Business School or Go Act!?

Michele Seidman said:
I was trying hard to stay away on this but the last post contradicts itself.

Chambered...in one section you say people should not be making their art for profit but for love and then later you go on to say people are poor because they are not informed or have no balls.

So which is it...make art for no profit or have the balls to charge for it?

Seriously...you contradict your own statements. The fact is, there are no Patron Saints and even those who love their art NEED to focus on it making them money.

As for your reasons for 'others not being rich'...oh for goodness sake I know tons of people who don't care about money as much as you do. As long as they have enough they are fine. RICH does not buy happiness, it buys comforts in misery.

Rich only makes people happy if they convince themselves that money is all that matters! I have been very well off and I have been poor....and I was not poor for lack of balls or being ill informed BUT because people like you don't think artists should get paid and should just give it all away. Or, as in the last two years the medical bills got so out of hand it took my life savings. And don't try to claim that made me ill informed because a fire truck hit the car I was in at 22 and no one would insure me because of an accident I did not make happen.

And by the way...until you stop hiding behind your nick name and put a real name and links to prove who you are...I don't trust anything you have to say on any subject!

You got balls enough to show who you are?
Click to expand...


LOL... I've been using the same name since the mid-90s. I'll never change that.

And my "no balls" comment wasn't about the art, it was about making money doing things that make money. That's what most people don't have the stomach for -- that's all I'm saying.

And money doesn't buy one shred of happiness. I would never say that. Money is only important in matters that concern money. So, for me, money buys freedom. I don't have to sit in an office for 40 hours a week. I get to do whatever I want pretty much all the day through. THAT is extremely important to me. THAT should be extremely important to all artists.

I don't care if someone gets paid for their art. I'm just saying that should be an afterthought and that one should make sure their finances are taken care of so as to not let finances come into the equation when manifesting art.

This kid was asking if he should go act or go to business school. I told him to go act and go get informed on how to become rich, because I believe a person should have as much control over their lives as country and fate allow, right?

I'm saying go act -- and forget about any monetary gains or stature being associated with acting. Someone having agnst between a 9-5 and their art is obviously bringing security and monetary gain into the picture. That's weakness, plain and simple. You have to overcome this weakness and take control of your surroundings.

Either commit to being a starving artist, or commit to being a rich business person and an artist as separate entities -- but always, always, always do everything for the art, never for yourself.

I'm attempting to give insight into how to overcome poverty while maintaining artistic integrity. You CAN do both, but you'll only get there by the latter leading the former.
 
"Either commit to being a starving artist, or commit to being a rich business person and an artist as separate entities -- but always, always, always do everything for the art, never for yourself."

Ok, now we are talking the same language BUT I know we do the art for ourselves because it makes us feel whole. I know that I do what I do because I love it and cannot imagine do anything else. I have tried. I played the 9-5 and got my praises sung all the time for how quick I took on new skills. I was given raises and promotions left and right and I was still in misery.

When I tried to walk away from the 'arts' I was depressed and angry with the world. I do this because I must but where we don't agree is...the money. I need to pay my rent off my art because I don't do well when compromising. I think having a degree to fall back on is a crutch that will make it easy to fall back but at the same time, in this day and age if you don't have that degree...you seldom make enough to live on.

I already told our original person who created this thread (via email) that he should save all he can before he makes the move. However...if you go to California and NYC and get a 'straight' job, you seldom get to audition unless you take a low paying job you can quit. In those areas...everyone is an actor so the bosses don't like to give the day off.

Without having a nest egg, most actors get caught up in just trying to survive and never get to go back to their art at all. I know you have your freedom now...but can I ask...have you written and sold a script yet? Or is that freedom from burden making it easy to not work as hard to survive off the art?

The money HAS to be thought of from the start in the arts these days. It should not be that way but it is now. Too many fall to the wayside unless they focus on both the art and the money. And as my Mother always said "Artists underestimate their worth"...and they do so because a myth revolves around being a 'starving artists' as the only serious choice.

OK..that is my two cents..and Chambered thank you for taking the time to respond and explain your position. I admit it though...I still have a hard time taking anyone seriously who hides behind a nick name...even if they have used it for years. It is easy to say anything when you don't have to live with those words. I will eat my words if needed...I will admit my mistakes when I am aware...and I only say on boards what I would say to a person face to face!
 
Matt,
Why don't you come to the Toronto Short Film Project meeting Wednesday Night?
http://www.torontoshortfilmproject.com/home.html
Prospective members usually turn up at 7:30pm to get the "sales" pitch.
It's a place to network ... nothing more ... nothing less
You can be cast in a role as Actor, and be in 12 shorts per year! Or you may decide to write or Direct etc. etc.
 
