As
artists find themselves at the end of the cultural food chain, Susan
Jones suggests a new activism to reaffirm their status
The so-called golden age of arts funding has given way to
debilitating austerity, particularly for artists who find themselves at
the end of a long food chain, divorced from arts funding and
policy decision making.
But when did these divisions start and how can artists use activism to
create meaningful change for the future?
The millennium saw
arts funding increased through imaginative strategies and policies.
Artists and the artist-led flourished. With the lottery-financed arts
buildings came a new wave of curatorial positions – and in 2006, the
advent of cultural leadership roles designed to "nurture
and develop dynamic and diverse leaders to equip them for the challenges
of the 21st century" (although scant few of these went to
practitioners). Divisions between artists and the public were apparent
too.
In 2013, the widening divide between rich and poor is
manifesting itself clearly in the arts. Contributing to debates on more
imaginative ways to measure cultural value,
Louis Barrabas says: "The creative sector is full of
scuttling scavenging bottom-feeders." What he's describing are the
middle people whose infrastructural preferences over recent years have
by default resulted in a steady nibbling away at budgets, resources and
recognition factors – things that used to be the territory of artists.
In
the arts infrastructure developed since the early noughties, artists
weren't invited around the table with the curators, directors and
consultants. Peer review was abandoned by Arts Council England as it was
deemed too expensive, long-winded and subjective. In the arts ecology
of today, it's almost as if artists have to be held in suspended
animation, waiting for someone to need them.
Where has all
the money gone?
In 1989 the salary of an artform officer
in what was then a regional arts association pretty much matched the sum
offered for an artist's fellowship, which in those days tended to be
for a year. By 2004, the salaries of arts officers in the funding system
(when index-linked) were 41% higher than those in 1989/90. Advertised
in May 2013, an Arts Council England salary for a relationship manager
in its London office is £31,623 – 8% higher than the equivalent pay in
2004 when index-linked. Consider this against an example of an artist's
fellowship, such as the Stanley Picker Fellowship in Design & Fine
Art 2013, which is paying £12,000.
Published in May 2013,
Arts Council England's economic impact report by the
Centre for Economics and Business Research shows that full-time earnings
in the arts have risen by 6.8% in the past five years, while part-time
earnings – one might surmise these to include freelancers and artists –
have decreased by 5.3%. As Mark Robinson, a former ACE director and now
arts consultant, asks: "Are we squeezing our key nutrients – the artists
and creative freelancers – and widening inequality in our own sector?"
Our own a-n research indicated that in 2004, the exhibition
fee for artists holding a solo exhibition in a major gallery was
£1,000. In 2013,
a
new survey from AIR indicates that less than a third of artists
exhibiting in publicly-funded flagship galleries in Arts Council
portfolios are getting any fee at all – with £200 being the most likely
figure. While the majority want to share their work with the public,
nearly half the artists surveyed reported that it's simply too expensive
to exhibit.
Another of our surveys, this time on
openly
offered jobs and opportunities for artists in 2012, revealed a
steady decline in the volume of paid work for artists. In 2012, the
overall value of work on offer to artists was £5m (20%) less than in the
pre-recession year of 2007. Only 39% of jobs and opportunities in 2012
offered to pay anything to artists, in comparison with 57% in the
recession year of 2008. And the value of residencies has dropped to an
all time low, amounting to just over 1% of the value of all work offered
in 2012. These paid an average fee of £2,600, in contrast to a £7,354
average in 2011 and £6,342 in 2007.
Art feeds the soul but
who feeds the artist?
Artists are at the very end of the
arts food chain. For artists and their practice, the future is littered
with uncertainty for a variety of reasons:
• The variable
length and terms of contracts and commissions
• The unpredictability
of work offers and variable income
• The short notice of engagements
and commissions
• The delays in the start of a production
• The
sequential stop/start patterns of employment
• Managing concurrent
projects and contracts
• The need to be available at all and/or
unsociable hours for work
• Unpredictable locations of work
•
Changes in fashion, cultural trends and market preferences
Artists
seemingly love their practice so much that it's assumed they will be
delighted with any opportunity they get to gift it to others.
Increasingly, artists find themselves shoe-horned (through financial
necessity or the arts PR machine) into making art or delivering
projects, the efficacy of which are measured in terms of their
instrumental powers – how well they serve the needs of others (achieve
social improvement such as regeneration; uplift the lives of
disadvantaged people; fill the 'arts gap' in school curricula;
contribute to the economy).
As Hans Abbing commented in
Why
are artists poor?: "Although the arts can operate successfully in
the marketplace, their natural affinity is with gift-giving rather than
with commercial exchange. People believe that artists are selflessly
dedicated to art, that price does not reflect quality and that the arts
are free."
Negotiating your status and practice
So
how might artists prepare for a different kind of role in determining
the status of their art and their profession?
Researching
the conditions for collaboration, Chris Fremantle comments:
"Artists very often see themselves without much power – is collaboration
the context for a new dynamic between artists and those they seek to
have relationships with, or at least a signal of hope for that?"
A symposium held in Stoke-on-Trent in 2011 explored
working contexts for artists in an age of austerity. A manifesto was
drawn up by artists and arts workers present, designed to create
strength of purpose and solidarity amongst practitioners. The manifesto
stated:
1) Be active: support each other
2) Be active:
be an activist
3) Be active: be an artist.
4) Value yourself, your
time and your skills
5) Share your knowledge and resources
6)
Focus, strategise and plan.
7) Be critical, be fair
8) Know your
rights
Reporting on the event, artist Nikki Pugh said: "It
was notable that all the rules seemed to be independent of the current
economic climate. The issues of prime concern to us were to keep making
work of high quality; to be rewarded (financially or otherwise) fairly
for our work; and to be part of wider, mutually and innovatively
generous networks."
When only extended by the artist ,
however, this generosity can result in exploitation. Artists continually
report lower or no fee offers from commissioners and employers. But
institutional budgets exist to enable arts programmes to deliver 'great
art' to audiences. Surely how they are constructed can be open to
review, negotiation and reallocation?
For the sake of
future arts, we really do need to demonstrate how much we value artists.
The following statement (though made more than three decades ago and
many miles from the UK) sums up why mutuality is vital: "Artists stand
at the centre of all arts practice. Without the artist's ability to
practice his/her own art, there is no literature, no music, no dance, no
painting, no theatre, no film-making – no art of any kind."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture-professionals-network/culture-professionals-blog/2013/jun/24/pay-artists-funding-friction-future?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
Posts
