His backers
who paid 1.3 million dollars to put a mirrored sphere into orbit were
tremendously disappointed. If I pulled Starry Night off the wall and put it
through a garbage disposal the outcome would not be "somehow perfect", it
would be a tragedy. Bad things don't stop being bad just because you navel-
gazed long enough to pull some arbitrary meaning out of them.

------
jfengel
I'm a little confused on what they mean by "fail". The key sentence seems to
be, "We can’t chastise an artist when a piece or project does not work out."

If an artist can't take chastisement, they're not prepared to do art. They are
putting themselves out there: if nobody sees it, it's not art. If there wasn't
a risk to it, there would be no point in the success. People not liking it is
one of those risks.

That's referring to artistic rather than commercial failure, but the skill set
is related. The money spent on the project is part of the artistic process.

It's a permanent problem that there is never enough money to fund all of the
arts projects worth doing, and no way of knowing beforehand either artistic or
commercial successes. The article is correct that people with money, who wish
to fund art with it, will have to take risks and suffer commercial losses,
just as the artist will suffer artistic failures.

So to the degree that the article says "Let's put more money into art that
might fail," absolutely, yes. But that's not solving the ancient problem of
finding that money, and we already knew that one of the problems is that a lot
of people don't want their money going into any art except the most broadly
appealing.

------
tdsamardzhiev
Failing is OK, as is having some wild dreams. Dragging others down with you
isn't.

~~~
Fnoord
Not sure if we need a clear definition on what's OK and is not. I'd say there
are different gradations of harm.

The article starts off with

> Alright, let’s do it, let’s talk about failure. In my role overseeing visual
> and performing arts at Kickstarter, failure is an everyday term—a project is
> either “successful” and meets its funding goal, or “fails” because it
> doesn’t

There is a third option for customers: funding succeeds but project either
does not ship, does not ship according to specifications, or has serious
product flaws.

I get that's an elephant in the room Kickstarter (and Indiegogo and such) do
not want to mention.

It could be something you don't care about. I've seen left and right being
confused, Mac/Linux support being dropped, launch date delay (very common)
just to mention a few examples. Not every customer cares which fractures the
customer base with fans and discontent former believers.

------
ohthehugemanate
This also goes for large art institutions. In my field (classical music, in
Germany) these institutions live mostly on the public purse. As a consequence,
their target audience skews hard towards government grant and subsidy
committees. Many put on shows nobody wants to see, that speak to nobody, but
have fascinating write-ups. It is in some ways a remnant of Milton Babbitt's
famous article, "who cares if you listen?"[1] except without the intellectual
honesty.

Cultural institutes and funded culture agents exist not just to create art qua
art, but as a part of culture - ie with an audience. Of course they should
take risks and push boundaries, but not exclusively.

[1]
[http://www.palestrant.com/babbitt.html](http://www.palestrant.com/babbitt.html)

------
la_barba
Well, to turn the question around, how much money are you personally willing
to lose on a failed project? And how many times will you back a artist that
has failed? The natural human tendency is to only back 'all star' teams when
it comes to such projects, or even when considering which OSS project to
contribute to, or which startup to join, etc, etc. A 'winner' does more than
just win, they create a positive energy that attracts people to their cause.
While failure may be important for progress to happen, the key here is of
course that progress must happen for the failure to be considered "good".

------
_pmf_
Everybody should be allowed to fail. It's when failing becomes a lifestyle in
itself that is expected to be paid for by the general public when I object.

------
TheChaplain
Reading through it seems more of an issue about people who make promises and
fail to upheld them due to poor planning?

~~~
em-bee
i read it being more about changes or obstacles that the artists could not
possibly have forseen, yet they get chastised for failing because of something
that was beyond their control.

------
TOGoS
> In studio visits with artists around the globe, I hear about the concepts
> they’re exploring. I see them spend vast sums of money on research before
> they share anything with institutions or potential patrons.

Come visit me I just doodle in my notebook it's cheap.

~~~
em-bee
in essen germany, there is a place called "unperfekthaus" which is set up on
that premise. artists get free workspace, and in turn they allow visitors to
watch them work.

visitors pay a small entrance fee (which includes free drinks), but besides
watching artists work there are also other interesting activities and even
workspaces for them to use.

[https://www.unperfekthaus.de/](https://www.unperfekthaus.de/) (in german)

------
mitfahrener
Thought artists rarely succeeds.. financially at least.

------
devoply
Only the wealthy should make a killing on works of artists after the market
filters them out. While they are alive most of them should not be able to make
any sort of decent living. Such is capitalism and art.

------
cryptica
Art is a scam. It's all about social connections. It's about who is able to
fool or coerce the richest person through social networking.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
There certainly seems to be a lot of bullshit going on.If you mention this you
will just get criticised for not being enlightened enough. As to whether it's
a bad thing that the super rich are getting fooled out of their money, well
I'm fairly relaxed about that.

~~~
lancesells
The super rich aren't getting fooled out of money. Many are investing in art
just like they invest in stocks with the hopes that they'll be able to sell it
at a profit or use it as equity. Others just love art and want to buy pieces
they enjoy while others want to prove they've got the biggest dick in the
room.

Art is worth what the market will pay and clearly the market will pay more and
more every year. Is it a bubble waiting to burst? Maybe, but it will come back
over time and those artworks will be worth even more.

------
ThomPete
Artists can't fail. Art businesses however can.

