40 Years Old and Still Waiting to Emerge? by Norbert Marszalek
What does it mean to emerge as an artist? Is it selling work, showing work, worldwide recognition of our work or just getting work done? I’m not sure how many artists fall into the category of the 40 year old artist still waiting to emerge. It is a precarious group. Sometimes I think there are plenty of us out there…toiling away at our work year after year after year without any real recognition or financial gain. Other days I feel we are a dying breed because who wouldn’t give up by their early 30s?
Back in art school in the early 80s, art instructors instilled in us that an artist had to mature to see growth and evolution in their work. An artist had to be patient. Recognition would come after years of hard work–sometimes even 20 years of hard work! De Kooning was 44 when he got his first solo show…Hopper only sold one painting by the time he reached 40 and he painted “Nighthawks” when he was 60.
We learned stuff like this, but things were already changing around us. Younger and younger artists started getting bigger and bigger shows. Haring and Basquiat for example and then in the 90s, Saatchi started turning 25 year old MFAers into superstars, something he still does today.
Though there have always been early successes and others who mature later in life, it seems today that if an artist hasn’t received some recognition by the time they reach 30, they’re not likely to get any. Hence the casualty rate: some say that 85% of artists quit within 5 years of leaving art school.
I think the reason for the youth movement over the past 15+ years is all about high-profile schools pushing their MFA programs. This effects what is shown in galleries, the way curators judge work and the art world as a whole. There is big money in MFA programs. The bigger the so-called “talent” the schools turn out, the more interest they create, and so on and so on. Young artists become a commodity, selling to the highest bidder. They rise high and then crash low–becoming another one of the 85% who quit in less than 5 years.
So, is it possible to find success after many years of work? Can you still emerge after age 40? Do experience and growth count as much as an MFA? Will we wait for anyone to mature into the next de Kooning or Hopper?
Category: Articles, Essays 44 comments »
November 10th, 2008 at 9:42 am
I think the universities and colleges that weren’t necessarily known for art, encouraged maturity before success as this was the conventional wisdom. For these schools, art was a subject that was part of a more liberal arts experience and not necessarily preparation for a career. Students in these schools, for whatever reason probably didn’t know where they wanted to go with art. They just had innate ability and a strong interest in it. In many cases, they wanted to get a more rounded education to have “something to fall back on” since art is something “you can’t make a living at.”
November 10th, 2008 at 9:56 am
I thought it was poignant when Kerry James Marshall said in one of his interviews that MFA programs were a scam – -
November 10th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
That is pretty poignant, Norbert. It’s still a very small handful of MFAs that get “discovered.”
“Emerging” is all about recognition, not about the artwork, and not necessarily about financial success from it. At least at present, I think the art world generally associates the label with young artists on the rise to “stardom,” regardless of whether they later crash and burn. Artists who stick with it in the face of frustrations, other than the also very small handful that are making real money from it in addition to garnering recognition/growing a reputation, have to be doing it for reasons other than fame and fortune. I suppose I am cynical: even if the art world weren’t so youth star skewed, the nature of people, and life circumstances, is that most people aren’t going to persist beyond a certain point without consistent rewards of recognition and money, and so the numbers of “mature” emerging artists will be quite small.
November 10th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
It’s true that only a very small handful of MFAers get discovered but just imagine how many non-MFAers get discovered nowadays – -
November 10th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
I wonder what the numbers look like in statistics, rather than antedotally, between MFAs and non MFAs “making it”, and then between MFAs from the “top” schools and other MFAs. I’d guess it would skew toward the MFAs in recent times, and toward MFAs from the “top” schools, but I don’t really know.
Is there a case for getting an MFA beyond a certain age, say your 30 cut-off or a 35 cut-off (which seems to be the “age” cut off for quite a lot of age specific emerging opportunities)? Do the same benefits accrue?
