ARTISTS TALKING

I have started interviewing all of the artists here about various art-money related matters, but I will add that question on to my list and let you know the outcome...

posted on 2009-07-10 by Emily Speed

Maybe it would be useful to see how artists in other countries get to afford to pay the automatic admission fees (or otherwise to support their practice? Is it because they are better rewarded as artists? A UK artist I know who lives in the US said that artists tend not to consider public funding as an option because theyre just isn't any. Do others think its not so much 'resistence' to participate through an exchange of money but more that people take art (and thus its makers) for granted?

posted on 2009-07-10 by Susan Jones

Susan - my opposition to that would be that, as an artist with basically no disposable income, I would then be unable to visit galleries. I think that attaching a price-tag to something can often make it elitist, and this is something that the arts need to escape from. I'm proud of the free galleries. I feel that free entry to galleries certainly masks something, and that something is the fact that art costs money to make, and galleries cost money to run. I feel that British society as a whole, rather than being resistant to the arts, simply takes them for granted - and therefore needs to be better educated about the arts, and the cost of the arts; I suspect that people don't donate because they don't understand why they would need to and where their money would go if they did.

posted on 2009-07-10 by Jo Moore

In mainland Europe (and generally elsewhere) I have experienced the icommon practice of paying entry to all kinds of museums and galleries although they sometimes have 'free' days. Speaking to a (non-British) Director of a major UK contemporary gallery a while back, he mentioned the considerable sum raised annually by placing boxes encouraging voluntary donations, noting that whilst visitors from other nations were wiling to do this, it was the Brits who tended to avoid doing so. Question is: do we by default mask the extent of resistence to visual arts culture in the UK by making exhibition entry free? Should we be encouraging those who have the means to mark their appreciation by paying to do so?

posted on 2009-07-10 by Susan Jones

(sorry for spamming you to death!) The last line of my first post - got cut off - was something like: It'd be nice if it was recognised that just because art is free at the point of consumption does not mean that it is free to produce; we sadly don't live in a cash-free utopia, and everybody deserves to make a living: I'd like to see some meaningful support for artist-led / small non-commercial spaces from local and national government.

posted on 2009-07-10 by Jo Moore

PS; was C of C popular with everybody here? Beginning to wonder if the Capitals of Culture scheme is being used by cities more as a rebranding exercise than anything else (found this yesterday: www.liverpoolcitybrand.co.uk). Telling that the most popular 'artistic' event of '08 was essentially a heavily sponsored corporate art project in the public realm with a £700 "honorarium" paid to artists for creating / signing over the rights to these designs and thousands (if not millions) of pounds for the company coordinating / administrating the project. Of course, there were great things like La Machine's project. But how much did C of C benefit local artists, and how much did it deflect attention from them with massive, easy-to-market prestige projects?

posted on 2009-07-10 by Jo Moore

While I agree with, and I am incredibly proud of our free galleries/museums, I'm going to play devil's advocate, here. Imagine if my former place of employment had been able to charge for entry to exhibitions (by "able" I mean culturally able rather than legally able: that is, if it was considered the norm and people were wiling/prepared to pay). That would have been a great source of funding. As it is I had people questioning / refusing to pay £2 entry fees to special events where it was necessary to charge, as a guest curator had severely compromised the budget (in terms of the payment that been promised to this particular performer) without clearing it with me. It's difficult when you rely solely on public funding but are committed to paying artists for the work they do: it usually means that you're asking for more money than your peer institutions for projects of similar size/scope, which sometimes makes your proposal less attractive to funders; and ACE, for instance, like to see proof that you can generate a portion of your own income. If you're more a project space than a commercial space (which we were), then how else can you do that? I don't think that we ought to have charged for exhibitions: but I think it would be wonderful if there was a slight cultural shift; i.e. if public - and central government, I suppose - recognised that smaller contemporary spaces doing this sort of work (which could be classified as public service, though obviously not comparable to the NHS!) do incur costs. I'd like to see things like business rate relief for artist-led spaces; a culture wherein those visitors who can afford to donate do so, realising that this would make a vital contribution to the work of grass-roots, artist-led spaces. In short: while I'm really proud of our free galleries, it isn't always that easy for them to stay open; and while smaller spaces are of course free to charge, that charge would probably deter visitors from coming at all. It'd be nic

posted on 2009-07-10 by Jo Moore

My sister graduated as an architect a few years ago - she had a placement year as part of her degree, and continued to work for the company after graduating - I'm guessing not every architecture course does that??? My Mum and Aunt are twins, but because they're not identical, either in looks or personality, no one has ever conducted research on them!

