I've been advised by more than one person to think of a vocation as something that provides fiscal solvency and facilitates an avocation (hobby, pastime, minor occupation). The idea is simple, and it's proven its feasibility for many artists and writers throughout the years: find something to pay the bills and spend the rest of your time doing whatever you'd like. Until now, I've been fervently opposed to this approach, convinced that I'll be able to turn what is an avocation for most (art-making) into a vocation. I haven't, until recently, considered pursuing occupations that combine the two in a way that doesn't discount the value of either. Sound convoluted? It isn't. Imagine a space where you participate in a creative activity all day long, some sort of art-making that is your vocation, but doesn't involve making your own work. I know there are obvious choices here: art teacher, commercial screenprinter, set designer, costume designer, journalist, copy writer, etc. But none of those appeal to me, and I've been put off by the warnings of friends who have those jobs and feel it actually saps their energy and desire to produce their own work.
Lately, however, I've been considering the Art Conservation program at Buffalo State College. It has a reputation for being one of the best in the world, and amazingly, students receive full tuition remission for three years (ie: it's free). Graduating art conservators enjoy an exceedingly high rate of job placement, not to mention compensation commensurate with the hyper-specialized and unusual nature of the work. Art conservators work in many different fields, from sculpture and painting restoration to paper and wood restoration. Part forensic scientist, part detective, part artist - so far it sounds like a dream job where all of my vices (obssessive compulsive tendencies, perfectionism, meticulousness) would become virtues. So what's the down side? There's plenty.
The artcon program has a massive list of prerequisites - one that wouldn't be so daunting to a fine arts major, but to someone coming from a philosophy/english background it's fairly significant. The requirements? 9 hours of studio work, 21 hours of art history, chemistry 101/102, organic chemistry 201/202, and outside employment/internship with a professional conservator. Those alone would require 4 semesters of undergraduate work, 3 if I was really pushing it, and after all that, there'd be no way to guarantee myself a spot in the advanced degree program. That's a huge investment of time and money without the assurance of a payoff.
Nevertheless, I'm not giving up yet. Coincidentally, there's an open house at the artcon department this Friday, so I'm going to go to feel it out and ask questions specific to my unique situation. I love the idea of being able to use my creative skills, critical skills, and fine handiwork in a job that seems useful, multifarious, and interesting to me. And I also love the fact that the work I'd do would probably be so far from my own work that I wouldn't feel tapped out at the end of the day - perhaps I'd even feel like the vocation had primed the pump for my avocation.
This really strikes at the heart of what I discussed during my examination of liberal arts: the difference between general education and vocational training. Art conservation would definitely be vocational training, and maybe that's what I've needed all along (or at least, recently).
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
damn, we are friends. i looked into the exact same thing and was daunted by the requirements.
also, i just posted about the life/work/work problems i have.
finally, the won has recovered a bit against the dollar, so i should be able to get my adobe programs so we can get a move on with g i f t in the early part of next year, if you are still interested.
this vocation, even if it were your dream job, still would impinge on yr art. it cant help but. even if you made art for money there would still come a time when you wanted to be free of it. this is the dilemma that creates the cyclical momentum we thrive on. the notion of never reaching satisfaction. exploring more, finding more, exploring again...
Also: be sure to get in touch with a couple of art conservationists before doing this.
@ kevin: i'm all for getting the gift project off the ground, probably best to wait until after the book fair in march.
@ anon: i agree with this, but i believe there can be a positive side to impingement, one that facilitates the cycle you mention. it can't always be thought of as a limitation on our art or ability to create, often it must be recognized as the raw material we use - without it our art work would just become incestuous, stagnant, and regurgitative.
@tawrin: i'm in the process of doing so right now. trying to get a sense of what a day in the life is like, as well as line up opportunities for hands-on experience before i commit to a program. is this what your suggesting, or is there a more cynical tone to your comment (ie: better find out how boring the job really is before you think about doing it...)?
No, it's just so you don't chase after something that's not real.
this cyclical momentum also refers to inspiration/depression/inspiration. continuous assault and relief. not a negative, yet not a way to live either. but that's our lot. one acquires a flavor for the extremes. wouldnt have the urge to produce otherwise, i believe. the cycle itself propels you.
nv
Post a Comment