Not long ago, my wife, a composer, asked me if I would ever advise a student from a low-income family to pursue a career in the arts.“What do you mean? Of course.”“Really?”“If that’s what they wanted to do, and they had talent–”“But they don’t have money.”“If a student were really passionate and talented, she’d figure out a way.” That’s always been something my parents told me. “Think about what you’d do if money were no object. And then work hard. You’ll find a way to make money.”“Your parents give you $28,000 a year. They paid for your tuition. They made it possible for you to do what you’d do if money were no object—because money was no object for you.”I got a little defensive at this point.
There are a lot more details at the link, but this gives the general idea. Yes, a guaranteed $2,000 a month can really help you pursue a career in the arts. Well, it makes it possible to attempt a career, but with no guarantee of any success, of course. Perhaps it just enables you to be mediocre.With the arts, a student may be accepted to an arts program without a scholarship and find herself $200,000 in debt before realizing she isn’t going to be able to get a real paycheck with her arts degree—at least in the next decade. Sure, there are exceptions. But for every exception there are many more who are impoverished by their arts education or by not being able to take on more than part-time or temporary work as they struggle early in their careers.
This got me thinking about what enabled me to pursue a career in music and that led to a comparison of that time with now. I was born in 1951 so I came of age in the late 60s when popular culture was in ferment and everything seemed to be changing rapidly. All the ordinary careers seemed extremely dull and the meagre rates of pay hardly seemed compensation. I became completely committed to a career in music when I discovered classical music. It cost little to attend university those days and the entrance requirements were not very hard. You could save a bit of money and pay for your own education, no need for a loan. Student loans were rare in those days (bear in mind that this was in Canada in the early 1970s). I even saved money and was able to spend a year studying music in Spain, which was really cheap back then. I did two degrees at McGill and did get a student loan. But it only amounted to around $2,000 so no big deal. It still took me a few years to pay off. I was lucky enough to get a job teaching in a conservatory as soon as I graduated. The pay was low, but adequate. So I was able to completely support myself, in a very modest way, for my entire career. No government grants.
But you know what?, as we discover from the above link, all is different now. Honestly, if getting an adequate education as an artist involves getting $200,000 in debt, or even a fraction of that, then you should really find a different career, because starting out with that hanging over your head is going to ruin your life.
The exception: those very, very few people who have an enormous amount of creativity and who really cannot do other than pursue some vocation or another. But they are pretty much in the same position as a Franciscan monk: you are essentially going to pursue a life devoted to the accomplishment of certain goals, irrespective of any material reward. In other words, you are basically taking a vow of poverty.
Jordan Peterson gives us the lowdown on the curse of creativity:
7 comments:
Interesting talk by Jordan Peterson. I hadn't seen that one. He's a great speaker. What did you think of his book? I think he speaks better than he writes. I found the book to be disappointing.
By the way, one of the advantages of living in France is that getting an education is financially accessible to even the poorest of the poor. One of my friends is a single mother of four with limited resources. One daughter has become a registered nurse, another studied art and has a successful career in design, the third is in law school. no debt, no sweat. Evil 'socialism' at work!
Yes, a great speaker. He could be a better speaker than a writer. But I did enjoy the book. I should re-read it before offering an opinion.
Europe has some truly great aspects. One of them is undoubtedly the education system, which is likely a better conduit of Western Civilization than North American universities which are becoming redoubts of no-nothing progressivism. Reality is a lot more complex than ideology! But I think it is safe to say that, depending on the extent to which it is applied, socialism tends to be a universal bad. Europe works because the social projects, like a heavily subsidized education system, are supported by a capitalist, profit-oriented private sector.
I have wondered whether Western European educational cultures have it better by dint of going back at least a thousand years. The United States and Canada simply couldn't lean on scholastic and artistic traditions spanning a thousand years as any of the European traditions seem able to do.
At another level, Western Europe in the postwar period was able to benefit from the Marshall Plan and the reality that the two global superpowers of the USA and USSR were carving up the colonial/imperial legacy Western Europe had started but had arguably shifted on to the nascent superpowers that emerged in the wake of World War 2 (though, arguably, only the US completely filled out the definition of a superpower). If the United States were to pull entirely out of NATO and leave Western Europe to its own devices would its educational and healthcare systems be robust enough to adapt to that kind of geopolitical change? Now ... ideally 45 won't manage to pull that off even if he gets re-elected (which ... if Warren's performance is any indication, could be ... likely) but it's been something to think about it in light of 45 getting elected at all to begin with.
I've also wondered whether Sousa wasn't wrong to say that the real lifeblood of musical cultures is in the amateur musicians who make up a culture more than the professionals or the music teachers. He admitted to being an alarmist about the impact recorded and mechanical music might have in driving down overall musical competency, literacy and variety but here in 2018 I don't exactly blame him when so many of the songs I'm hearing on the radio are by Max Martin and dynamic range compression dominates the mixes. I'm getting tired of the profusion of I-V-vi-IV loops and i-VI-III-VII derivations. If I want to hear those chord loops in a pop song there's Journey's "Don't Stop Believing" and Boston's "Peace of Mind" already. :) Yes ... I admit that makes me seem like a grumpy older person for writing that.
Welcome to the Music Salon (again), where the opinions of grumpy older persons are highly valued!
A commentator a while back impressed upon me the importance of a deep well of tradition to creativity. Alas, I forget who that was, but he made a plausible argument. Your mention of Sousa is interesting--I knew nothing of this. But it does seem to be the case that with falling levels of musical literacy come lowering aesthetic standards.
On the other hand, if I could offer an anecdotal observation or two: I have known quite a few very fine scholars and professors at university in North America and a host of very fine musicians as well. They may not be as popular as the fire-breathing progressives, however.
Yes, I should probably re-read Peterson's book but the point is that I don't need a second listen to appreciate his talks! Maybe I'm missing something in the book but it was a bit of a letdown. I'll give it another go. It's not often that you come across such a knowledgeable thoughtful person and thanks again for introducing him on your blog. I'm not sure what the word 'socialism' means these days. France has a free market capitalist economy along with pretty good accessible healthcare and education. Is that socialism?
Canada's National Post just published an essay by Peterson. It was a bit bizarre, making me think that yes, he is a better lecturer than a writer. On the other hand, I have had people say to me that they don't like the sound of his voice.
So much of what is said about "socialism," both positive and negative, is spin, deception and misleading. France has a partially free market economy which enables it to pay for accessible healthcare and education. That's a compromise settled on by most European nations and Canada. In exchange, these countries typically have fairly low growth rates and high unemployment. A little socialism seems to be tolerable to most people and it certainly helps elect politicians!
Post a Comment