Grant it schools may not have to work as hard at promoting their BFA programs as they do their MFA programs (I’m sure the BFA programs in sheer numbers of students are the real cash cow but MFA program reputations carry over to attract students to BFA programs), but I think that with how young things were skewing over the last few years, an ambitious (young) student who worked at making good connections while getting their BFA as well as developing good work, and who exhibited professionally while getting their BFA, might have stood a shot of getting almost the equivalent boost as some MFA graduates get, assuming the student had developed an identifiable voice. With the economy now, that may be less likely.
November 10th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Dee, good point between BFA and MFA.
Does an MFA really make a person a “better” artist. It does give that person an extra boost for a few years because they have the school behind them but I’m sure that quickly fades. I guess if a person wants to teach on the university level they need the MFA. Seems very circular – -
November 10th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Whether an MFA makes a “better” artist is I think per individual question. For some, yes, and for others, no.
It does give: 1) solid, consistent time devoted to making work in an environment where regular critiques and challenges to the work are relatively easy to secure and idea exchange is fostered, 2) for those who work collaboratively, it offers a relatively easy means to find like minded artist with whom to develop working relationships, 3) for those who want to work in multiple media, it offers an efficient means (access to equipment, tutorials, professors) to learning methods and techniques (though that has to be sought out and pushed by the individual student in most cases) to experiment in an environment that enables developing a level of proficiency in the media, and 4) it provides many opportunities to talk about one’s work both in the context of presenting it and in the context of learning to teach other students (personally, I think learning to talk about one’s work and how it fits within art criticism helps one solidify the identity of one’s voice, even if that voice dismisses much of the art criticism that is in the current vogue — I don’t think any of us are in a vacuum).
I think you can get all of this without an MFA. Eventually, when you are out of the MFA program, you have to build all of this for yourself from then on.
November 10th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
I think it’s great that there’s an 85% attrition rate after graduation, it’s thinning the herd, separating the wheat from the chaff , or whichever wise phrase you favor…The whole art racket’s a marathon, not a sprint, so the more that fall away, the better; not for those that keep going, but for the viewing audience…There’s only one reason to keep going: BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO, anyone in it for praise or money oughta bark up another tree!
That’s my two cents, hope you keep these discussions going!
November 10th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Dmitry, I couldn’t agree with you more. Though I think we would also all agree that a little recognition and maybe a little money wouldn’t be so bad either – -
November 11th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Luckily, art is something you don’t retire from. It’s still important to watch out for distractions, of which, a forty year old artist could have a lot. It can be very easy for art-making to become a side project, where it becomes really difficult to acheive recognition.
November 11th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
“So, is it possible to find success after many years of work? Can you still emerge after age 40?”
It’s certainly possible but how probable? – - What do you think…?
November 11th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
I think that depends on what one defines as emergence. Fame -getting on the cover of Art in America? Money -selling enough of your artwork to pay your expenses without the help of anyone else? Fulfillment -creating the pieces you feel you need to? I would like to think that emergence is on-going. Look at Lee Bontecou -she emerged in her 20s then went into self imposed seclusion and is now re-emerging to the public. She never stopped working and grew in amazing ways. There are so many examples.
Yes it is possible and probable. – we have to believe that. How probable? Again, it depends on how you define it. We just have to keep pushing and trying. Now get back to your painting!
November 11th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Joanne, you bring up some good points. It would be interesting to learn what other people consider being a “success”.
This is pretty basic but I think being a “success” is having a few solo shows with a reputable gallery that is looking out for your best interest. Selling enough work (and work related things) so you can make ends meet..and maybe a little extra. Being in a few respected museum collections. Being written up in some important periodicals. And being part of some of the important Biennials. To me, that’s being a “success”.
This has nothing to do with the actual making of the work, feelings, fulfillment, etc. I’m just speaking from a business perspective.
