profit/loss >< nonprofit/gain?

established

okay, this money vs art argument is not a new one, and its not going to go away soon. Im going to raise a few random points and move on (to safer ground?).

emerging

The question is
really about:
emerging vs established artist -
apparently the only difference is
officially about 5
years continuous
practice - but truthfully, emerging
artists are generally younger and wash less often while if youre established you might wear nicer clothes and some funky glasses... also the free wine is better at openings, no cheap-arse chips and dip from Coles but cheese... a selection of, no less!

Want more cynicism? okay, the former seem to be socialists while the latter are capitalists. hmm.. revolution anyone?

But seriously (I was serious though) what is an emerging artist to do, apart from spending their hard-earned beer-coupons on trying to get their art 'out there' ?

• Have better wine and cheese at your opening? - (im being sarcastic) or perhaps get out of the gallery???
• found objects? - very Duchamp but those capitalists arent gonna buy it
• wealthy benefactor? - thatd be nice, but benefactors have agendas
• government grant? - I find this hard to justify when homeless people are homeless (still gonna apply for one though) A good govt knows that the sign of a healthy society is the quality of its art, nevermind that many of its creators are living on centrelink and week-old pizza.
• Performance-based? time-based? experiential? - if ya wanna
• Start an ARI? - call the govt first.

• just deal with it, love doing what youre doing and get involved, Reckon thats the answer...

Okay look, this argument is full of holes ie the whole free wine and cheese thing... i know but im not gonna say no. and do socialists really just wanna be capitalists? I dunno. i just ask the questions.