If sustain implies increasing the population of artists by seeing to it that enough youngsters enter the arts and by preventing artists from leaving the profession, there is no need for any policy. The artists’ population is very good in sustaining itself. This is because the arts are still extremely attractive.
This is shown by the fact that artists are willing to work for very low incomes. (In the Netherlands almost half of the professional visual artists are poor in the sense that their overall income is at or below the level of social benefits. Moreover, 75% of artists can not make a living from their art work while 40% cannot cover their costs.)
The moment more money flows into the arts - whether from more demand (including more public commissions) or support (including subsidies and donations) - the number of artists tends to grow and so does the number of poor artists. In the case of support this is problematic: support leads to more artists being poor while hardly increasing the amount of art that reaches the public.
However, when the aim is to sustain a healthy and productive population of artists which does not have to worry too much about money, policy is called for. But, at the same time the mission is almost impossible. How to encourage artists without increasing the attractiveness of the arts? How to encourage them by increasing the demand for their work and their contribution to society and thus enthuse them and increase their professional pride? And how to simultaneously decrease the attractiveness of the arts in order to prevent more artists entering the profession than before or, better, reduce the number of artists, so that more artists do not have to worry about money?
Encouragement can come from more public commissions and more activities that promote the sale of art. Talking about promotion, I do not think of financial incentives for people buying art, like subsidies on purchases or tax-rebates. They are relatively ineffective (most of the money ending up in the purse of the often already well-to-do consumers), they are undemocratic (governments giving rich people an even larger say in the kind of art that is produced) and, most importantly, they are too anonymous; they neither enthuse consumers nor artists.
Encouragement can come from activities that make artists more oriented on wider audiences than just peers and critics. It can come from activities that convince artists that art-for-art’s-sake is a thing of the past and that art needs an audience, and thus must be sold or function in society in other ways. In this context it is only logical that art schools are encouraged (or required) to offer courses in cultural entrepreneurship and that older artists are encouraged to follow courses in this area. This contributes to the professionalization of artists.
Encouragement can also come from activities that promote a wider definition of what visual artists have to offer; from intervention art to finding creative solutions within businesses or in community art. Moreover, the notion can be promoted that artists can still be professionals when they have attractive arts-related and non-arts second jobs, as long as they do not use these second jobs to be a poor artist who is (or pretends to be) not interested in an audience.
All such policies are senseless (pointless?) if they are not accompanied by other policies that discourage entrance to the arts. Therefore, most importantly, general subsidies for artists should gradually be abolished. Next, the number of youngsters wanting to become professional artists should become smaller. I am no advocate of a general numerous clausus for art schools. In prosperous countries more and more people are educated in more than one discipline, whereas only one leads to a job and others at best to a passionate hobby. But an even more severe selection at the gates of the higher and more expensive educational institutions makes sense. Moreover, remuneration of art schools by governments should not be such that it is financially attractive to increase the number of students, as is now often the case. Finally, institutions should be encouraged, if not forced, to impress on aspirant students that only a small minority of them will become professional artists.
Presently when youngsters at secondary school, but also older people following art courses, show talent, they are often encouraged by teachers, family and friends to try and become an artist. The magic of art is such that we do not want any talent to get lost —‘he or she could be another Van Gogh’— or that we believe that somebody will feel much better, if he or she can make art as a professional artist. Therefore there should be policies that promote the status of high-level amateurism, so that it becomes more attractive to remain amateur.
Thus the large grey area of all those ‘in-between’ artists, aspiring amateurs and marginal artists, can be reduced and a more clear line between professionals and amateurs can be established without increasing the magic of art or putting down talented amateurs.
Hans Abbing is a visual artist and economist. He is professor emeritus in art sociology at the University of Amsterdam. He wrote: Why are artists Poor. The Exceptional Economy of the Arts. Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press, 2002 (Fourth Printing 2008).
How to encourage and sustain professional artists?
Comments
I thought it would be of value to re-visit Roanne Dods’ summary of the debate on the Hans Abbing provocation (posted 1.10.2009 at 13.45pm).
