Tony Jackson Journal #3

Source #1 http://www.jstor.org/stable/view/3193945

          I learned from the first read that if today’s art teachers take the time to enlighten their students about the possibilities in art that are now present the youth may not be so discouraged to take positions in the field upon entering the work force. Because of this source I no longer think of art careers being limited to illustrators, painters, sculptors, etc. I see that my major has roots in art and could even be considered an art career. I am also happy to see evidence that all art related careers are not low-paying, dead end jobs. This source really made me question my original perception of the boundaries of a career in art. The information from this source strengthens my views in regards to this topic because I refused to believe that most people employed in art-related careers are poor. When the writer made the point that city planners, art administrators, and architects are also considered art careers I was realized that there is plenty of money to be made in art-based careers. The author is writing from the third person point of view and is speaking to any and everyone concerned about the way our students are being educated about careers in art by their art teachers. I believe Ulbricht is speaking for the same group of people, in addition to the group of artists, art lovers, and art historians that can see a possible fall-off in art career interests if things do not change. I definitely feel that this text is looking through a biased lens with a slightly cloudy view of primary and secondary art education curriculums. Because of the author’s career in the art history field they probably feel a disservice being done to students who have talents or passions in art. This article is sparking my interest in finding out more of the different careers that can fit under the art umbrella and what an average initial salary estimate for those careers might look like.

Source #2 http://www.schoolsoup.com/careers/career_info.php?career_id=87

          From this source I learned that an artist’s education and training requirements truly depend on their special area of expertise and that a majority of artists are self-employed. I also noticed a side note at the end of the text reiterating the relation between design-oriented jobs and art careers. The two fields share so many qualities that their defining lines cross and can be described as one. Because of this I see that I have to look into how broad I will allow my art career specifications to get. I now see that the careers I include in my art group will definitely skew my salary, job availability, and employment numbers so I must be careful. With that being considered, if art or aesthetics are at the forefront of the job’s purpose, I feel I should include it.

This source again strengthens my stance on disproving the “poor artist” perception much of the world has. With closely related fields factored in, an artist can make more than enough for a living wage, initially. The writer is speaking from the third person point of view and seems to be speaking on a strictly statistical basis. The author is speaking to those interested in hard numerical facts. All of the reported information seems to have been collected in a survey or census-type fashion. This text seems like it could have been taken from a general almanac on the topic of art careers. Because of the nature of this type of informational writing I see no way for any bias to be present. I have noticed a recurring trend between this passage and the last. The jobs that are generally thought of when pondering art careers (such as cartoonists, sculptors, painters, etc.) have far lower average estimated incomes than that of related jobs like designers, photographers, and curators.