Today Fri Sat
It is forcast to be Fog at 11:00 PM EDT on May 24, 2012
Fog
29°/18°
It is forcast to be Chance of a Thunderstorm at 11:00 PM EDT on May 25, 2012
Chance of a Thunderstorm
31°/19°
It is forcast to be Mostly Cloudy at 11:00 PM EDT on May 26, 2012
Mostly Cloudy
26°/16°

25 Comments

news

An Hour of Kat Burns’ Time

20110225burns1.jpg
If musician and visual artist Kat Burns ruled the world, artists would earn a decent living wage, school teachers would receive the respect they deserve, and an artist’s wellspring of inspiration would never run dry.
Sadly, Kat Burns doesn’t rule the world, teachers aren’t respected nearly enough, and after a month of creating an original art piece every hour on the hour like a regular working stiff, Kat Burns’ inspiration is parched.


An Hour of My Time is part social commentary, part performance art. Working seven hour shifts each weekday, since the first of the month, Burns has been holed up in her Artscape Gibraltar Point studio creating one original piece of artwork an hour.
Burns wants to highlight the relationship between art and commerce. She hopes her effort will cast a light on the staggering dollar value society places on some occupations—think Jose Bautista’s gazillion-dollar contract—while undervaluing other occupations such as musicians, writers, and school teachers.
In Burns’ view, society is too quick to dismiss the huge financial boost the arts community gives the overall economy.
20110225burns2.jpg
The impetus for the project came from data on this Statistics Canada website, which says that someone in Burns’ demographic earns an average of $24.75 an hour. She found this figure laughable, especially for the artists in her cohort. And though Burns was unaware of any artist earning an hourly wage anywhere near this amount, it didn’t stop her from trying to hit that target herself.
And so for the month of February, Burns has been creating art as though it were a Monday to Friday, nine-to-five job, working predominantly in watercolour on woven pieces of paper approximately fifteen centimetres square. She is selling each piece for $24.75.
Ideally, Burns will sell all 140 pieces, which are posted on her Flickr page and available for purchase here.
To date, about a dozen have sold.
An Hour Of My Time has been a tough slog. Besides burning through a copious amount of art supplies, Burns admits the longer she was at it, the harder it was to conjure up new images to paint.
Having a Tumblr blog helped. The site kept the public up-to-date on Burns’ progress, and visitors to it provided Burns with both encouragement and subject matter suggestions. One individual requested Burns paint a stegosaurus. Another wanted to see something bicycle-inspired.
20110225burns3.jpg
Burns took on all comers. Among other things, she’s painted numerous rabbits, several penguins, Miss Piggy, a series of deranged squirrels devouring hearts, a lemon, and a bearded man on a green magic carpet holding a pig in his arms.
Especially in February, when Toronto Island is all but deserted aside from island residents, Artscape Gibraltar Point can be a lonely place. When we arrived at her studio, Burns appeared happy to have a distraction.
She admitted An Hour of My Time wasn’t as easy as she had anticipated—something that also comes across in her Tumblr updates. By no means a record of a woman’s descent into madness, there are, however, moments when Burns communicates some angst.
Day One, her entry began with a perky “Really excited about the next four weeks.” And on Day Three, she wrote, “Woke up feeling really great.” Seven days in, however, her tone changed: “This is actually pretty hard…” On Day Sixteen, around the halfway point, she began an entry with “Long day. Long few days…”
On February 22, with only three days remaining and the end in sight, Burns wrote with anticipation, “Spring will come again.”
Still, after all the creative highs and lows she has experienced over the course of An Hour of My Time, Burns confesses, “I never chose art [as a career] to make money, but I wouldn’t want to do anything else.”
Photos by D. A. Cooper/Torontoist.
This Sunday, along with other artists in residence at Artscape Gibraltar Point, Burns invites the public to visit and check out the work she’s produced during her month-long experiment.

CORRECTION: March 3, 9:04 AM We originally stated that the Statistics Canada figure of $24.75 applied to artists in Burns’ age group; in fact, it is an average for the entire demographic, regardless of profession.

