<p>I’ve been thinking about this…
The old adage is film degrees are worthless in steady job prospects.
and while I don’t expect my degree to earn my job for me, I’m wondering if it’s a safer bet and adds more “worth” to an art degree if there’s accounting, business, or even entrepreneurship tacked to it. Yes, it’s definitely more work, but if 4 years of extra work opens doors for a lifetime of stability, what do you guys think?</p>
<p>Totally depends on your career plans. Some business knowledge as an artist-especially if you want to be self-employed eventually- is an excellent idea. It would also help if you need a day job while working on your art in your spare time.</p>
<p>For some, the chance to work on so many areas of art- trying new materials and methods would take up most of their electives. But again, a minor in business would still be useful. </p>
<p>I’d say, unless you want to be an art or elementary or kindergarten teacher, the study of art isn’t ‘worth’ it economically for most people. But it’s ‘worth’ it for people who feel the need to create as an integral part of their personal identity or in order to process the world around them. It gives you problem solving and collaboration skills. The ability to communicate not only in writing. Creative thinking. All skills newer companies value. </p>
<p>Do the business if you enjoy it and/or you’d get good grades. Would you regret not giving yourself a full 4 years dedicated to art? Would you regret not taking business if you found a ‘proper’ job hard to find (like many grads regardless of major?) You regret what you haven’t done more than what you have…</p>
<p>Art is a passion for most successful artists. I know few true artists that could tolerate life in a cubicle at a keyboard for a single 8 hour day.</p>
<p>If you want film to be your hobby and you want to be really good at it, then a double major makes sense. If you want film to be your career and life, you really can’t pursue other tracks. Few people are good enough out of college to go on to instant success. It takes about 5-10 years in full time pursuit to find your voice. If you are young, it’s hard but not a bad life. </p>
<p>If you think of getting a proper job, you may not be cut out for it, mentally, which is ok, few people are. My S always says art is life so he relentlessly pursues it. He can’t help it. Same with many of his art school friends. Art, not money, jobs, etc is life.</p>
<p>Hmm. I disagree in part with Madaboutx.</p>
<p>Yes, if you look at the biographies of successful artists, the one thing they have in common, regardless of training or academics is that they work, work and work some more on creating, getting better, and developing their ideas. </p>
<p>However, the romantic notion that a true artist will or has to shun more regular employment is wrong and unhelpful. </p>
<p>Just looking at the Impressionists and Post-impressionists, they either had their own money or the family gave them money to live on. Begging letters were flying left, right and centre. Art has been traditionally a very ‘middle class’ profession. Most people had to earn a living doing low paid, manual or service jobs. 6 -7 days a week. They had neither the time, the money or the self belief that it was a profession they could enter. Only those who had an income from other sources such as investments or land could afford both the time and expense of materials. </p>
<p>It’s still that way today. It would be wrong to immediately dismiss a single mother as not being a ‘true’ artist because she puts her child and keeping a roof over there head first. She could have the natural talent of Michaelangelo but couldn’t afford to express that talent. Look at the amount of hustling/ marketing Vermeer had to do in order to attract patrons (ie a source of income that would allow him to paint).</p>
<p>And there has to be limits. Living in unhealthy, damp ridden accomodation. Not getting a healthy diet. These aren’t the privations of an artist. It’s called poverty. Poverty means you’re more likely to be physically or mentally ill. What about your medical bills? When are you meant to create when you don’t have the energy to even cook for yourself?</p>
<p>A good half of today’s top film makers didn’t go to or didn’t complete film school. Instead, they worked on their films in their spare time or got low level jobs in the industry. They created as often as their financial circumstances would allow. </p>
<p>Lastly, if someone is unable to hold down a regular job for the sake of keeping a roof over their head or food then I suggest they need to talk to a doctor concerning their mental health. Not their mental suitability for non-creative work. </p>
<p>I’m artistic. I’ve sold and exhibited my own paintings. But chronic depression stopped me from being able to work full stop. Including my art. If you can’t handle any regular work regardless of how basic including cleaning toilets- there’s no shame in that- then you need to see someone because that’s neither normal, healthy or something to aspire to.</p>
<p>Apologies, Madaboutx, if that came off a bit more antagonistic than I was aiming for. Enjoyed having a bit of a debate for once :)</p>