For me, Hans raises two fundamental policy challenges that Creative Scotland will have to face:
Firstly, Hans challenges the whole notion of ‘art for art’s sake’. I personally don’t think Creative Scotland should take that brutal a position. However, and unavoidably, Creative Scotland will have to explain and justify why it is choosing to fund from public money an artist, whether an individual or an artistic company, beyond what the public themselves (as audience, as purchasers, etc.) are prepared or able to directly pay that artist.
Secondly, Creative Scotland will have to consider its role in supporting professional artists, semi-professional artists and amateur artists, and how it should balance funds and attention between these groups. I don’t like Hans’ use of the term ‘marginal artists’ but I am far less averse to his assertion that Creative Scotland should have policies that ‘promote the status of high-level amateurism, so that it becomes more attractive to remain amateur’.
I know that I work in an area of theatre - performing arts for children and young people - where practitioners long ago recognised the need for having a wide range of skills to sustain their work a
The old Arts Council recognised the quality and drive of the work, and how small amounts of targetted funding could have a huge impact, with an understanding that the very best work would run for many years, generating income (however small) that again could help to sustain and develop.
I hope that Creative Scotland can continue to fund in this dynamic way. The danger, particularly in the young peoples sector, is that we seek, or are forced to seek, the easy, and sometimes most profitable, way out. No longer spending time, and yes money, crafting work for different ages at different developmental stages but getting the whole school in for sub panto experiences about Vikings with a bullying subtext which will tick every box in the book apart from the one which is that performance made my heart skip a beat.
The Arts Council can take a huge amount of credit for being part of a slightly odd system that still allowed us to produce work like Cinderella by Shona Reppe, Lifeboat by Catherine Wheels, Labyrinth by Wee Stories, Yellow Moon by TAG, Shopping For Shoes by Visible Fictions and The Man Who Planted Trees by Puppet State amongest many many others. Heartbeat skippers the lot. Fingers crossed to more of that in the years to come.
Tony
I note from various postings that the subject of generating income from work is of interest and there is a willingness to share best practice.
I like this recognition of the importance to the arts scene of 'higher level amateurism' - the quality of some of the work in e.g.
not money. But lots of these (often older) artists hesitate for example to stick their paintings into
the RSA Summer Exhibition, for example, because of inhibitions about their 'amateur artist' status. It would be nice if Creative Scotland could help bridge such aspiration gaps .... I think it might also be useful to take a closer look at how the benefits system in The Netherlands is organised to make life easier for freelance artists whose earned income can fluctuate .... My recollection is that the earnings declaration form when you are freelancing in Holland but with the benefits safety-net is user-friendly -
with automatic adjustments being made without any of the British hassles to your monthly benefit cheques
so as not to distract Van Gogh from his painting ..
Another world!
If you want to make the arts accessible you have to speak in plain English, not academic-speak!
In the recent Creative Scotland 'vital spark' funding initiative, colaborations are soughtfrom 'professional artists' with Science, Technology and other forefront industries.
The professionalism I bring to my work, paid or unpaid (as I volunteer too)does not equate to my earnings, but CS are using this word in a way that is daunting....
First I want to welcome this conversation – and going by some of the postings here it is a promising start in a field that does need some informed and constructive thought and discussion.
On that point of definitions, however, I have to say that I felt disadvantaged by not knowing what Hans was referring to when he referred to ‘artists’ so I’m going on a lot of supposition on that. Allowing for this, I do welcome his willingness to open up this discussion in such a frank way, and I’d like to comment in an admittedly eclectic and rather cartwheeeling style..
Working in urban regeneration in Scotland I’m not especially excited by revelations that so many artists live in financially straightened circumstances. Possibly the majority of the urban population in Scotland live in less-than-affluent circumstances, and a significant proportion lives in abject poverty. For me, that raise questions around what ‘society’ it is that artists wish to belong to? Is there to be an aim of maximising the number of affluent artists so that they no longer identify with a large part of the population (and would that be a problem)? But I think that this is part of the context of the points that Hans makes.