posted on 2009-07-10 by Helen Dearnley

Inez - I have come across other architecture students in this situation, one of whom has decided to have a year out working to pay for their next year working in industry (probably unpaid) and the other is working for expenses, having taken out a loan. This just seems so sad at this stage in their studies and hard to see how they will recover from the financial losses. It is encouraging that RIBA have a stance on this, but as a year in industry is essential for architects, this trend seems incredibly worrying! As always in a recession, it seems that opportunities tighten and some businesses take advantage of this to get cheap workers - leading to elitism and an unfair advantage for those who can pay their way. How can students with limited means manage to get through lengthy medical/law/architecture degrees without financial support? This is exactly how these industries end up as the the preserve of the wealthy. I really hope your daughter manages to find a way out of this dilemma! I suppose one teeny chink of optimism is that she will eventually earn a living from this career path... not so likely in the arts.

posted on 2009-07-06 by Emily Speed

It's just dawned on me completely (which is to say that I always knew it on some level) how odd it is that the concept of "expenses" as interpreted by various institutions never includes time! Expenses paid = lunch, travel, materials. Time paid = A Fee, which, it seems, is considered almost unreasonable to ask for unless you've already been offered it. Of course, reimbursement for costs is much better than nothing - but the very fact that they were auditioning people indicates to me that they were looking for people with particular strengths and talents (would you agree with that, having seen the performance?). It's a shame that they weren't able to pay fees (even small ones) to the performers, as it was trumpeted rather loudly by certain people involved that the production was "incredibly expensive". As for the plinth, I think that there are enough people (it was a randomly-selected process and Gormley has said that he didn't get a place, which would indicate that it was over-subscribed: the computer would have kept assigning slots until all had been filled, right?) - an online knitting community I use seems to have a whole host of members planning to use their time on the plinth to showcase fibrecraft and DIY culture!

posted on 2009-07-06 by Jo Moore

..... just another thought on unpaid work whether a graduate, artist or member of the public - In these uncertain times optimism is essential, but settling for unpaid work is becoming an issue to many desperate for work. My daughter a sixth year architectural graduate needs to find employment for a year in order to qualify. Despite sending out around 200 quality applications she is still without a job offer. Desperately tempted by the prospect of being in an architectural environment, she has been tempted by the thought of offering her talents to unpaid work. RIBA has opposed the trend as ‘potentially damaging’, both for graduates and for the profession and I agree, as education and talent is so easily undervalued and should be protected from exploitation at all costs. Searching jobs for artists and illustrators I have seen some inexcusable exploitative offers ( a bit like the new museum) presented under the guise of a legitimate opportunity. Experience is valuable but at what cost?

posted on 2009-07-06 by Inez Schrader

That's such a sweet story! What great names too. Ruth and I used to plot elaborate telepathic hoaxes and convince everyone at school we had special powers. Too easy.. Much more interesting filling in and then comparing the research questionnaires - most seem to focus on emotions and how we cope in specific situations. I seem to remember when we were much younger, we had to be put in separate rooms as we would just write the same things otherwise! This was probably because we were constantly compared in every part of our lives (looks, handwriting, height, weight) and really hated it. It's really amazing the way people think it's okay to say things like 'you're the prettiest/cleverest/tallest/thinnest twin' and think that one of us won't be crushed. I've always found that strange. But it's not all bad! Is your dad's brother still alive? I have always wondered how twins cope without their other half: it seems unthinkable.

posted on 2009-07-05 by Emily Speed

Interesting to hear of your contribution to research. My father (85) and his twin brother, Billy and Bobby, were vicar's children, brought up in a little village in the West of Ireland where a local scientist regularly paid a shilling to conduct experiments into telepathy on them!

