Why must artists be poor Hadi Eldebek

I come from a family of five brothers,

all scientists and engineers.

A few years ago,
I sent them the following email:

“Dear brothers, I hope
this message finds you well.

I am emailing to let you know

that I’m dropping out
of my master’s program in engineering

to pursue a career
as a full-time musician.

All that I ask from you
is not to worry about me.”

Brother number one replied.

He was encouraging but a bit skeptical.

He said, “I wish you the best of luck.

You’re going to need it.”

(Laughter)

Brother number two
was a little bit more skeptical.

He said, “Don’t do it!

This will be the worst
mistake of your life.

Find a real career.”

(Laughter)

Well, the rest of my brothers
were so enthusiastic about my decision,

they didn’t even respond.

(Laughter)

I know that the skepticism
coming from my brothers

is out of care and concern for me.

They were worried.

They thought it would be difficult
to make it as an artist,

that it will be a challenge.

And you know what? They were right.

It is such a challenge
to be a full-time artist.

I have so many friends
who need to have a second job

as a plan B in order to pay for the bills,

except that plan B
sometimes becomes their plan A.

And it’s not just my friends and I
who experience this.

The US Census Bureau states that only
10 percent of art school graduates

end up working as full-time artists.

The other 90 percent, they change careers,

they work in marketing,
sales, education and other fields.

But this is not news, right?

We almost expect the artist
to be a struggling artist.

But why should we expect that?

I read an article in the “Huffington Post”

saying that four years ago,
the European Union

began the world’s largest ever
arts funding initiative.

Creative Europe
will give 2.4 billion dollars

to over 300,000 artists.

In contrast, the US budget
for our National Endowment for the Arts,

the largest single funder
for the arts across the United States,

is merely 146 million dollars.

To put things into perspective,

the US budget for the military
marching bands alone

is almost twice as much as the entire NEA.

Another striking image comes from
Brendan McMahon for the “Huffington Post,”

saying that out of
the one trillion dollar budget

for military and defense-related spending,

if only 0.05 percent
were allocated to the arts,

we would be able to pay
for 20 full-time symphony orchestras

at 20 million dollars apiece,

and give over 80,000 artists

an annual salary of 50,000 dollars each.

If that’s only 0.05 percent,

imagine what a full one percent could do.

Now, I know we live
in a capitalist society,

and profits matter a lot.

So let’s look at it
from a financial angle, shall we?

The US nonprofit arts industry

generates more than 166 billion dollars
in economic activity,

it employs 5.7 million people

and it returns 12.6 billion dollars

in tax revenue.

But this is only a financial angle, right?

We all know that the arts is way more
than just an economic value.

The arts brings meaning to life.

It’s the spirit of our culture.

It brings people together
and it supports creativity

and social cohesion.

But if the arts contributes
this much to our economy,

why then do we still invest
so little in arts and artists?

Why do more than 80 percent
of our schools nationwide

still experience budget cuts
in arts education programs?

What is it about the value
of arts and artists

that we still don’t understand?

I believe the system is flawed
and far from being fair,

and I want to help change that.

I want to live in a society

where artists are more valued

and have more cultural
and financial support

so they can focus on creating arts
instead of being forced to drive Ubers

or take corporate jobs
they’d rather not have.

There are other sources of income
for artists, however.

There are private foundations,

grants and patrons who give money,

except a vast majority of artists
don’t know about these opportunities.

On one side you have institutions
and people with money.

On the other side
you have artists seeking funding,

but the artists don’t know
about the people with the money,

and the people with the money
don’t necessarily know

about the artists out there.

This is why I am very excited
to share “Grantpa,”

an online platform that uses technology

to match artists with grants
and funding opportunities

in a way that is easy, fast
and less intimidating.

Grantpa is only one step
towards solving an existing problem

of funding inequality,

but we need to work collectively
on multiple fronts

to reevaluate how we view
the artists in our society.

Do we think of arts
as a luxury or a necessity?

Do we understand what goes on
in the day-to-day life of an artist,

or do we still believe that artists,
no matter how struggling they are,

are happy simply because
they’re following their passion?

In a few years, I plan to send
my brothers the following email:

“Dear brothers, I hope
this message finds you well.

I am emailing to let you know
that I am doing great

and so are hundreds
of thousands of artists

who are being valued more
culturally and financially

and getting enough funding
to focus on their crafts

and create more art.

I appreciate all of your support.

Couldn’t have done it without you.”

Thank you.

