« CASTING THE WIDER NET - MORE ON MARKETING | Main | WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE ARTS BUSINESS MODEL? »
July 12, 2009
THE ARTIST / ARTS ORGANIZATION DISCONNECT
Hello everybody.
“And the beat goes on.................”
ARTS ORGANIZATIONS AND THE ARTISTS THEY SERVE AREN’T ALWAYS ON THE SAME PAGE
I came across an interesting blog discussion last week that centered on the problem that artists aren’t paid enough for their work. The blogger thought part of the problem stemmed from “the close collaboration artists have with nonprofit organizations.” The author goes on to ask: “Do NPOs perpetuate the undervaluing of art by expecting to have artists’ collaboration without paying them What They Are Worth?” This author is sympathetic to the plight of nonprofits and doesn’t set out to necessarily criticize NPOs for a situation beyond their control, yet ends the blog post with the plea that artists must simply demand realistic and fair compensation.
But everyone is for paying artists better. And while we're at it, we should pay arts administrators better too. But there aren't enough funds to do either one, anymore than there are enough funds to put arts teachers in every school. The money has to come from somewhere and unfortunately this discussion, including the very interesting comments to the blog, never really come to grips with this reality - or more importantly what might be done about it - and I find that somewhat disappointing and continually frustrating.
I did find the comments to the blog very interesting nonetheless. Those comments ranged from:
• the frequent suggestion that artists must break out of the nonprofit mentality and stop being beggars and demand decent pay, to
• urging artists to become more entrepreneurial, to
• a demand / supply observation (and ensuing debate) that there are so many people who want to be artists that (even with the high demand for art) the pie simply isn’t big enough, but that the reason there are so many artists is that being an artist has rewards beyond money, to
• criticism that there is too little training available to working artists so that they might be better business managers of their own careers.
A couple of nonprofit staffers defend the arts organizations that lack the funding streams to offer artists decent compensation for their work, and even question the role of artists in all this.
You can read this original blog and the comments by clicking here: www.technologyinthearts.org/?p=1040
All of this got me wondering about a couple of things. First, to what extent do working artists really understand how the nonprofit arts & culture ecosystem is set up and how it works (or doesn’t work depending, I suppose, on one’s perspective)? Is there real appreciation for what arts organizations are designed to do, and the obstacles and barriers in doing what they are suppose to do? From the artist’s point of view is it their expectation that the primary purpose of nonprofit arts organizations should be to support, facilitate and in other ways encourage and enable the creation of art and to address the needs of artists? But isn’t part of the nonprofit arts system designed not just to facilitate the creation of art, but also to expand and enable public access to that art? And isn’t that particularly true with local, state and federal taxpayer funds?
I understand the frustration of artists over the marginalization and undervaluation of what they do in this culture and that it is so difficult for all but a few to earn a living wage being an artist. I understand too the frustration of nonprofit arts administrators over the marginalization and undervaluation of what they do in this culture, and that it is so difficult for so many of them (particularly at the entry and lower levels) to earn a living wage being an arts administrator. I understand that both of these groups of people feel passionate about art and its role in our culture, and that both put up with less than ideal situations and realities because of that passion and belief and the non-monetary rewards associated with both careers.
I agree with the comments in the blog that suggested artists (and arts administrators) need to demand more for what they do. And though I also recognize and accept the reality of economics, I have for a long time said out loud that we have to stop behaving like Oliver Twist, holding our little bowl with outstretched hands, begging “Please sir, may I have some more.” I have argued that one way to get more is to organize and play the political clout game with the same intensity and sophistication other interests successfully play that game. That of course, involves raising serious funds to achieve clout and that the field has been unwilling, or unable, to do -- at least on the state and local levels.
I think working artists and working arts administrators need to talk a whole lot more about these common issues, about how things work, how we interface and intersect with each other, and how we can more closely collaborate for our mutual gains. Recent efforts of funders and grassroots new organizations – from Creative funds, to the Center for Cultural Innovation to LINC are all encouraging efforts in the direction of providing for artist's needs and for expanding understanding by both segments of our sector as to who we are, how we work, what we face and where we are going.
But a disconnect does exist I think, and so we need to continue to try to explain ourselves better to each other, and we need to ask where we fail to fully understand each other. Maybe someday we will figure out how both artists and arts administrators can be better paid, and how, at the same time, more of the public can have access to more art.
Have a great week.
Don’t Quit
Barry
Posted by msaunders at July 12, 2009 12:23 PM
Comments
I am not sure if this is a subject already covered but it seems to relate to the above article.
In the interest for supporting arts organizations we have donated art for auctions and sales numerous times. It is extremely difficult if not impossible to find out who has bought the work, in essence what is now a new 'collector' for our work.
It is as if the artist must continue to starve, expect never to advance financially and only give away their art for free for the enjoyment of others. Would it not be reasonable to expect that the arts organization who benefits from these sales has the respect and supportive attitude that they should (yes Should) help the artist to increase their mailing list, or collector list, etc., that they may include these buyers in future mailings for shows and exhibitions?
We feel the attitude was and is dismissive and lacking in basic respect for the plight of artists who may not fully support themselves with their work.
So we have stopped donating for the time being. The last time we did we specifically asked for that one thing in exchange for the art donated: that we know who bought it. We were reassured it would not be a problem and yet we were never able to find out who now owns our work!! So we gave up asking and trying and of course, donating.
Posted by: janice at July 12, 2009 02:49 PM
Janice
I understand and respect your position. It is precisely these kinds of disconnects that I think we might address if there were more channels open to ongoing communications between artists and arts organization administrators. I think a lot of actions (or inactions) artists might consider to be 'slights' aren't meant that way by otherwise well meaning administrators, but are rather the product of them simply being unaware. Not an excuse mind you, just an explannation. The problem of undervaluation and underpay applies to both artists and arts administrators - and perhaps working together we will have a better shot at someday moving beyond that sad state of affairs.
Posted by: barry at July 13, 2009 09:27 AM
I only want to add one comment to this, as this has been an ongoing discussion for a long time. Since many artists are the administrators of Art NPO's, we need to talk about the whole picture. I am finding a huge disconnect between what artists and arts administrators know in terms of how an NPO can and can not work. Having founded a nonprofit and a business both, (both artist run) I find that I am learning a lot of new things about the pros and cons of both. I have come to the conclusion that the more artists know the better, both to run their own careers on their own terms, and to help change the mentality of how the art world has taught artists to imagine themselves.
Contrary to popular opinion, not all artists are bad at business, but this is something that is very important for galleries to perpetuate, as this is how they make money from artists. Lets develop a new model for the arts completely. One where artists call the shots about their own careers.
Posted by: Karen Atkinson at July 20, 2009 01:37 PM