posted on 2009-07-04 by Susan Francis

Emily - regarding the difference between residencies in the 60s and 70s and contemporary residencies, do you think that this might be accounted for by a shift away from privately-owned galleries and artist co-operatives towards projects funded by external stakeholders (e.g. ACE, charitable trusts, municipal councils, corporate funders) who are focused on outcomes?

posted on 2009-07-02 by Jo Moore

I do agree with you about the benefits of residencies elsewhere, and how important that is. But there is also a fairly large constituency of artists who would love to undertake a residency (for some a residency may be a rare and unique chance of actually being being reimbursed for their services as well as some paid developmental time) but who find themselves excluded from local opportunities because they are local. I sense that there's an element of "we've already heard of/worked with all the local artists who are any good" amongst institutions: and so you see the same names popping up again and again. (Some of this, it has to be said, is also down the the talent and perseverance of said artists; some of it I suspect owes more to an artist having the right contacts). There is a fine balance to be struck, as I think that national and international opportunities are great for those artists who are able to take them. But if there are no comparable opportunities for locally-based artists who have commitments that preclude a prolonged absence from home then those artists are being left behind. Not everybody is in a situation wherein they can afford to rely on their art as a sole means of income. So, just like the unpaid internship thing, this will contribute to the atmosphere wherein those who can afford to work for little or no pay, or to rely on a small irregular income, are at an automatic advantage.

posted on 2009-07-02 by Jo Moore

Clarification of first line of previous comment, as for some reason I omitted to add four important words! : In addition, it often happens that those residencies that do appear locally are only available to artists from elsewhere, either in principle (i.e. the organising institution state in the brief that they're looking for non-locals) or in practice (i.e. local practitioners go straight to the bottom of the application review pile).

posted on 2009-07-02 by Jo Moore

There is definately something sensible about wanting artists from far away, because it may give the artist/organisation involved a new link in a different place, a fresh perspective on things in the area and news of elsewhere.. these are all quite vauable elements of a residency in my opinion. But local can work too - Paul Rooney at Tate Liverpool for example. The other thing that residencies do is give the artist freedom from daily life: I will not be spending time washing my husbands clothes and the bed sheets and hoovering, not will I be able to meet friends for tea. These are things that I will miss (well, the tea bit), but am glad to give up for a few weeks and be utterly absorbed in my studio life. Never have I made work so intensively as on a residency and produced so much. When you are in this process, thoughts also speed up and become clearer (there is no life mud to render them 'must do' things the next day - you can stay up all night if you want!). It's good (or perhaps I have been lucky with my experiences thus far I don't know) and much more than money can buy. So I am in favour, but I also recognise that it is not possble for lots of artists, and that really needs to change. I'm sure if we look back, it would be evident that the word residency now means something other than it did in the 60s or 70s they are generally shorter, not as well paid and have expectations of neat finished projects rather than career development in a long-term sense.

posted on 2009-07-02 by Emily Speed

In addition, it often happens that those residencies that do appear locally are only available either in principle (i.e. the organising institution state in the brief that they're looking for non-locals) or in practice (i.e. local practitioners go straight to the bottom of the application review pile). This may well be something to do with funding: there are huge pots of EU money available for these kinds of projects, and "cross-cultural exchange" is such a buzzword at the moment that it makes a proposal more attractive to other funders, too (with the possible exception of ACE, who do have a commitment to support British artists). As well, I think there's a certain cachet (certainly in Liverpool) attached to working with an artist from Somewhere Else, be that Glasgow or Graz. I'm not 100% sure where I stand on this, as I do think that these oppportunities are positive, both in terms of personal/professional development and of building links with other artists in an increasingly global society - but it is interesting that the arts seems to be one of the few areas where the "buy local" principle hasn't quite caught on yet.

posted on 2009-07-02 by Jo Moore

Yes Emily, I am one of those being miffed by arts jobs/residencies not being available locally. I applied for a couple that would've been during the summer holidays. I thought it'd work really well at a time when I could in theory go somewhere else for six weeks. But I wasn't successful. I hope the APT will resolve those issues.

