Artists working in the public sector are struggling to stay afloat amid a culture of low fees, unpaid labour and systemic exploitation, research shows.
A survey of people engaged by everything from flagship galleries to smaller projects found an overall median hourly rate of £2.60 an hour, dramatically below the UK minimum wage of £9.50.
It exposes how many artists, especially those from less privileged backgrounds, have to sustain multiple additional jobs to subsidise poorly paid commissions in the public sector. Some told of deciding to leave the art world entirely to protect their mental health and financial security.
So, public art just isn’t working. Super, abolish the Arts Council then.
It exposes how many artists, especially those from less privileged backgrounds, have to sustain multiple additional jobs to subsidise poorly paid commissions in the public sector. Some told of deciding to leave the art world entirely to protect their mental health and financial security
So we already have a solution.
People can’t make a living out of their hobbies and have to find other ways to make a living *shrug*.
See also every failed sportsman, athlete, actor etc.
Ditto the above. “Ah but then there would be no art”. Let’s have a public vote on what the public sector is buying for us then and see whether people think it’s art or not.
Solution: Make stuff people actually want to buy.
A lot of hobbyists do, and quite a lot of those seem to derive considerable satisfaction and a decent line of extra income out of it.
Then again those people aren’t artists, of course…
I’m an artist the gist of that is true. The public sector doesn’t pay at best it’s advertising or on my case tax deductible donations.
But for many;
Most of the time the public arts sector sure looks like a scam.
There’s a case that the only Arts that should be subsidised are those that couldn’t happen without subsidy – classical orchestras, opera, and so forth. All other Arts – prose, poetry, daubing, drama, brass bands, pipe bands, dance, puppetry, conjuring tricks and so on – will happen anyway because people feel driven to do them. “Hobbies”, as the others say.
I like a spot of Mozart rather more than the next man but I don’t see the justification for taxing the poor to let The State stage operas that are performed in London at prices such that I’d never attend anyway. End the subsidies by the taxpayer!
Anyway we found the solution to the opera problem years ago. Cheap flights to Berlin let you enjoy the opera subsidised by German taxpayers, an altogether superior arrangement.
Or, “People who have appointed themselves to do self-serving things that few members of the public want them to do, and which fewer still are willing to pay for voluntarily, are outraged to discover that they are not being rewarded in keeping with their vanities.”
Dearieme… Your preference bias is showing… 😛
Although poetry should never be subsidised, and poets reading their own output in public shot, drawn and quartered, and then fed to the Lions.
“People who ……………. do self-serving things that few members of the public want them to do, and which fewer still are willing to pay for voluntarily, are outraged to discover………….”
and we’re back to Lineker.
Ah but then there would be no art
Where is our “art”?
Western art has been circling the pissoir since Marcel Duchamp’s practical joke.
When was the last time you saw something come out of a British art school that wasn’t deliberately ugly?
Being an artist is essentially being in sales. You are trying to find a sucker to buy a painting or a sculpture that you have made. Another way is to obtain sponsors and get them to fund your painting or sculpture. And yes, tax payers money is spent on this stuff and in order to earn a living you need to know how to play the system. A few artists are really good at this and can wrangle a decent living from it. Most cannot. This is less of an industry and more of a grand tournament.
“poets reading their own output in public [should be] shot, drawn and quartered, and then fed to the Lions.”
I find that a few days in the scorpion pit are sufficient.
You’re entirely correct about the scorpion pits, Noble Lord. Perhaps the one for poets has the admonition “Learn to Rhyme” inscribed on its wall.
Come to think of it. “Devote this Tyme to Learning to Rhyme” would be even better.
Salamander, and the artists that are good at finding a market by producing what people like to buy are sneered at and called populist by art critics who’d literally prefer to applaud shit thrown up a wall or a lump of frozen piss.
Look at the criticism Jack Vettriano gets, despite being very popular.
I know somebody who makes a decent living from her hobby, but she had the foresight to have paid off her mortgage and a local government pension to fall back on.
Starving in garrets? Goes with the job, doesn’t it?
*Shrug*
I knew an artist when I lived in Munich who specialized in creating art for fancy offices.
Certain type of CEO who likes original art hanging off the walls and something creative in the reception area. Turns out commissioning a “poor artist” often turns out to be cheaper than hiring some wanky architect or consultant to redecorate.
He made an absolute killing.
dearieme,
“There’s a case that the only Arts that should be subsidised are those that couldn’t happen without subsidy – classical orchestras, opera, and so forth. All other Arts – prose, poetry, daubing, drama, brass bands, pipe bands, dance, puppetry, conjuring tricks and so on – will happen anyway because people feel driven to do them. “Hobbies”, as the others say.”
A number of points on this:-
1. The supporters of the ENO, WNO, ROH, orchestras and BBC singers only have this perspective because they’ve had subsidies for as long as anyone can remember. Opera companies like Garsington, Longborough, Glyndebourne, Iford, Waterperry and Opera Holland Park run without subsidies.
2. A very large chunk of the subsidy goes on ticking boxes for the Arts Council. Putting on modern, challenging shit that no-one wants to see. Putting on Mozart and Puccini brings in the crowds.
3. The major opera companies spend what they get. The smaller companies are much more frugal and clever with money. Like they run as summer festivals so they can erect a marquee rather than having to maintain a building.
“I like a spot of Mozart rather more than the next man but I don’t see the justification for taxing the poor to let The State stage operas that are performed in London at prices such that I’d never attend anyway. End the subsidies by the taxpayer!”
Quite. Oh and another thing is that most of those festivals are outside London so all the costs are lower.
Something that I really don’t get is this “great orchestras” thing. I’ve even tried a few tests picking videos of a concertos with student orchestras vs the LSO, where you might think the big name soloist would be noticeable, and I really can’t tell the difference. Maybe the professionals can, but I wouldn’t spend big money.
Bloke on M4 said:
“A very large chunk of the subsidy goes on ticking boxes for the Arts Council”
Think I saw a study that all – all – arts subsidy money goes on administrators.
Evergreen advice to young aspiring artists: Get some “real world” skills that can fully support you while you develop your craft. Be prepared to get a “normal” job and pursue your art in the evenings and weekends until you are good enough to go pro. And even those who have the skills may not make it because not everybody gets the notice they deserve. I’ve known some who eventually were so successful that they quit their “normal” jobs and others who did not and for whom art remained a lifelong “hobby”. [Note: “real world” and “normal” and “hobby” seem condescending, but I am having trouble finding the right words.]
As it turned out I followed my hobby – writing – and turned out not to be an artist at all. The living’s OK……