In amongst these thoughts on poverty I am also unmoved by bald and unsupported assertions that “we need artists” (emphasis on 'need'). I would readily join with those here who would say that it is axiomatic that “we need artists” in our society; but outside of ourselves, that is perceived by others as no more than self-centered polemic. Artists and their supporters need to develop a position that goes beyond this polemic.
I think that, again, this is part of the context of what Hans is saying about when he speaks of, “Encouragement can also come from activities that promote a wider definition of what visual artists have to offer; from intervention art to finding creative solutions within businesses or in community art”.
Having said that, I’m reminded of having been in public discussions when I took that kind of line and found myself more than once chided robustly by ‘artists’ who countered with art-for-art’s-sake, or that art has its own worth and is not to be used instrumentally for purposes of public policy or private sector gain.
... and with respect to Kate Deening I cannot agree when she asserts "Free market economies applied to the arts are dangerous things indeed. Because new thoughts are often mis-understood." Quite the reverse is so - there are many now-affluent artists who have made a comfortable living out of the private market economy paying them huge sums for some works for the very reason that these works may be misunderstood'.
I’m also a bit doubtful about what seems on Hans’s part some naivety, or over-expectation, about the efficacy of public policy and planning. I wonder to what extent that ‘policy’ does actually determine the number of artists. In the UK, in many fields such as community regeneration, health etc., there have been very painful and incredibly expensive lessons learnt over many decades about the lack of intended impact or ‘planned outcomes’ of public policy and public planning and investment.
And anyway this particular point is now going to be very academic over the next few years, in the UK at least, where a dire outlook for all public expenditure is already hitting the resources and capacities of all state-funded or state-assisted learning institutions at whatever level and of whatever type.
The imperative is for artists themselves to discover and maybe rediscover sources of public and private funding and income - partly though new or revisited ways and means of defining and promoting what they do. This must include how they communicate to businesses, organisations and the public at large, the value and usefullness of what they do. Many teaching and learning institutions are of course already well down the road of offering business skills building for artists and this now needs immediate bolstering.
With that in mind, and given the recession outlook, could artists further explore the possibilities in the third sector, especially the nascent social enterprise field, and in the directions of public funding policy? (in Scotland that would include the likes of the ‘Fairer Scotland’ fund, the Community Planning sector and the ‘tackling worklessness agenda’). This could have the double benefit of perhaps producing funding and income resources for artists, but also engendering or facilitating social worth and returns from the artist’s work.
There again, the Scottish Government (like its predecessor the Scottish Executive) repeats again and again that all and any public funding or investment must contribute to the priority of growing the economy – that’s a tough call for anyone who believes that the Good Society is about more than making money.
I think that overall I agree with, and would support, the Scottish Artists Union when they stated earlier here:
“We believe that the current priority is for artists and their representatives to engage directly with politicians and public servants (in the Scottish Government, the Development Agencies and the Local Authorities), to secure and promote the role of the practitioner within all Scottish cultural structures. The engagement should focus on artists articulating their needs for a stronger position from which to pursue their art practices and be involved in formulating the training, support, protection from exploitation and remuneration appropriate for their work.”
My passion is original art. Art Sales is also my passion and not only my own sales but I love to help other artists sell their work!
I have been meaning to respond to this thread for sometime now - I have been penning in my head, sadly and realistically I have been too inundated with "survival" issues to be able to respond till
I am a dancer/theatre maker/filmmaker/writer/installation artist/activist/brownie baker. I've been making work consistently for the majority of my life (first performances produced/written/performed by myself at the age of seven in my backyard to which I charged admission!) to now when I work (across disciplines) many places on the globe.
I am from the states but have been here in Scotland for ten years.
I really really struggle to survive as a creative practitioner -but I do. The reason I do is because I have support - now this support has come in many many ways throughout my lifetime.
Firstly, I am fortunate to have parents who encouraged me from an early age.
This is a huge thing. I have always swung between what is regarded as 'professional' work and in communities.
It's all well and good to say that artists will find a way. This is more than a financial thing as many of you have noted.