posted on 2009-07-02 by Helen Dearnley

I did think the fee was pretty average and a lot better than some...and plenty for me to live on given my normal standards, especially when you consider the housing and studio are included.. I guess it equates to a little over minimum wage and is a bit like funding for research study. It is not enough, however, for putting aside sick pay, holiday pay and pension contributions (if I had one!), paying rent and bills on the flat I have to keep in Liverpool on top of the extra costs that come with living somewhere short term, and all those things that being self-employed entails. The big problem with residencies (generally) is that they exclude lots of artists by their nature of being elsewhere. If you have a mortgage or kids or job commitments of any kind: you're pretty scuppered, and that doesn't really seem fair; discrimination by life choices or something. The Arts expects its artists to be largely freelance (or unemployed), immediately available and without ties. However, I still fit into the available and without ties categories, which is lucky for me, but I can imagine others feel a bit miffed by the difficulty of these opportunities. It is a good amount for a residency comparatively, agreed, but is that just because we are used to not being paid well enough?

posted on 2009-07-02 by Emily Speed

Sounds like a fantastic way to spend the summer - the experience is all round positive. I think your fee sounds fine... or am I just naive? I vote for Eurostar - more glamorous...

posted on 2009-07-01 by Fiona Flynn

the crappy exchange rate also improves things :)

posted on 2009-07-01 by Emily Speed

It should - I have some good pay cheques for June and July (from Tate education workshops - what a surprise to see education providing my bread and butter again!), and as there are no costs apart from feeding myself I should be fine, the odd train ticket to Vienna and lakes for swimming and things are my own choice really aren't they!?! Besides, a city centre, riverside flat and studio will be fantastic! It was also looking like I wasn't going to earn that much over here in July and August anyway, so really it's not a bad comparison! I often look at Creative Partnerships and have been putting off applying (they always send brief with incredibly short deadlines on!), but that is most certainly on my agenda for the autumn/winter! It does seem to be about average for residencies in my experience.. but perhaps there are better paid ones out there?

posted on 2009-07-01 by Emily Speed

Well done Emily, that's ace - in terms of artmaking and profile/career. Crap in terms of money though. I hope you find another steady baseline few hundred quid a month - I get mine as an agent for Creative Partnerships, and it somehow takes the pressure off pyschologically aswell as physically. Will E1000 per month see you through? x

posted on 2009-07-01 by Rachel Howfield (Massey)

Yes, that was another point I wished to make: as long as there are legions of people willing to work for free, institutions have no reason to stop allowing them to. It's a big business advanced-capitalist ethos, the backbone of privatised society: protect your profits / the dividends reaped by those at the top at any cost. And as long as there is cannon fodder, this exploitation (because that's what it is) will continue to flourish. OK, I'm off to make some Political Art now. (Alternatively, a cup of tea.) (NB: as somebody else mentioned, of course there are circumstances in which voluntary work can be used - smaller, grassroots, artist-led institutions. But Liverpool's big, slick arts organisations are about as far from grassroots as you'll get, whatever they might like to think.)

posted on 2009-06-29 by Jo Moore

RE Andrew - I think I have said I liked the sound of your Tate internship before on this blog..somewhere.. and obviously it was a great experience for you. I do not mean, with these comments, to encompass all internships or voluntary opportunities or to deny the existence of valuable experiences (indeed, I have had some!). In fact that post was really just based on things I have seen in Liverpool. I suppose the 'soon after uni' was irrelevant; what I wanted to get across was my concern at the use of volunteers as unpaid labour in what is not necessarily skilled or specialist work (i.e. not of great value) and also, as you put it, serial volunteering. I think that institutions have a responsibility to limit the duration of internships and voluntary experiences to make them realistic for as many people as possible. The Tate internship strikes me as something that would probably lead (directly?) to paid opportunities, in which case volunteering here does not seem to represent the majority of unpaid opportunities in the arts around the UK. I wish there were more like this. This subject pops up regularly for me as in Liverpool, a city that has received good amounts of funding for Capital of Culture et al, it is incredibly hard to find paid work in the arts (however badly) and people seem to be getting stuck in this voluntary sphere. Also, as long as there are willing volunteers, the question of hiring paid staff seems unlikely to occur.