(Applause)

我来自一个有五个兄弟的家庭,他们

都是科学家和工程师。

几年前,
我给他们发了以下电子邮件:

“亲爱的兄弟们,我希望
这封邮件能找到你。

我发邮件是为了让你

知道我要
退出我的工程硕士课程,

以追求一个完整的职业生涯。
——时代的音乐家

。我对你的要求
就是不要为我担心。

一号兄弟回答。

他很鼓励,但也有点怀疑。

他说:“祝你好运。

你会需要它的。”

(笑声)

二号兄弟
有点怀疑。

他说:“不要这样做!

这将
是你一生中最严重的错误。

找到一份真正的职业。”

(笑声)

好吧,我的其他兄弟
对我的决定如此热情,

他们甚至没有回应。

(笑声)

我知道
我兄弟们的怀疑

是出于对我的关心和关心。

他们很担心。

他们认为
作为一名艺术家很难做到这一点

,这将是一个挑战。

你知道吗? 他们是对的。

成为一名全职艺术家是一个很大的挑战。

我有很多
朋友需要第二份工作

作为 B 计划来支付账单,

除了 B 计划
有时会成为他们的 A 计划。

而且经历这种情况的不仅仅是我和我的
朋友。

美国人口普查局指出,只有
10% 的艺术学院毕业生

最终成为全职艺术家。

剩下的 90%,他们转行,

他们在市场营销、
销售、教育和其他领域工作。

但这不是新闻,对吧?

我们几乎期望这位
艺术家成为一个挣扎的艺术家。

但我们为什么要期待呢?

我在《赫芬顿邮报》上读到一篇文章,

说四年前
,欧盟

启动了世界上有史以来规模最大的
艺术资助计划。

Creative Europe

将向超过 300,000 名艺术家提供 24 亿美元。

相比之下,美国
国家艺术基金会(全美

最大的单一
艺术资助机构)的预算

仅为 1.46 亿美元。

换个角度来看,仅

美国军乐队的预算

就几乎是整个 NEA 的两倍。

另一个引人注目的图片来自
《赫芬顿邮报》的布伦丹·麦克马洪 (Brendan McMahon),

他说
在 1 万亿美元

的军事和国防相关支出预算中,

如果只有 0.05
% 用于艺术,

我们将能够
支付 20 - 时间

交响乐团每人2000万美元,

并给超过80,000名艺术家每人

50,000美元的年薪。

如果这只是 0.05%,

想象一下整整 1% 可以做什么。

现在,我知道我们生活
在一个资本主义社会

,利润很重要。

那么让我们
从财务的角度来看,好吗?

美国非营利性艺术产业

创造了超过 1660 亿美元
的经济活动

,雇佣了 570 万人

,并获得了 126 亿美元

的税收。

但这只是财务角度,对吧?

我们都知道艺术
不仅仅是一种经济价值。

艺术给生活带来意义。

这是我们文化的精神。

它将人们聚集在一起
,支持创造力

和社会凝聚力。

但是,如果艺术
对我们的经济有这么大的贡献,

那为什么我们仍然
对艺术和艺术家的投资如此之少呢?

为什么
我们全国 80% 以上的学校

仍然
在艺术教育项目中经历预算削减?

我们仍然不了解
的艺术和艺术家

的价值是什么?

我相信这个系统是有缺陷的,
而且远非公平

,我想帮助改变这一点。

我想生活在一个

艺术家更受重视

并拥有更多文化
和经济支持的社会中,

这样他们就可以专注于创作艺术,
而不是被迫驾驶优步

或从事他们不愿从事的公司工作

然而,艺术家还有其他收入来源。

有私人基金会、

赠款和赞助人提供资金,

但绝大多数艺术家
不知道这些机会。

一方面,你有机构
和有钱的人。

另一方面
,有艺术家在寻求资助,

但艺术家不
知道有钱

的人,有钱的人
不一定

知道那里的艺术家。

这就是为什么我很
高兴分享“Grantpa”,这是

一个在线平台,它使用技术

以简单、快速且不那么吓人的方式将艺术家与资助和资助机会相匹配

Grantpa 只是
解决现有

资金不平等问题的一步,

但我们需要
在多个方面

共同努力,重新评估我们如何看待
社会中的艺术家。

我们认为艺术
是奢侈品还是必需品?

我们是否了解
艺术家日常生活中发生的事情,

还是我们仍然相信艺术家,
无论他们多么挣扎,

仅仅因为
他们追随自己的激情而快乐?

几年后,我计划给
我的兄弟们发送以下电子邮件:

“亲爱的兄弟们,我希望
这封邮件能找到你。

我发邮件是为了让你
知道我做得很好

,成千上万的

艺术家也是如此。 “在
文化和经济上更重视,

并获得足够的资金
来专注于他们的手工艺

和创作更多艺术。

我感谢你所有的支持。

没有你,我做不到。”

谢谢你。

(掌声)