November 11th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
article here about “late bloomers”
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/10/20/081020fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all
and on the topic itself: whether i am “discovered” or not, i will work. i have worked since i was 14 or 15; i will not stop. i have worked through deep pains, worries, depressions, great glories, happiness, and peace; i will not stop. i have made thousands of dollars on single works – selling or not selling them would not have mattered; i will work. i have given away dozens of works, each one as precious as the last – giving them away didn’t take away from their value, nor did it take away from mine; i will work.
to me the question is moot. do we seek attainment outside of the work? would that attainment make the work better?
the investigation, the passionate discourse with history and one’s self: these are the things that matter. the joy of materials, of testing one’s own vision in the crucible of experience and time: these are the things that matter.
the moments where my students grasp what i’m saying and learn to see just a little better, learn to make with just a little more integrity, learn to experience life just a little more fully – these things are worth more to me than money. money, sales, accolades… only means to an end for me. the end is my experience in the world, with other human begins, with value, with God, with ideas, with knowledge, with conception, with execution, with transcendent forms, with light, and with shadow, with material, with the joy of making, and with the tremendous gift that BEING IS EVERY MOMENT.
November 11th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Thanks for your insight Matt…and the link.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:31 am
Years ago I sported a baseball cap that said Kiss My MFA. I was always amazed at how the myriad meanings of that phrase seemed capable of influencing far beyond its aparent intent. Unfortunately it was lifted from a bench at the MCA.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:53 am
nice one, Ted – -
November 19th, 2008 at 10:43 am
The thing is if you have not had a solo exhibition in a museum you are still emerging.
But who cares? (I agree with Matt about the students and the other points he made.)
Artists make art, in between driving a cab, after the MFA which does not really prepare you for anything that you have not taught yourself…it gives you an opportunity to get the feel of being a working artist.
You have to do the work. You have to find shows. You have to develop a body of work. And you have to figure out where you fit!
You get no guarantees in this field. But both Alice Neel and Louise Nevelson were considered old when they hit (wrote about them on my blog, Joyce Owens: Artist on Art). I say never say never, but work for your own gratification.
November 20th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Dimitry you are so right.
It seems to me that an effective graduate program teaches us how to think in the languages of our diciplines, and the “how to get a show” or be a professional artist information is more akin to what one might learn at the local Vocational Tech Institute which does not exist for the fine arts. That some of this has been taken up by graduate programs actually uses valuable time that could be used for developing conceptual skills, and instead is producing a generation of artists that are very adept at doing very boring Artists Statements. So boring in fact that I know a well known artist that did a public art proposal that was hand written with crayons, and he got it! ahead of many perfectly prepared proposals and statements. In our field the moment an aspect of our task is committed to a form, it becomes invisible like camoflage, then the artist does something completely off the wall in order that it be seen… I think that the students begging for information on how to succeed as professional artists should be excused from graduate programs.
November 20th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Yes, Dmitry does hit it on the head – -
November 22nd, 2008 at 10:25 am
“There are two classes of human beings. One has ideas, which it believes in fully, perhaps, but modifies to bring about “success”. The other class has ideas which it believes in and must carry out absolutely; success or no success. The first class has a tremendous majority, and they are all slaves. The second class are the only free people in the world.”
- – Robert Henri
November 22nd, 2008 at 1:28 pm
I just wanted to remind your subscribers about the current sculpture show at Corbett vs Dempsey….Joeseph Goto. I did not know this artist prior to getting the opportunity to prep his work for the show and its of my favorite work ever at least for now. There is one more week I think….. Don’t miss this rare opportunity to see a Chicago original.
November 25th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
it would be interesting to compare the amount of money in sales mfa’s make in their first (and maybe last) five years of post grad, and the amount of money raked in by the MFA programs across the country.
November 25th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
“Luckily, art is something you don’t retire from”
yay verily. ive been thinking alot about this in the recent international recession times. You can lose your house, you can get fired from your job – but art and being an artist is a job you can never be fired from, can never lose. in times like these, when people are killing themselves over their destroyed careers, we can take comfort in knowing the security of our rare and understated abilities.