posted on 2009-06-29 by Emily Speed

Unpaid internships are illegal. They contravene both the letter and the spirit of National Minimum Wage legislation. That is the bottom line, regardless of whether we're talking about an arts internship or a law internship. HMRC really needs to tighten up on this, as I suspect we'll see a lot more of the old "(Unpaid)" on Arts Jobs before the recession's out. And, unfortunately, as these internships are so common, they don't provide any sort of advantage; particularly given that the only experience one gains is experience of basic administration / invigilation while Important People do Important Work around you. And they have the cheek to ask for experienced candidates! Sadly, Westminster also relies heavily on unpaid interns, so I can't see the government wishing to get involved. It makes me slightly ill to imagine how much, say, the execs at Liverpool Biennial are paid (with significant contributions from the public purse), and then to recall how heavily the Biennial relies on unpaid workers. It's deeply unethical.

posted on 2009-06-29 by Jo Moore

RE: "one of my main concerns is why graduates of two or three years are still doing it" I graduated in 1996 and didn't start my internship at Tate till 2008; internships can be a useful way to help people 'later in life' to change direction (previously to working as an editor I had been a teacher). However, serial internships are perhaps a little dubious...?

posted on 2009-06-29 by Andrew Bryant

Yes there are other rewards than money but who's going to pay the bills? I am artist in residence at a university for which I do not get paid but I get to use all the equipment and have studio space in which to do my own work. I have found it useful but at a time when they are sacking half their academic staff it doesn't really seem right to rely on unpaid workers to work with students.

posted on 2009-06-29 by Rosy James

In praise of internships: I did a three month, two-day-a-week internship at Tate which led to regular paid work as a freelance editor and got me involved as a paid facilitator/liaser in the Tate Oxleas project, which led to paid work at the British Association of Art Therapists. Even if I hadn't got paid work it would still have been worth doing for the contacts and the self/professional development. There are other rewards than money.

posted on 2009-06-29 by Andrew Bryant

This internship advertised on Axis at the moment is looking for an unpaid Intern for 2-3 days over 6-12 months and they would prefer candidates with experience in the arts/hanging shows etc... hmm, something wrong with that.. now what is it? http://www.axisweb.org/opOPPO.aspx?ENQID=37695

posted on 2009-06-29 by Emily Speed

Yes Amy, see my post below!! I have actually reached my overdraft limit now and NEED PAID WORK, no more volunteering. I am actually tempted to curate an exhibition at the Jobcentre about unemployment and have a large placard with "We're Not Getting Paid For This" on it....!!! he he! re: Janie, but what about Damien Hirst et al?? He seems to have got it right ;-) Yet of course he gets berated for actually making a substantial living out of his work!! So I'm not buying the old Van Gogh stereotype, not one bit!

posted on 2009-06-28 by Helen Dearnley

Wow! Strong feelings on this, which is great.. Interesting to hear about the environmental science angle and how that ties in with Susan's point about volunteering being standard in other industries - although industries that will eventually offer well paid employment! That also cleared up some questions I had about Arts Jobs and the amount of skilled volunteers being looked for in technical roles. As you've said Rob, some volunteering can be incredibly valuable; one of my main concerns is why graduates of two or three years are still doing it and why this is not being questioned. I did a Saturday every fortnight at Inverleith House in Edinburgh when I was at Uni (among others - this was by far the best), where I was let loose on spreadsheets, books, work and was asked my opinion on things, had some spontaneous mini-crits about my work and could have happily asked for a good reference if I had needed. I only stayed there for about two-three months, but that short time was well-rewarded. It probably would have been even better is I had been less shy! This was in a place with about three staff and a handful of volunteers, so everyone was used for the skills they could offer, rather than standing outside in the rain all day flyering (yep, done that too). More of this and more training and support. In the Biennial's defence I should say their volunteers often get to help hang work and meet the artist, as well as having talks and training about the pieces they are working with. Not all bad, just going on way too long and demanding too many hours.