Filed under: , , , , ,

Report error Send a tip

Comments

  • http://twitter.com/Sabocat Paul Hollingsworth

    So her big experiment is pretending to be a commercial artist, illustrator of graphic designer for a month? Considering how many artists earn a decent living working (usually much longer than 7 hours a day) creating art, I'm finding it hard to understand how this is a story.

  • torontothegreat

    “This is actually pretty hard”

    That is why it's called work… God where do these people come from?

  • 00AV

    They come from homes where no matter what they do, and no matter how hard they fall flat on their face… mommy and daddy will always be there to bail them out. When you have an eternal safety net it makes stupid ideas like this one seem great

  • torontothegreat

    Do you know if that's the case with this particular artist? I mean, as much hatorade as I have for people that complain about having to work for a living, I also hate to jump to conclusions.

  • http://twitter.com/anhourofmytime An Hour Of My Time

    @00AV and @torontothegreat

    Oh hello there, I'm the artist in the article. I'm not one to usually take the bait of negative feedback on my own press, but I have to clarify: I don't come from a home where Mommy and Daddy will bail me out. My parents, thankfully, have always been supportive of me and my various creative endeavours, but by no means have I ever relied on them to get me through life. I think it's rather indignant for people to assume that. I worked all through high school, put myself through university and have always found ways to make it on my own.

    The whole point of the project is to showcase how much work goes into being an artist full time. People sometimes assume that the creative field is less work than other traditional 9-5 jobs, I'm just trying to show that it is indeed a lot of work.

  • torontothegreat

    I actually did not make that assumption. I did however question it. Thanks for the response, clarifying.

    “People sometimes assume that the creative field is less work than other traditional 9-5 jobs, I'm just trying to show that it is indeed a lot of work. “

    I think the definition of “creative field” is obfuscated here (probably skewed towards your own situation). Most “creative” people that I know work 9-5 (or more) and I've never heard anyone say the field of work is somehow “less”.

    Also slightly confused by your response. If putting yourself into the position of having to work a 9-5 job is in fact “pretty hard” (in your own words), then wouldn't it be safe to conclude that you do not in fact work this hard normally and that the majority of people who DO in fact work 9-5 may actually have a point against you?

  • tyrannosaurus_rek

    I'd venture to say the article is now unintentionally part of the experiment testing Stats Canada's conclusion, and the assumptions people make about how easy it is to make a living in the arts/creative industry.

  • pluggedon

    to all above who put this idea down, sorry but you've just scored on yourselves. when you diss the project you only boost the kat's case that artists are under-valued and under-appreciated.

    there's no ambiguity about the definition of “creative” here. we're not talking about architects and layout editors, we're talking about people who are trying to earn a living making work that is (or could be) readily consumed locally and internationally, yet our government and institutions are reluctant to support.

    it may have been an oversight on the writer's part not to mention that kat already has a full-time job – she's a touring musician (I happen to be a fan). and anyone in that industry knows what a secure future it has in store for us. that is actually “pretty hard”. i might even say more so than getting a paycheck every two weeks.

  • badassryanbuller

    Haters gonna hate. I think it's lovely.

  • matthewdouglasalexander

    TOtheGreat, maybe you have too many creative friends. Haven't you ever heard someone say, “wouldn't it be great to be able to just PAINT all day?! What a life!”. It seems to me that Kat's project responds to Harper and Ford's devaluation of arts and culture, since it's “not really important”.

    I spoke to one Ford supporter on the street who told me he was an artist and he didn't need any public money to be an artist. Of course he wasn't an artist full time, and when I asked him what kind of artist he was he told me he wrote a song. it was to the tune of This land is your land.

    Anyhow, people with no connection to creative work really have no idea what it takes to be an artist, illustrator, or even a famous painter who sells works for thousands or dollars.

  • torontothegreat

    Full disclosure by these commentors as friends of the artist, is a great idea before you engage in a conversation. By definition you're a shill (no better than a corporate troll, actually) So, no we've established that you're just shilling for your friend & your bias is showing — Great stuff!