November 25th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
J Beckman, Good points – -
November 27th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
It’s important not to be bitter and think that others less talented or deserving are reaping the fortunes and accolades we believe should be ours…There’s no formula because every one of our paths is different; one can repeat every step that’s led to fame and end up nowhere…Breaks come at the most unexpected moments and all we can do is keep going and recognize them when they present themselves…
December 1st, 2008 at 9:20 am
It’s a given that “we all have to create” and that “we have no choice”. I think that some of these other issues that are addressed are just as important – -
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:16 am
I, long ago, gave up the idea of making a living from my art. The narrow niche to which i appeal has little commercial value. However, that does not stop me from creating the art and the next fulfilling step attempting to exhibit the art. I plug away at sending out the CDs in the hope of getting a small show here and there. The sense of accomplishment from these exhibits is fantastic. Also great, visits from curators or collectors and their feedback. These are moments that make the concept of “making it” vague. That moment of feeling good about your art is “making it” as much as commercial success, covers of Art in America and great fame. No?
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:57 am
Gabriella,
Great to find you here and heartily concur… we have to be rather tough…..Your work needs more exposure in this town.
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:28 am
A “serious” artist doesn’t make art to make a living…that’s for street fair artists. A “serious” artist makes work to be heard. And sometimes money, recognition, etc. is a reward.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:26 pm
The only way to fail at art is by quitting. That’s not a bad thing, if one doesn’t want to be an artist anymore. However, it is bad if the artist quits for whatever reason, yet the desire to create is still burning.
March 13th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
good article. many true words spoken here. let us keep remembering the difference between amateur and professional is ‘getting paid’. i ‘ve always felt ‘emerging’ is a strange term. there is known and unknown. opportunities define this, and commitment, persistence and creative approaches to art and life often dictate or at least encourage the opportunities that come our way. good artists may come out of art schools, but great work by true artists is born from experience. We know that is something that cannot be bought, it takes a rare soul to assimilate the fruits of labor, the treasures of a journey, and the wisdom that is gained and share it with a strong voice. it also takes the rare awareness of a viewer to recognize that rare voice.
You to be in the line of fire to get shot. Even if it is dark.
In this months issue of Art In America, Dave Hickey writes about the question of MFA’s etc. it really is an excellent read, coming from a great writer who cuts to the chase and speaks to the heart of true artists.
March 13th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Well said Paul. And thanks for the heads up on the Art in America article.
March 14th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
MFA my ass.
what has happened to you all?
just push the damn paint around until you are happy with it
that’s the reward
Saatchi, MFAs, curators” galleristas”, resumes,networking,
Kiss my mo****f***in ass
I’ve been “emerging” for let’s see, 23 years!
talk is cheap
January 7th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Very true and thanks for this great article. Having hit 60 and still painting without much recognition, I am thinking that maturation is that point where we understand that the art world including MFA programs are as the judge in the Rothko case indicates, “by far the most corrupt business he saw in his lifetime on the bench”. (this in The Rothko Legacy)….and do our work anyway.
January 7th, 2010 at 5:48 pm
There was an article in the New York Times about a 94 year old woman who is just becoming the “Hot New Thing in Painting”. She has been painting according to the article for six decades. She thought “fame was a vulgar thing. So I just worked and waited”. She made her first sale in 2004 and is now being pursued by collectors. Her name is Carmen Herrera.
You have to ask yourself why you are doing it. What’s worse, not having the courage to express yourself creatively or not being recognized for what you create. Is it not enough that you are doing it? In my 50s, I’m finally expressing myself creatively and am starting to feel satisfaction in that expression. Whether I get recognized for it is not an expectation. If it happens, great but I do not pine for it. All you can do is create and share your inspiration with others. Reactions good or bad, should not determine your creative direction. Just enjoy the flow as it comes, in whatever shape or form.
January 7th, 2010 at 5:57 pm
I’m just under 40 and still consider myself emerging. That will still be the case 2 years from now. I think takes time; you have to pay your dues and put the time in. Working consistently and developing your art is what’s important. Stay in it for the long haul and recognition will come.