posted on 2009-06-25 by Emily Speed

This is something that I have found very irritating lately so its fascinating to read everyones opinions on the matter. I find that some of the voluntary work available has little to offer in terms of experience - it just seems to be a CV filler. It is very hard to justify or find the motivation spending the time doing that when funds are running low. Anyone else find this?

posted on 2009-06-24 by Amy Ferguson

Following Janie's comment - when I mentioned Emily's May analysis of Art Jobs and the ascendancy of unpaid opportunities to a colleague working in the media/digital/production world he said it was v common for technical/admin and other posts to be offered unpaid as it was a known way for newcomers to get experience, tap into peer networks and join a profession where there are pay structures in place. So maybe it's fine if it's recognised as a career progression to something that is paid. Bit like new doctors having to work all hours in order to climb the ladder to being a consultant. Clearly that isn't the case in the visual arts.

posted on 2009-06-24 by Susan Jones

Emily I am not advocating volunteering or encouraging people to adopt it as a cheep alternative BUT........ These expences type oppotunities can be worth while. May be the experience and expansion of your portfolio makes it something you need to do. Sometimes the opportunity is an experiment, and with the right approach and personel, you get good results, it generates confidence and carves way for a well planned and profitable follow on job. How do you decide if these outcomes will happen, and is it worthwile investing time, and do you even have the resources to do it. These are difficult difficult decisions and the answer is over 90% NO. And I dont think you should entertain them unless it really is a door you have to open. I wish people were more discerning about what they volunteered for. The whole 'work experience' as a way of moving along a career path in the arts is pants.

posted on 2009-06-24 by Rob Turner

I think this is synonymous with a general poverty of approach to the Visual Arts compared to most other art forms. I think volunteering is fair enough in certain circumstances i.e. for artist run spaces etc but when it is used by established organizations I think it is pretty shameful. I think it is tied in with other issues such as why there is no direct correlation with the value of seeing art and a remuneration for artists. The myth of the artist working in the garret until his or her genius is discovered continues to underpin this fact. It would be interesting to compare other art forms such as opera, theatre and dance to see if the use of volunteers is as widespread as it is with in the visual arts. I presume it is more difficult to justify if there are box office takings in the equation.

posted on 2009-06-24 by Janie Nicoll

Hi Emily - and anyone else who's interested - I've just posted a fairly negative entry about selling work on my blog "After Rites", and would appreciate feedback, the more heated the better!

posted on 2009-06-24 by Jon Bowen

Hi Emily - 20 years ago I started considering training in environmental science/conservation, since I'm a great nature lover. It would have given me a steady income, and opportunities to paint in far-flung parts of the world. But to get into the field, you not only have to volunteer, you have to go on international eco-camps and PAY for your experience!! At least the arts establishment aren't taking the piss to that extent (yet).

posted on 2009-06-24 by Jon Bowen

no, you're not Emily! I did voluntary work during my degree, and a one off opportunity since graduating. It hasn't gained me any further opportunities, paid or otherwise, so the statement made by those wishing to exploit people isn't even true, otherwise I'd have a lucrative job in the arts by now. One year after graduating and that is yet to materialise, nor am I prepared to work for free any more - if they wanna know why, I will show them the bank charges that I keep getting for being so overdrawn........

posted on 2009-06-24 by Helen Dearnley

Thi is an important issue and an important post, which I'd like to see developed into a main article.

posted on 2009-07-05 by Gillian Mciver

Interesting to hear an illustrators point of view - these things are not as black and white as they first appear... I'm dubious as to how visible individuals would be here though - there is bound to be hundreds of submissions surely?

posted on 2009-06-22 by Emily Speed

as an illustrator I agree with Gary Taxali (not only that, his work is pretty cool :-) ) Conversely, the AOI charge a hefty sum to upload your portfolio on their website, so therefore, if you're (like me) relatively not as prolific as Gary Taxali, then it could be good free advertising for your work :-)

posted on 2009-06-16 by Helen Dearnley

eep!

posted on 2009-06-29 by Jo Moore