    @matthewdouglasalexander: Your first paragraph suggests that I have too many creative friends and then your third paragraph suggests I have no connection to creative work.

    @pluggedon: Your second paragraph has so many contradictions in it, that I can't take anything you say seriously.

    @badassryanbuller: Yes anyone that doesn't feel your way is obviously a “hater” :P — You're a bright one!

    I asked a serious question, to which I recieved no response.

  • torontothegreat

    Well if working 9-5 is consdiered “pretty hard” by the artist, I'd venture to say that the assumptions aren't exactly baseless at all.

  • tyrannosaurus_rek

    Unlike large projects that can take weeks or months (or longer) to complete – writing a song, designing a building, sculpting, etc – which you can then take the final pay and divide by hours worked, Kat has taken the literal approach and set a goal of 140 pieces in 140 hours (7 hours a day, times 20 work days in February). That's quite demanding, and I completely understand how burnout could set in so soon.

    Being creative sounds easy until you have to do it on a deadline, day after day after day. You can't schedule inspiration, and you won't always have interesting/good ideas.

  • torontothegreat

    …And many people do that day in and day out for their entire lives (think commercial graphic artist(s), silk screener(s), glass blowers, etc etc). So my question (and later to you as a statement) still stands.

    Well if working 9-5 is consdiered “pretty hard” by the artist, I'd venture to say that the assumptions aren't exactly baseless at all.

    “You can't schedule inspiration, and you won't always have interesting/good ideas.”

    I agree, but most professional artists don't have that luxury. And yes, it IS a luxury.

  • tyrannosaurus_rek

    I'm a graphic designer and it's nothing like the experiment outlined above, or your description. No graphic designer, whether they're a production designer or the art director, churns out 7 complete and completely unique pieces a day, every day, for years.

    Furthermore, the three examples you give are primarily production jobs: once the design (which may take weeks to develop) is finalized, the majority of time will be spent producing identical copies, not variations or entirely unique pieces. If Kat was just painting 140 copies of a giraffe doing a spit take, it would be another matter entirely. If she was trying to design and produce 140 individual unique silk screen t-shirts, it could easily take her at least a year to produce them all herself.

  • torontothegreat

    You're “technically” correct (probably for your field), but it depends on what you're creating. If you make creative for say banner advertising, you'll be expected (depending on where you work) to pop out about 5-10 a day.

    I do resource scheduling and what you describe (take the final pay and divide by hours worked) is completely false. The parts are identified and summed at the beginning of the project. I would see something like this on my Gantt charts for a typical web project:

    - Nav – 1 hour
    - Footer layout – 1 hour
    - Header layout – 1 hour
    - Banner design – 2 hours

    * These are actually real numbers from a GANTT I'm looking at right now.

    It's also worth noting that I've never seen:

    - Thinking about what you're going to do: 3 hours

    Most places don't even brainstorm anymore, unless it's a huge project. At least that's the largest complaint I hear from creatives that I work with.

    Anyhow, I think we both have valid points. We're just going to end up spinning our tires.

    Being a “professional” (read: making money from your art) is hard. The more you churn out, the more money you (should) make. The more time you spend on something, the higher risk you take to make a nice ROI. The experiment just wasn't sound IMHO in comparison to creatives that I work with. Whom I'd imagine the StatsCan research was describing.

  • tyrannosaurus_rek

    Not to drag this out, but “what you describe (take the final pay and divide by hours worked) is completely false” is what Stats Canada is doing – reread ¶6: “an artist in Burns’ demographic earns an average of $24.75 an hour” (emphasis mine).

  • torontothegreat

    okay…

    That is how stats canada WORKED it out. So they took a bunch of incomes, averaged them and then figured out the hourly income.

    Projects aren't estimated/done like that. Would an artist give a random number, then divide it up at the end of the project and that would be their rate of pay? Or (more likely) the artist would factor in their hours, give an estimate and try to hit that mark? Top down/bottom up differences.