The instant art superstars are also a reflection on our culture. It’s not just visual art where this happens. Take music as an example…Bands are not discovered by some record company A&R guy anymore. A kid posts a few songs to a MySpace page, builds a following in a matter of months, and becomes a music blog sensation before his first album comes out. It used to be that bands built up a following over many years of hard work, touring, and promoting themselves to college radio stations. But with the internet, it’s easier to get your work out there – fast. The music industry doesn’t “develop” bands anymore and grow their following over time. Except for the select few, this instant success isn’t sustainable, creativity fades, and they fizzle out. Same with the art stars.
I’ve been practicing art regularly for about 13 years. I didn’t go to traditional art school but have taken classes to build up my skills and learned by working, going shows, museums, and constantly reading about art and artists. I know some people who did go to art school, got their BFA or MFA but haven’t picked up a brush since. But whether you went to art school or not, I think you have to keep educating yourself – taking a class, workshop, reading, experimenting with your work. It helps you continue to grow as an artist. This, along with dedication and experience counts as much as an MFA.
January 10th, 2010 at 1:01 am
My initial thought here is: “ask Van Gogh” and I’d reconsider what we mean “emerging”. Is it being with a certain gallery, being featured in a museum show, hitting a sales record? I get the impulse and desire but it’s difficult to distinguish this from the same old status-race that so to plagues our depraved culture. Does that shape the kind of work that achieves this lofty status? And in some cases, the work that gets put on this pedestal seems to me enormously vapid, mechanical and cold-hearted.
That being said, what still counts is the originality of one’s ideas and expression, the intensity of one’s energies to realize them and a little luck in connecting with people on the business side of the art world who can get excited about the work.
December 18th, 2010 at 10:27 am
I like Norbert’s article and all the response comments offer good points. Almost anything that can be said on the topic has value because terms like “emerging” and “success” are so open-ended. As for the MFA, it will soon be replaced by a studio PhD in America (as is already happening elsewhere). That will complete the total absorption of art into the empire of academia and the apotheosis of theory before practice, or word before act. In fact even now we can say that art is only what’s said about it and the MFA program is simply the process of learning artspeak. Yet Chicago has always been a center for antagonistic art, not against society so much as against the dominance of artworld artspeak and for the primary role of “unexplained” creative action. Noticed or ignored, Chicago’s best art bubbles up like a spring; it’s not piped in from artspeak headquarters.
December 18th, 2010 at 10:49 am
“As for the MFA, it will soon be replaced by a studio PhD in America (as is already happening elsewhere). That will complete the total absorption of art into the empire of academia and the apotheosis of theory before practice, or word before act.”
Frighteningly true.
July 4th, 2011 at 10:31 am
In my humble opinion, an MFA is irrelevant unless your intention is to teach in a traditional setting. Though I have a degree and I have numerous additional credits in art, design and art history, the most valuable lessons that I have learned has come from sharing time with other artists in their creative element and through personal experimentation. I’ve been emerging or maturing now for more than thirty years. I would think that the most important credentials that I have is my body of work. I will admit, that it can be very challenging for a forty or fifty-year old artist to acquire the same prolification of opportunity that artists experience when they are in their twenties. Whether you’re speaking of grants, awards, shows, collectors or galleries, it would seem that artists of age are mostly destined to submerge than emerge. Maybe the internet’s democratization of art is the saving grace for those of us whose brushes have become worn, but not tired.
July 4th, 2011 at 10:54 am
I agree with you Dan. An artist recently told me that the most important thing we artists can do is to share time with other artists. I’m starting to understand how vital that is.
November 11th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
“emerging”, its just a term, at times I have been emerging at other times I have been mid-career. Art dealers use this term like all other terms , when they talk to collectors, would be collectors – their clients.
heck- I emerge from my bed every morning, I emerge from the dinner table every evening and so on – get the point?
the point is, like anything else in life, do what we love because we will have to keep doing it, and that no matter what we choose to do, we have to learn how to make money with it. I knew lawyers who were less successful monetarily because they did not know how to make money with their trade and skills!
November 26th, 2011 at 8:36 am
[...] Marszalek, a wonderful artist, and a thoughtful blogger with strong opinions, has a post “40 Years Old and Still Waiting to Emerge” in which he questions the definition of what is an emerging artist. I’m 60 years old [...]