In today’s New York Times, there is a front page piece by Dan Barry titled: At an Age for Music and Imagination, Real Life Is Intruding.
It’s the story about a smart and musically talented high school student who has dreams of pursuing a career as a violinist, but who will choose instead to enter the field of nursing. It appears as an all or nothing choice: music or nursing.
It’s a well done story that looks at the life she leads, including the hours she works at the local Sonic, the preparations and excitement she and her fellow students feel as they head toward a national orchestra competition, the charge levied each parent for children to play in orchestras and/or participate in sports, and more.
It is a real story about a teenager overcoming significant challenges, and the price she pays as she succeeds.
The article made me think about the need to move arts and arts education towards life -long learning and participation. Tiffany Clay, the subject of this story, should have multiple pathways available to continue playing, as long as she wants, whether or not she becomes a professional musician, a nurse, a homemaker, or whatever.
The excitement of young people playing music, for the sake of music, the enjoyment and spirit and energy that emanates from performances such as the one covered in this story, is at the core of what pushes people to become professionals. That energy, excitement, sense of community and power. It’s so much of why so many are excited by El Sistema.
Oddly enough, it’s not what you find enough of once you enter the professional world. I had a friend who played in the pit of Cats for a decade, it certainly wasn’t something he found there. Those gigs that you do, that are uninspired, are a long way from why you became a professional in the first place. I have had many friends in major orchestras, as well as freelancers, talk about the lack of inspiration, the long stretches between inspiration and tedium. And, yes, of course I understand that inspiration is by nature and definition not commonplace.
Does this inspiration have to end after high school, or college, or if you choose not to pursue music as a career?
There’s been a bit more buzz over the past year or you about amateur arts making. I know of at least one foundation that is considering funding this area, and a number of the service organizations are looking at doing more around this.
I hope this area grows. It’s really where my interest lies, in that I am much less concerned about developing professional artists, and much, much more concerned about making arts accessible and vital for everyone. There should and must be more pathways for the Tiffany Clays of this world to play in community orchestras, and be able to be part of what they love, for as long as their hearts’ desire.
I ran an organization for seven years that was primarily concerned with composers. I learned a lot there about the the divide between amateur and professional, as so few composers make a living exclusively from their composition. In a way, it’s a field that could be called a field of amateurs. Charles Ives, considered the father of modern music, he stopped composing at the age of 45, and went on to invent the modern version of the insurance business. My friend, Steven Albert, 1985 Pulitzer Prize winner: he sold stamps. Others teach, copy music, run music schools, etc.
If we were to go by a strict definition of professional versus amateur, Ives and Albert, and so many others would have to be considered amateurs. (I once read an interview where Pierre Boulez described Ives’s music as that of an amateur…)
So, what I am saying? I am saying that the divide between amateur and professional is less defined than most people think, and that the vitality and community of art making in America should be accessible and commonplace to a much greater degree than it is today.
If I were King of the Forest, I would make this the center of my national cultural policy.
Despite your point that the “divide between amateur and professional is less defined than most people think”, it is still true that in general, popular consciousness in the U.S.A. is heavily biased in favor of the professional and vocational. There is the pervasive view that if you do something well, you should do it for a living, i.e. income, and that anything else you do is merely recreation. The very word “amateur” is routinely taken to mean second-class or is defined by strict differentiation from professional with the strong connotation that professional means good and amateur means bad, or at least not acceptably good.
I think this single-minded focus on income generation as the only worthy devotion of individuals, be they artists or not, is the barrier to a more realistic and equitable approach to creating participatory arts opportunities–it is distinctly dehumanizing. If the amateur demand for participatory arts experiences is to be taken more seriously, either this attitude must be overcome, or the funding mechanism to be used must be able to recognize a market demand for those opportunities.
The argument could also be made that expanding the opportunities for amateur artists increases the demand for professional-level arts presentations, as there is no more discriminating audience for them than the arts amateurs. This potentially involves the professional arts organizations in a manner of self-interest, and it is absolutely in the basic philosophical interest of institutions where arts training and education take place–otherwise, why train artists beyond the relative handful who will become professionals?
With no disrespect intended toward the professionals, let’s hope the opportunities for amateur artist participation can expand. It probably takes an attitude change.
I agree with Bruce’s comments above, that a lot of the issue lays with the fact that the majority believe making money is the end all to any kind of educational endeavor. I agree that a higher level of participation in the “amateur arts” would lead to greater participation in the professional arts. However, I think there is more to it than that.
I would think that the attitude of having to leave something you love doing behind once you are beyond high school/college, is an attitude that goes beyond just the arts. I’ve known several people that loved a certain subject, say biology, or philosophy, but once they were done with school they could see no avenue to continue participating in this subject. (Even with a subject like biology, that has many avenues for employement, a lot of people do not want to continue with the amount of schooling it would take to acheive that employment).
I would think that for many people, making a commitment to continue in something beyond school, is also just a matter of time. If you cannot spend the majority of your day doing it, and making a living at it, it is hard sometimes to gear yourself up to continue working on it after hours. Most people work a lot hours in the week – and not just at the job. You have to take care of your household, many have to also take care of children. When is there time to consider something like art? Or philosophy?
So while we should absolutely push for more participation in the arts, and work towards teaching arts as a lifelong endeavor, not just something you do in school, we should also work on teaching better time management skills, better organizational skills – skills that will allow these kids to find the time they need to continue to pursue the passions they have in school.
It all comes down to PASSION. If you have a real passion for something, you do it regardless of the consequences. If not, you become a nurse.
It is that passion and drive that separates the amateur from the professional, not necessarily the skill level.
That said, rarely do you find an amateur with the skill level of a professional.
Passion, drive and a high level of skill tend to go hand in hand and the cream always rises to the top of any profession.
The days of the undiscovered genius, a Van Gogh for instance, are over.
People with a passion for something are generally grounded and know their limits. They know deep down if they’ve got it in them to become a great violinist as opposed to just a good one.
Passion is important, but so is time for all the hard work, for which money is needed. In a difficult economy, with less funding and philanthropy, the privileged will have less competition among those with the passion to excel. It’s unhealthy for the arts.
There is increasing awareness of hybrid careers, in which artists maintain an active practice while employed in a (usually) related field. The Urban Institute has done research into this trend, which provides a different approach to an art practice, beyond “professional” and “amateur” labels. Increasingly, artists who teach, who adminstrate, who work in other areas, continue to forge a practice in the arts that allows for the ebbs and flows of projects, exhibitions, tours, residencies, commissions, etc. The main distinction is less of an emphasis on commercial success, which can allow for more experimentation.
As an orchestra conductor who over the years has found myself engaged in working with amateur musicians (horror!) I’ve come to deeply respect the amateur musician because they continue to practice their art, to the best of their abilities, against the odds of 60-hour work weeks, family commitments, etc., etc.
I’ve grown increasingly more despondent for the world of music performance education’s focus on finding the next star instead of nurturing the music in everybody who is interested. There ARE opportunities for music making throughout life, even if not as a profession, but I have yet to find a music education program, at any level, that is nurturing this possibility.
Certainly the one thing that is sorely and frustratingly absent for amateur musicians is time and energy to focus on music, and thus reach their potential. So be it. Is this more of a tragedy than the development of literally thousands of music performance majors who feel grateful if they have the good fortune to spend their professional musical lives playing the same musical in the pit ad infinitum, or ultimately consider themselves failures or sell-outs because they were not able to “make it” as a glorified professional musician?