    But I do see what you're point is. I'll leave it at that…

  • torontothegreat

    Well if working 9-5 is consdiered “pretty hard” by the artist, I'd venture to say that the assumptions aren't exactly baseless at all.

  • tyrannosaurus_rek

    Unlike large projects that can take weeks or months (or longer) to complete – writing a song, designing a building, sculpting, etc – which you can then take the final pay and divide by hours worked, Kat has taken the literal approach and set a goal of 140 pieces in 140 hours (7 hours a day, times 20 work days in February). That's quite demanding, and I completely understand how burnout could set in so soon.

    Being creative sounds easy until you have to do it on a deadline, day after day after day. You can't schedule inspiration, and you won't always have interesting/good ideas.

  • torontothegreat

    …And many people do that day in and day out for their entire lives (think commercial graphic artist(s), silk screener(s), glass blowers, etc etc). So my question (and later to you as a statement) still stands.

    Well if working 9-5 is consdiered “pretty hard” by the artist, I'd venture to say that the assumptions aren't exactly baseless at all.

    “You can't schedule inspiration, and you won't always have interesting/good ideas.”

    I agree, but most professional artists don't have that luxury. And yes, it IS a luxury.

  • tyrannosaurus_rek

    I'm a graphic designer and it's nothing like the experiment outlined above, or your description. No graphic designer, whether they're a production designer or the art director, churns out 7 complete and completely unique pieces a day, every day, for years.

    Furthermore, the three examples you give are primarily production jobs: once the design (which may take weeks to develop) is finalized, the majority of time will be spent producing identical copies, not variations or entirely unique pieces. If Kat was just painting 140 copies of a giraffe doing a spit take, it would be another matter entirely. If she was trying to design and produce 140 individual unique silk screen t-shirts, it could easily take her at least a year to produce them all herself.

  • torontothegreat

    You're “technically” correct (probably for your field), but it depends on what you're creating. If you make creative for say banner advertising, you'll be expected (depending on where you work) to pop out about 5-10 a day.

    *Note I said it was a Gantt chart, when it fact it was a time estimate sheet.
    I do resource scheduling and what you describe (take the final pay and divide by hours worked) is completely false. The parts are identified and summed at the beginning of the project. I would see something like this on my Gantt charts for a typical web project:

    - Nav – 1 hour
    - Footer layout – 1 hour
    - Header layout – 1 hour
    - Banner design – 2 hours

    * These are actually real numbers from a GANTT I'm looking at right now.

    It's also worth noting that I've never seen:

    - Thinking about what you're going to do: 3 hours

    Most places don't even brainstorm anymore, unless it's a huge project. At least that's the largest complaint I hear from creatives that I work with.

    Anyhow, I think we both have valid points. We're just going to end up spinning our tires.

    Being a “professional” (read: making money from your art) is hard. The more you churn out, the more money you (should) make. The more time you spend on something, the higher risk you take to make a nice ROI. The experiment just wasn't sound IMHO in comparison to creatives that I work with. Whom I'd imagine the StatsCan research was describing.

    “Furthermore, the three examples you give are primarily production jobs: once the design (which may take weeks to develop) is finalized, the majority of time will be spent producing identical copies, not variations or entirely unique pieces. “

    Production artists are still graphic artists no? And I'd love to know where you work, cause I know about 100 artists who would love to not have to create variations or unique pieces each time…

  • tyrannosaurus_rek

    Not to drag this out, but “what you describe (take the final pay and divide by hours worked) is completely false” is what Stats Canada is doing – reread ¶6: “an artist in Burns’ demographic earns an average of $24.75 an hour” (emphasis mine).

  • torontothegreat

    okay…

    That is how stats canada WORKED it out. So they took a bunch of incomes, averaged them and then figured out the hourly income.

    Projects aren't estimated/done like that. Would an artist give a random number, then divide it up at the end of the project and that would be their rate of pay? Or (more likely) the artist would factor in their hours, give an estimate and try to hit that mark? Top down/bottom up differences.

    But I do see what you're point is. I'll leave it at that…