You know, I've had this theory for years that there may be a slightly different...genetic make-up between, say, actors/musicians and painters/composers. I really feel that composers, writers, photgraphers, painters, etc. are wholly artists, while musicians and actors are performer/artists ("Performing Arts", right?). I noticed when I studied acting (albeit only for a couple terms), that actors were extremely concerned about the audience. Concerned with laughs, applause. I made a point to tell the professor (and the class) that I didn't understand why anyone would ever care what an audience thinks, as the audience doesn't matter in art. Only art matters in art.

Well, suffice to say, I was pretty much banished by all the actors from that moment on. To them, something as simple as an audience's applause and admiration was enough to elate or -- honestly, they treated it like their life's blood.

As someone who has never attempted to publish anything and has let almost no one view his works, I couldn't understand why the affirmation of others mattered in any way to the presence of the art existing for itself.

But that's it, isn't it? Actors and musicians are PERFORMING ARTISTS. They're not judged by how well THEY feel they've communicated what has been delivered through them, they're judged by how well the VIEWER feels they've communicated.

I recall a professor telling me as much when I told her that *I* didn't feel as though I'd projected the character the way *I* felt I should in a performance. She told me that it didn't matter how I felt in the character, it only mattered how the audience felt from my performance.

I think the line is a fine one, but it does exist.

So, all this is to say, is that my perspective is one not of a performer/artist, but just as an artist. To an artist I don't think the accolades (or monetary gain) should matter and should be wholly avoided if at all possible. Even now, all the money that I make in banking I hurriedly give to my woman for her to save and distribute as needed. It probably sounds silly to someone who isn't so repulsed by money as I am, but I actually don't do as well as I do at my job because I make a lot of money doing it (honestly, with the right investments, I don't really have to work at all anymore), I do so well because they give me these little glass trophies every month for hitting 25K in fees. In my experiences, when I keep the money I earn, I simply give it all away. I think money and giving attention to outside approval (or disapproval) in every way will damage my artistic integrity. Before I met my gal I did everything in my power to bring my accounts to zero every month, worried that the money would eventually infect my persona and artistic well-being as it does with most anyone.

BUT, for an actor, accolades and, I suppose, monetary gain can be seen as part of your performing artistic intention? E.g., if everyone wants to see you perform, you receive more applause which equals more monetary gain. Whereas I think most writers, painters and filmmakers should be wholly glad to see their work not thrive during their lifetime, but necessarily be appreciated beyond the reach of their human existence, leaving them to not suffer the chaos and confusion of critics, stardom and overwhelming amounts of money. I can't imagine how the more famous or critically acclaimed writers and filmmakers must feel having to deal with that element of performance attempting to integrate itself with their art. I think the best ones do everything they can to stay reclusive and to not read reviews or listen to what anyone thinks of anything they've ever done, some not even taking time to watch the movies or to read the books they've produced.

ANYway, in the end, I'm not able to give advice to a performing artist. Anything I've said in this thread should be viewed only as an aspect of this endevour (e.g., the artist half?)

And for that my advice remains the same: If you know your purpose then follow it. But follow it for purpose's sake.
 
mattspat said:
What does everyone think is a good time frame to devote to acting? I kind of felt that it is the kind of thing where you have to keep trying your whole life no matter what. As in no plan B. Just go go go.
Click to expand...

Well, I have backup plans (to filmmaking), but at the same time I would never give up on film because it's all that I really love doing that I can see making money at eventually. I also love writing and am an author but I don't see that panning out to any serious money, especially since I write non-fiction, and on the film industry, hehe.

But I think everyone has a set time frame that they need to make a move or basically find something else to do. For me, I've been at it two years, and it has mostly been reel-building and trying to make contacts, build my company, etc. I have been given, or given myself, this year and next to make a living doing this, to have the steady income basically to sustain me. Otherwise, I have to move to a backup plan pretty quickly. I could probably pursue film for another five years but I don't want to run my cash reserves down to zero and end up with nothing, so I'd rather just give it a reasonable shot and then if it doesn't work out, find something else to make money, and come back to film full time later.

