Why Do Artists Earn So Little?

Observing the art market, one encounters works whose value can reach astronomical figures. At the same time, many talented artists struggle to pay rent. This paradox persists despite centuries of evolution in the art market, billions in government subsidies, and private donations. But why?Hans Abbing, economist and artist, in his book Why Are Artists Poor? The Exceptional Economy of the Arts, offers a structured explanation for this seemingly unsolvable contradiction. The art economy, Abbing argues, is truly “exceptional” – but not in the usual sense of the word.

We already touched on this topic (in Art, Branding and Brand Performance pt. 1) citing economists Tyler Cowen and Alexander Tabarrok (An Economic Theory of Avant-Garde and Popular Art, or High and Low Culture). We said that visual arts require significantly less capital compared to other arts, such as cinema or theater. From this, one can infer that anyone can easily enter. In that article, this characteristic was seen as an opportunity, namely to foster avant-gardes and experimentation. In this article, however, we will see how this is exactly the reason why we can say that most artists do not have a satisfying income.

An Oversupply That Exceeds Demand

Despite low average earnings, there is no shortage of aspiring artists. This abundance keeps incomes low because many are willing to work for minimal or no compensation. It’s a simple economic equation: when supply significantly exceeds demand, economic value collapses.But why do so many people choose to pursue a career that statistically promises economic hardship? The answer to this question is exactly the reason why artists, on average, earn little: on the one hand, money is not the primary motivator; on the other hand, there is the aspiration to reach the top for fame and extraordinary earnings.However, the art market operates on a “winner-takes-all” principle, where a small number of highly successful artists earn extremely high incomes, while the vast majority earn very little. This structure, similar to professional sports or the film industry, attracts many newcomers who dream of reaching the top, further compressing average earnings.Think of Damien Hirst, Jeff Koons, or Banksy – artists whose works sell for millions or who sell thousands of multiples for a few thousand dollars each, which still amounts to millions. Their visibility creates an optical illusion: if they made it, why not me? This distorted perception fuels a constant influx of new talents into the sector, many of whom are destined to struggle economically.Artists are often more interested in non-monetary rewards such as personal satisfaction, recognition, and fame rather than economic compensation. The perceived sacredness of art contributes to this mindset. Many artists forgo money in exchange for these intangible but deeply fulfilling rewards.“Art for art’s sake” is not just a rhetorical expression – for many artists it is a vital belief. Creative fulfillment, authentic expression, and cultural impact often outweigh financial considerations in their value systems.Often, it is the artists themselves who criticize their peers for venturing into bolder commercial practices. It is rare for an artist not to have some criticism reserved for successful living artists in this regard; the tension between sacredness and economic exploitation is indeed an original sin.Paradoxically, governmental and institutional support aimed at increasing the low incomes of artists seems ineffective and may even exacerbate poverty by attracting more people into the sector. Subsidies can signal that the government takes care of artists, making the profession appear safer to undertake.In reality, increased spending on art (by consumers, donors, or governments) tends to increase the number of artists rather than their average income.

Overestimation of One’s Abilities

Artists are often prone to overestimating their abilities and chances of success, underestimating risks, and ignoring available information on the low probability of earning a high income. This overconfidence contributes to the overcrowding of the art world.But be careful, this is not just naive optimism: it is a form of psychological self-preservation. Facing the statistical reality of an artistic career could be so discouraging that it extinguishes the creative spark necessary for success.Society often produces and reproduces an overly optimistic image of the arts, leading potential artists to overestimate the potential rewards and underestimate the likelihood of low income. Persistent myths attract talented youth into the art world.The media celebrate artistic successes but rarely document daily struggles. Films romanticize the bohemian life without showing its real difficulties. Art schools, understandably, highlight their successful alumni rather than the majority who struggle.

The Denial of Economics in Art

We’ve seen how the art world often rejects commercial values and denies the importance of economics – this is a hindrance for those starting out and leads to exceptional exploitation by those who have made it. Being credited as successful through non-commercial means gives one the right to do anything; the most important living artists produce tens of thousands of multiples, commercially exploiting their status as authentic artists.“It is commercial to be non-commercial”, observes Abbing astutely. With this statement, the author highlights one of the deepest paradoxes of the contemporary art market: the apparent rejection of market economics becomes a market strategy itself (then, I add).This mechanism was already intuited by sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, who described it as an “economy of symbolic goods”, in which the ostentatious rejection of economic values constitutes an investment in symbolic capital that, in the long term, converts into real economic capital. We see this in practice when an artist who publicly refuses commercial commissions increases their status in the art world, paradoxically achieving higher prices for their “pure” works.This contradiction permeates every level of the artistic ecosystem: non-profit galleries serve as springboards toward the commercial market; “independent” art biennials and festivals become incubators of trends that drive the market; curators and critics speak of “cultural importance” while directly influencing economic evaluations. As documented by Olav Velthuis in Talking Prices (2005), even the most commercial galleries employ a “price rhetoric” that masks economic transactions with a language of artistic and cultural values.To survive as artists, many supplement their low artistic income with second jobs, family wealth, or social benefits. This “internal subsidy” allows them to continue pursuing art despite the low earnings it brings.This reality is so common that it gave rise to the famous stereotype of the “waiter-actor” or “warehouse-worker-painter.” It is not a temporary adjustment awaiting the “big break,” but a structural feature of the artistic economy.

Conclusion: A Structural Poverty

Artists’ low earnings are not a bug of the system, but an intrinsic feature. Low incomes seem inherent to the arts due to artists’ willingness to work for low hourly wages, driven by the factors mentioned above.These factors interact and reinforce each other, creating a truly “exceptional” art economy – not in the sense of extraordinary or wonderful, but as an exception to conventional economic rules.Perhaps the most provocative question is not “Why do artists earn so little?” but “Why, knowing all this, do so many still choose art as a profession?” The answer may reveal something deeply human: our need for expression, meaning, and connection often transcends material considerations. In a world increasingly driven by economic metrics, there is something subversive and even heroic in this choice.But romanticizing the poverty of artists means perpetuating a system that exploits their passion. Acknowledging the economic realities of art does not diminish its cultural value – it could be the first step toward a more sustainable ecosystem for those who dedicate their lives to creating beauty.

Bibliography

Abbing, Hans. Why Are Artists Poor? The Exceptional Economy of the Arts. Amsterdam University Press, 2002.

Cowen, Tyler, and Alexander Tabarrok. “An Economic Theory of Avant-Garde and Popular Art, or High and Low Culture.” In Southern Economic Journal, vol. 71, no. 2, 2004, pp. 232–253.

Bourdieu, Pierre. The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field. Milano: Il Saggiatore, 1996.

Velthuis, Olav. Talking Prices: Symbolic Meanings of Prices on the Market for Contemporary Art. Princeton University Press, 2005.