How to retain a career in the arts industry
May 14, 2009 2:28 PM
Is there a qualification that will (relatively speaking) "recession-proof" a career in the arts industry? For example, a management qualification?
I have recently withdrawn from a graduate research program to work full-time in the museum & gallery sector (... and because, well, I found that I hated doing a PhD.) What I am now concerned about is how competitive this field is, and whether I may have disadvantaged myself by not having an extra qualification, beyond my BA Hons in Art History. Although I'm not keen on solitary academic research right now, I'm open to the general idea of more study - by coursework, for example - to gain extra skills & have better employment prospects.
I should add here that I'm not specifically interested in being a curator, although that is the area where I have done my internship and 1 year of work experience (just as an assistant). It's possible that I'd be equally happy in the areas of Education, Exhibitions, Marketing, Publications, Design, etc... the problem is, they are all specific skill sets in themselves, requiring e.g. an Education degree or Design portfolio. I am not sure where (or if) I want to specialise or how to get experience in those areas without more study - i just know I like working in this creative environment. I am a fairly typical ENFP personality type, if that helps.
* So my question is: Is there a general qualification that would give me a competitive edge in as many areas of museum & gallery work as possible? Is this what an Arts Management degree (e.g. Masters) is? Would this be more broadly useful than, say, a Diploma of Education? And if it really becomes hard to get a job in the arts (even more so that at present, I mean), am I better to get something non arts-specific? (I admit I have no background or apparent aptitude in economics and the like, although I am willing to learn.)
So I guess I'm basically asking which qualifications are most highly sought after in the museum & gallery sector (or more broadly the arts), by as many areas as possible?
(apart from a PhD, that is... if in fact it does top the list, as I have heard conflicting advice on this point.)
I have recently withdrawn from a graduate research program to work full-time in the museum & gallery sector (... and because, well, I found that I hated doing a PhD.) What I am now concerned about is how competitive this field is, and whether I may have disadvantaged myself by not having an extra qualification, beyond my BA Hons in Art History. Although I'm not keen on solitary academic research right now, I'm open to the general idea of more study - by coursework, for example - to gain extra skills & have better employment prospects.
I should add here that I'm not specifically interested in being a curator, although that is the area where I have done my internship and 1 year of work experience (just as an assistant). It's possible that I'd be equally happy in the areas of Education, Exhibitions, Marketing, Publications, Design, etc... the problem is, they are all specific skill sets in themselves, requiring e.g. an Education degree or Design portfolio. I am not sure where (or if) I want to specialise or how to get experience in those areas without more study - i just know I like working in this creative environment. I am a fairly typical ENFP personality type, if that helps.
* So my question is: Is there a general qualification that would give me a competitive edge in as many areas of museum & gallery work as possible? Is this what an Arts Management degree (e.g. Masters) is? Would this be more broadly useful than, say, a Diploma of Education? And if it really becomes hard to get a job in the arts (even more so that at present, I mean), am I better to get something non arts-specific? (I admit I have no background or apparent aptitude in economics and the like, although I am willing to learn.)
So I guess I'm basically asking which qualifications are most highly sought after in the museum & gallery sector (or more broadly the arts), by as many areas as possible?
(apart from a PhD, that is... if in fact it does top the list, as I have heard conflicting advice on this point.)
I'd think your network would be the most valuable asset you'd bring to such a position. Who do you know and how. What can you ask of them and who can they introduce you to. I agree with randomstriker. I doubt management would be all that useful, but a solid background in business might certainly be attractive. It seems you're setting yourself up for another very tight field. These days I'm seeing a lot of work in the arts being slowed or stopped by things out of everyone's control. Yeah, it's great if you're competent, but if your institution relies on grants or municipal, state, or federal support, you may be in trouble. Private giving has also diminished. And institutions that lived on endowments have seen a significant portion of that disappear.
I can't really speak much to the gallery issue but I can't imagine this is a good time for trying to sell art. I could be wrong but this strikes me as a flooded sellers-market.
Just today I learned that the two major endowments art historians relied on for book publications are going to cease giving subsidies for art history. It's pretty significant. This will reduce the number of serious art history publications the world sees drastically. While there's a good chance that the Obama administration will approach the NIH in a very different manner than his predecessor, that money may not be enough to save many institutions. Unless something like The New Deal on steroids is instituted, we're likely to see a contraction in sustainable arts organizations.
I wish I could be more supportive but I don't think I could pull it off. I fear you'll be entering a field flooded with qualified and experienced applicants. Good luck but keep an open mind about your career. And work on your relationships in your networks.
posted by Toekneesan at 4:53 PM on May 14, 2009
I can't really speak much to the gallery issue but I can't imagine this is a good time for trying to sell art. I could be wrong but this strikes me as a flooded sellers-market.
Just today I learned that the two major endowments art historians relied on for book publications are going to cease giving subsidies for art history. It's pretty significant. This will reduce the number of serious art history publications the world sees drastically. While there's a good chance that the Obama administration will approach the NIH in a very different manner than his predecessor, that money may not be enough to save many institutions. Unless something like The New Deal on steroids is instituted, we're likely to see a contraction in sustainable arts organizations.
I wish I could be more supportive but I don't think I could pull it off. I fear you'll be entering a field flooded with qualified and experienced applicants. Good luck but keep an open mind about your career. And work on your relationships in your networks.
posted by Toekneesan at 4:53 PM on May 14, 2009
I have heard that people who are really good at writing grant applications are like gold.
posted by amtho at 6:29 PM on May 14, 2009
posted by amtho at 6:29 PM on May 14, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
Moreover, numerous studies have shown that time spent accumulating advanced "qualifications" (aside from essential prerequisistes) produce the same or less concrete benefit (measured in terms of impact on salary and seniority) as spending the same amount of time plugging away at your job.
There isn't much you can "do" at this early stage of your career to make yourself recession-proof. Frankly, there ain't no such thing. You should just figure out what you want to do, and get the qualfiications that are actually relevant to your career, and plug away at it. You'll catch a break sooner or later.
posted by randomstriker at 3:02 PM on May 14, 2009