I've been thinking a lot over the past 8 months, maybe even a year about jobs, what people do for a living.What is it that makes the subject so delicate?There was a person who was very close to me for several years (she is not anymore) who was very critical of my situation. I'm an artist, and now -a relatively new development since her- a (self proclaimed) writer. It was always an issue that I wasn't a professional artist, that I wasn't relentlessly pursuing that venue that I wasn't "there" yet.It's hard for me to separate that argument into it's composite parts. It comes across as partially a desire for recognition/fame, and partly as an arrogance of position; frankly class privilege.My position is this, I'm theoretically a trained graphic designer, I have a degree that says so anyway, but I have no desire to take a position at a company where I would be pushing body-copy around to fit the appropriate advertisement. Wouldn't that be better, or more desirable, or better paid than cooking, or cutting fish? Maybe. It all depends on what you want from your life, and what you are willing to give up to have that.It takes all people to do the work that makes a modern society function. Every job needs a worker, and every worker needs a job. Why should there be any shame, or anything less than dignity in doing everyday jobs? The only reason is that we live in a highly class oriented culture, and we've been led to believe (this has been building for hundreds of years) that work that doesn't lead to profit and elevation is beyond respect.
Put crudely; without the mundane work, the elevated and arrogant haven't a leg to stand on. Otherwise, they would do their own drudge. You telling me the rich and famous don't shit, eat or consume?I recognize that there is more to it than class argument. There's a bit of a personality disconnect between a person who charged forward and took what she wanted and a person who was satisfied with what he had.I'll venture a crazy guess that it's a philosophical difference between wanting more and wanting enough. There's a grey area, but never the twain shall meet. I've often felt that I wanted what I didn't have, but rarely anything that I didn't need, at least beyond my personal catharsis, (a DVD player 2 times in 10 years for example).So I listened to a conversation at Hattie's for a little while tonight (12-8-8). A couple of guys were discussing something three tables away, I'm not clear on what exactly, but what I heard roughly covered recognition for artists.The one guy seemed to be very adamant that an artist "putting a stone in the wall" of culture/history was important. It was an honor.Far be it from me to suggest that it's an honor to collect the yard waste for mister special artist, but I find it a little ridiculous to suggest that art has anything to do with honor.Art may be a despicable term to myself and many whom I respect, not as betters but as more practiced mentors, but it is something perhaps different than what many see. (Oh how I hate to have anything to do with this term, but I'll try and paraphrase)Art is not recognition or aesthetic, it is message, idea, meaning.
I do not produce, to sell.
It is catharsis, it is a method of speaking truth.
Making money at it is an oops, accident, which either leads to what many call "selling out", or isolation, or both.
Art that makes money for its creator is not inherently wrong, but art whose primary purpose is profit is nothing but. That is the creative urge is natural, the profit urge is not.
"All art that does not contribute to knowledgement is unreliable."
Let's return to the original argument though, and my contention that the perception of some jobs as "not good enough" is a classist mentality. This line of logic should be simple enough, but I'll take a brief look at it. It actually took me a while to work out the logic concisely.
In a highly specialized labor culture what makes a person so special that they are "above" certain jobs? A person cannot be considered special because of their interests, music or car engines say, since we all have interests.
Once education became a commodity, that is, purchasable limited access, education became the realm of the wealthy, (on a relative sliding scale) thus "expertise", or specialization became purchasable limited access.
The poor then, have no access to expertise because they don't have the finances to acquire certification of their expertise in their field of interest.
(All this despite the fact that not that many jobs require "expertise". An aircraft pilot or a brain surgeon should have a lot of training and not only that, their jobs come at the end of a long line of predecessors)
That leaves the "shit" jobs that don't require certification to the poor who have no opportunity to rise, and thus the stigma of commonplace (but essential remember) jobs being inferior and unworthy.
What makes you special in your mind is not your interests, but your money, you have the money to purchase certification of your interests.
That's classism.
That sounds like a good reason to support minority education foundations, should you be financially disposed to assist in securing certification of an other's expertise.