Some thoughts on Problems facing Professional Artists

Currently, artists are offered the opportunity to exhibit their work in many possible contexts and venues. There are street fairs, juried exhibitions, coffee shops, art crawls and so forth.

The basic question is this: Is the model for the visual arts that of Retail or Service? In other words, should the artist benefit from the sale of work only or does the artist provide a service by exhibiting work? This distinction is important because it determines when the artist should be remunerated and when not.

If the only intent of the artist is to sell work (Retail model), then any and all opportunities to show wares are a benefit to him/her. That means hanging work in a coffee shop, a governor’s office, an art museum or a peg-board in the street is a great advantage to the artist, and he/she should thank whoever provides the space, and perhaps pay for it. In retail, each square foot must contribute dollars per day. Square feet are the measure of value in retail. This is the model that the general public adheres to, and it is the reason artists are invited to show their work. “I am helping you. You can use my (valuable)space. You might sell something.” The retail model makes a lot of sense in Street fairs and Crawls, where, in fact, artists are mainly trying to sell work. But in the case of Institutions that have access to public money because they offer educational experiences, the model changes significantly.

The Work of Art changes from being a retail item to an educational tool. It is used when it is looked at. The viewing of art has a value, and the artist who provides an opportunity to view provides this value and should receive a reward.

If viewing art has a value, then we must look at a different model- a service model. There are plenty of precedents. When we rent a CD, a book on tape, a DVD, or take out a library book, sign up for cable or satellite service, we (or someone) pays a fee to the provider of the intellectual property. In the Museum world it is common practice for the owners of artifacts to charge for their use. Was there a rental fee attached to the Smithsonian works on paper recently shown at The Plains Art Museum? To the Ansel Adams show? The current rental fee for the new King Tut show, for example is $ 5 million. Of course the museums make that back on admissions and paraphernalia, but the principal applies- Art is consumed and has value when it is viewed, as well as when it is purchased,

If we assume that artists’ work has value as an intellectual property, then the problem becomes tactical. How do we get people to pay for the privilege of viewing art? Of course museums do this all the time. There is a wide range of entrance fees charged by museums, from the $3 charged at the Plains and the Rourke, to the $20 at MOMA. But the principle has been established. The viewing of art has a measurable monetary value. Viewers pay money to look at things artists have made. Why don’t artists get paid for the service they provide?

The short answer is that a few do, if they are highly sought after, are good negotiators or have agents who are. But as long as there are many who prefer the honor of providing their work for free, artists as a class will never be paid. The best strategy, the one adopted by CARFAC over 30 years ago, is to go to the source of arts funding. Although the general public pays admission fees to Museums, the arts boards and corporations are the ones who foot the majority of the bills. If artists could persuade those who actually provide the money that, since everyone from the receptionist to the director gets paid, and since museums pay for everything from electricity to insurance, why shouldn’t publicly funded institutions pay the artists who actually provide the service in the first place? It’s an ART museum, right? Why not pay for the art?

If we could win this argument, the funding agencies would then require their grant recipients to pay artists. The problem, though, is the under-funding of the NEA and the general fear and loathing that all officialdom has for individual artists and the work they produce. Artists are paid only when they do something other than art. Teach children, for example. Or paint Buffalo. Some progress might be made on the State level. (In one state more than the other) Tactics might range from logical argument (see above) Public embarrassment (How much do you make? Why you make 15 times more money to administer the grant than the grant is worth, etc etc) Civil disobedience, Or ?? The ideal solution, I am afraid would involve a great deal of research and persuasion. In this age of the Internet and e-mail some possibilities for reform may exist.

– Timothy Ray 6/21/05 rev. 9/22/06