lol, you are funny Chamber. Money is a resource, a tool, and used wisely it is incredibly valuable. The more money I have, the more I can express myself as an artist. I think it's funny when people say you shouldn't do filmmaking to make money. I don't know why not! Where else can you make more money than in filmmaking? To say that it's tough to make loads of cash doing film is silly -- of COURSE it is, do you think it's easy in real estate, or in the stock market, or in anything else? Making loads of cash is always hard, it just happens that in film if you make loads of cash you also become famous and meet a lot of cool people, get to do the best job in the world, etc. I wouldn't pick any profession that doesn't have the possibility, at least, for fame, fortune, and glory. Even if there is a tiny chance I want some chance, at least, it's the difference between someone with cancer knowing they're going to die from it or thinking there's some chance of recovery. I cannot work as hard as I do without thinking that one day, I can be a player in the industry. Then again I've always grown up with knowing how useful money is, and how many things wouldn't have happened for me without money. It's a tool, ultimately, it can be used well by smart people and I suppose used poorly by ones who don't have an idea how to put it to use. I wouldn't be pursuing film if I didn't have the money behind me to do it. It's just too risky and costs too much to build a good reel. Plus when you are starting in business it costs money to startup, to sustain yourself until you find viable clients, etc. I wouldn't say that money is my motivation for making good work, though, the work itself is reward enough for that. But the money is the lifeblood of the company, and without money I can't continue to pursue film.

Also, it's very important what viewers think of your work. If you make a short film that you think is great, but nobody else likes it, I don't see what the point is. I've written several books and am a professional writer, since I was 17, and communication is all about being able to express ideas effectively so that other people can understand them. Film is no different, it's just another means of communicating. It has to be understood and received well for it to have true merit. It's not that everyone should understand what you have done, but it should be quality enough so that people can see its merits. For me, a big part of making any work is the merits attached to it. I see my music video "Winded" differently now than before it went to 14 festivals / competitions, because now it is an acclaimed video, an award-winning video, before it was just mine, not sent off to the world yet. I let others judge my work. Ultimately, what I think about my work is nice, I want to be happy with it, but what others think of it is more important to me because films are made for audiences.
 
Last edited:
JonathanLB said:
Well, I have backup plans (to filmmaking), but at the same time I would never give up on film because it's all that I really love doing that I can see making money at eventually. I also love writing and am an author but I don't see that panning out to any serious money, especially since I write non-fiction, and on the film industry, hehe.

But I think everyone has a set time frame that they need to make a move or basically find something else to do. For me, I've been at it two years, and it has mostly been reel-building and trying to make contacts, build my company, etc. I have been given, or given myself, this year and next to make a living doing this, to have the steady income basically to sustain me. Otherwise, I have to move to a backup plan pretty quickly. I could probably pursue film for another five years but I don't want to run my cash reserves down to zero and end up with nothing, so I'd rather just give it a reasonable shot and then if it doesn't work out, find something else to make money, and come back to film full time later.

lol, you are funny Chamber. Money is a resource, a tool, and used wisely it is incredibly valuable. The more money I have, the more I can express myself as an artist. I think it's funny when people say you shouldn't do filmmaking to make money. I don't know why not! Where else can you make more money than in filmmaking? To say that it's tough to make loads of cash doing film is silly -- of COURSE it is, do you think it's easy in real estate, or in the stock market, or in anything else? Making loads of cash is always hard, it just happens that in film if you make loads of cash you also become famous and meet a lot of cool people, get to do the best job in the world, etc. I wouldn't pick any profession that doesn't have the possibility, at least, for fame, fortune, and glory. Even if there is a tiny chance I want some chance, at least, it's the difference between someone with cancer knowing they're going to die from it or thinking there's some chance of recovery. I cannot work as hard as I do without thinking that one day, I can be a player in the industry. Then again I've always grown up with knowing how useful money is, and how many things wouldn't have happened for me without money. It's a tool, ultimately, it can be used well by smart people and I suppose used poorly by ones who don't have an idea how to put it to use. I wouldn't be pursuing film if I didn't have the money behind me to do it. It's just too risky and costs too much to build a good reel. Plus when you are starting in business it costs money to startup, to sustain yourself until you find viable clients, etc. I wouldn't say that money is my motivation for making good work, though, the work itself is reward enough for that. But the money is the lifeblood of the company, and without money I can't continue to pursue film.

Also, it's very important what viewers think of your work. If you make a short film that you think is great, but nobody else likes it, I don't see what the point is. I've written several books and am a professional writer, since I was 17, and communication is all about being able to express ideas effectively so that other people can understand them. Film is no different, it's just another means of communicating. It has to be understood and received well for it to have true merit. It's not that everyone should understand what you have done, but it should be quality enough so that people can see its merits. For me, a big part of making any work is the merits attached to it. I see my music video "Winded" differently now than before it went to 14 festivals / competitions, because now it is an acclaimed video, an award-winning video, before it was just mine, not sent off to the world yet. I let others judge my work. Ultimately, what I think about my work is nice, I want to be happy with it, but what others think of it is more important to me because films are made for audiences.
Click to expand...