I think to a recent dance workshop I led in the East End of Glasgow. One wee girl was able to match my steps to perfection and 'take it to the next level' without prompting. I assumed she had lessons before. Not the case. I told her she should find some lessons. All well and good- the reality of that situation however- unlikely.
And maybe it's not about having more workshops in these areas, because for those folks who are paid to DO the workshops - we know there is no promise you'll get anyone in even.
It's about changing the culture of arts. Because there STILL is an elitism associated with the pursuit and enjoyment therein. And why not, Charmaine will never 'get in'. There are hundreds of cases like this.
On the other end of the spectrum I was teaching film to some university students in the states. I heard countless stories of how their parents were discouraging them careers in the arts. Why? Because they wouldn't get a job from it.
Therefore that leaves us with a group of folks who are able to pursue the arts, who, for the most part come from privileged backgrounds OR are pursuing something that is 'marketable'.
AH the market.... which leads me to a second point.
In science innovation is encouraged in the way a scientist seeking the...cure to cancer..let's say, will go into the lab time and time again and come up with no definitive answer -or maybe not something that is immediately understood but leads way to other experiments.
Free market economies applied to the arts are dangerous things indeed. Because new thoughts are often mis-understood. And SOMETIMES the new thoughts, ideas etc... are feeders to further work, the benefit of them might not ever truly be understood. We cannot expect to 'succeed' all the time - if we did there would be no new discoveries, the path would be straight and...incestuous.
How then do we cultivate an artistic climate that is accessible to all, celebrated with an energy of adventure and community on all levels?
(I am mindful of studying Odissi dance in Orissa India where my Dance Gurus, amazing extraordinary dancers in their own right, had such respect and enthusiasm for those beginning, this did not in any way lessen their craft, their mastery - but it strengthened the community...)
It is true the current application process for the Scottish Arts Council is a complete nightmare. I have never managed to apply - the time required is never afforded to me with my other commitments. I have found support in other ways. In my thinking if one is going to apply for funds (and yes funds are absolutely integral - couldn't help but note at the National Portrait Gallery last week that every female artist (of the few present) came from money, gender is another subject area however - the division of labour and western economic structures in relation to families etc...)
...if we are going to apply for funds then the first stage of the process should be EASY and artist focused. I think on the Britdoc website, an easy online form which is focused upon the VISION. The second part can request more indepth aspects. But really, for the hours that are dependent upon to complete an application, there is no reasoning to it, if the vision is NOT going to be supported anyway. You'd be better spending that time working in River Island, at least you'd pay your bills that week.
Secondly there should be more intermediary people skilled in putting in applications and working with artists. I am quite excited about the Southeast Arts Network that is happening in Glasgow, it is facilitated by Lorenzo Mele, who works with the artists in identifying partnerships, funds and opportunities in growing the arts in this area. Recently we were given the opportunity to put forth ideas for the Vibrancy Fund which I am pleased to say (with Theatre Found, Skye Lonengran, and Urban Croft Films) we got. Dance House has been another tremendous support for the Dance Community in this way.
In conclusion, I believe Creative Scotland's role is to facilitate an cultural climate. This is not a cut and dry thing, it must exist on many levels and have a certain amount of 'play' within it's development.
How an artist (of any discipline) makes a living is of fundamental importance when discussing how to encourage and sustain their profession.
The Scottish Artists Union works to improve the conditions of visual and applied artists through the development of practical benefits (discounts and insurances), campaigning (on issues such as contracts and rates of pay) and by providing individuals with support and representation. We work closely with the other Unions including the Musicians Union and Equity. We believe that the current priority is for artists and their representatives to engage directly with politicians and public servants (in the Scottish Government, the Development Agencies and the Local Authorities), to secure and promote the role of the practitioner within all Scottish cultural structures. The engagement should focus on artists articulating their needs for a stronger position from which to pursue their art practices and be involved in formulating the training, support, protection from exploitation and remuneration appropriate for their work. Unfortunately this forum appears to be promoting academic peer debate and discussion to a predetermined agenda with no guarantee of influence and could be seen as a cynical distraction.
If this forum is to be constructive can I suggest that the focus is on genuine practical and structural solutions/ideas.