Don't take this the wrong way (or do), but in every conceivable way, I hope you fail miserably and go do whatever it is your "back up plan" is. Yours are the kinds of ideals that make art the devoid-of-any-content experience it has become in America. You realize that part of your REASON for creating ART is so that you can become rich, famous and a "player"? This is the worst sort of person. This is the grotesque under-bowel of what's wrong with the industry.

Artists were once revolutionists. Artists created and manipulated perceptions for message and for change. But people like you degrade us into common whores, all peddling what we have to the highest bidder so long as it conforms to their standards, not our own -- because artists no longer have any standards.

And though I've made my point on these boards several times, I'll make it once again: if you are an artist and have given your life to your art, then yes, making money in any other financial industry is quick and easy in comparison. An artist's innate insights into the human condition make things like banking and the market second nature. So no, an artist should never be creating art, even in part, for any sort of monetary or social gain. An artist should be creating art FOR ART. Compensation is a requirement of fairness, but should never be the purpose.

Yours is not the position of an artist but simply the position of an all too common ailment -- a disease that, above all else, craves materialism and social accolades over intregrity and message.

Cure the disease. Go get rich somewhere outside of the arts. Once you've done that, as I have, you can test your true measure as an artist. Right now, all you're doing is clogging up the pipe for the people who are doing this for the right reasons.
 
Chamber005 said:
As someone who has never attempted to publish anything and has let almost no one view his works, I couldn't understand why the affirmation of others mattered in any way to the presence of the art existing for itself.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but I find this a bit crazy. What good is it if no one ever reads it? It's the old "if a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it" thing. I suppose it's possible there are writers who write for themselves and don't care that it's never been read by another, but I'VE never met one. Whether for monetary gain or just to share their gift, every writer I know is dying to be read.
 
Chamber005 said:
Don't take this the wrong way (or do), but in every conceivable way, I hope you fail miserably and go do whatever it is your "back up plan" is. Yours are the kinds of ideals that make art the devoid-of-any-content experience it has become in America. You realize that part of your REASON for creating ART is so that you can become rich, famous and a "player"? This is the worst sort of person. This is the grotesque under-bowel of what's wrong with the industry.

Artists were once revolutionists. Artists created and manipulated perceptions for message and for change. But people like you degrade us into common whores, all peddling what we have to the highest bidder so long as it conforms to their standards, not our own -- because artists no longer have any standards.

And though I've made my point on these boards several times, I'll make it once again: if you are an artist and have given your life to your art, then yes, making money in any other financial industry is quick and easy in comparison. An artist's innate insights into the human condition make things like banking and the market second nature. So no, an artist should never be creating art, even in part, for any sort of monetary or social gain. An artist should be creating art FOR ART. Compensation is a requirement of fairness, but should never be the purpose.

Yours is not the position of an artist but simply the position of an all too common ailment -- a disease that, above all else, craves materialism and social accolades over intregrity and message.

Cure the disease. Go get rich somewhere outside of the arts. Once you've done that, as I have, you can test your true measure as an artist. Right now, all you're doing is clogging up the pipe for the people who are doing this for the right reasons.
Click to expand...

So I wrote this prior to further examination of your more recent comments under the Marketing vs Spamming thread in the Business section. I may have been overly judgemental on your position. And while I feel my position is valid in the context of your posting on this thread, your more dissected accounts of business/artistry have had me reevaluating my position.

As an artist, all I want is for the business to be kept out of the art. I've taken an approach that virtually excludes business from art completely, but that's probably because I am more suseptable to the influence of monies and social belonging for being impovrished most of my life. This is the reason I don't monitor any of my finances as they pertain to "savings" -- I give them all to someone else. As an artist I have no tolerance for the basic necessities or vices, right? But my approach is in the extreme.

So, sorry if I was overly harsh. I can't help hating the people who pass themselves off as artists when they're really only in it for the money and fame, as it degrades us as a people.

I don't believe you're one of these people. I think you are a filmmaker who has decided to also make a business of filmmaking. I am an artist who has decided to make a business of banking and trade. So long as we both understand the difference, I think all is well.
 
My mom has always told me:

Do you love not for the money but because you love to do it and eventually money will come your way. But if you can't support yourself doing what you love find other means of supporting yourself financially so you can continue to pursue your passion.

I personally love this little piece of advice and think it is a good model to go by.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top