Getting paid

Good letter in the Guardian from Susan Jones about artists in these lean times:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/jun/04…

PART SEVEN: Conclusion! Finally!!

Did the symposium do this:

NO. 2: Expanding possibilities for artists’ professional practice and opportunities for artists in the creative industries.

Not in a very direct way. Inevitably the artists speaking had followed very specific and personal trajectories that can't be replicated.

Some qualities the artists had that could possibly help towards expanding your own possibilities in professional practice:

All showed tenacity and from Sans Facon in particular I will bear in mind negotiating, questioning and squeezing things.

From Linder – looking for opportunities to collaborate outside the arts.

From Olivia – to find some answers for myself to the questions I ask about the arts. Also not to be afraid of institutions or take things gratefully in outstretched palms. Lastly she confirmed my love for the democratic nature of the artists' book.

PART SIX:

So, Olivia described her thoughts on how artists work, and what our work may involve – Mobility: to be available to go wherever, whenever according to opportunities. Work as knowledge/immaterial rather than stuff. An unregulated sphere, which is inhabited by freelancers, most of whom are solitary.

She also said that events like this seminar were great, but that there might need to be something more. Again, I felt like I was left a bit hanging – like what? describe me your ideal event..

Here, we finished for break as I am just getting stuck into all these really relevant and problematic issues…. sigh. But after tea comes short discussion groups.

During the discussion groups in the afternoon I was torn, wanting to be in Sans Facon’s group but also feeling like Olivia’s group would be more useful to me (and the money issues). In the end I left it to luck and got Sans Facon. As I said earlier, I tried to tell them that I liked their work and the reasons why, but I was so full of a cold and absolutely addled from a kidney infection the week before that I wasn’t sure I’d made any sense so I just shut up and listened.

During the final feedback Olivia’s group had (inevitably) discussed the current state of the arts and getting paid. One thing that I found really interesting was when Kwong from Castlefield mentioned that they all thought artists didn’t share enough information. They wanted to know who got paid, for what, how much. It had also been discussed that certain institutions didn’t pay artists well, or at all although names were kept quiet! It then clicked a little bit, instead of worrying about all these questions and whether they are useful, I think the important thing is to identify all the problems and address them in little chunks.

Example: developing networks between artists..

Artist: this gallery want to show my work

Artist's artist friend: Hmm, watch them, they're well stingy.

Artist: wow, thanks for the advice, I shall see if they'll pay for a catalogue or something else instead then.

and so on in ever-increasingly sophisticated ways.

If you are interested in the first event, there is a bit of information here: http://www.artgene.co.uk/page.php?i=140 with a good bit of writing from Elaine Speight.

Next one at Castlefield Gallery, Manchester on 20th and 21st June.

PART FIVE:

Olivia Plender:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2008/oct/29…

Olivia Plender’s talk was difficult. I really liked a lot of what she was saying, (and I really like her work), but she seemed to speak at the audience rather than to them, plus she sat and was so completely obscured by plinth. No break between either so I was bad-tempered and my kidneys were complaining loudly.

Her talk mentioned Becks Futures, for which she was nominated in 2006. She talked of the difficult situation it put her in due to the skewed power balance between artist and museum. This was something she returned to a few times and it was interesting to think about how stuck we are in this ‘asymmetric’ (Olivia’s description) system and at the mercy of the big galleries. The often used satire in her work was very evident in the work at Becks (she showed us a page) with a very funny look at the business executives discussing how art would make them appear super liberal.She also spoke very eloquently of the changing business model and the fact that museums are still trying to fit into this shift from 'archaic notions to knowledge arenas', oh except that artists are still not getting paid within that system.

As well as her work (including watching a bit of Monitor-Private View -great stuff), Olivia also talked about working conditions, pay and art in general. The following is a quote –

“ How can artists collaborate to argue for better pay, look after our needs and not end up individualised with no power or say in this industry we work in?”

As is clear by the title of this blog, I am totally onboard with Olivia! But I really wanted her to say more about ways this could be done or hear how she did this. It really made me think though – am I just asking questions too? Am I actually doing anything helpful? I suppose asking questions is the first step – recognising that we all have a problem if you will! To have an artist of significant reputation saying these things is potentially a powerful thing though. It does seem that in addition to numbers, a well-known name behind a campaign could help?

tbc..

PART FOUR:

Sans Facon: http://www.sansfacon.co.uk/

Firstly it struck me what an incredibly strong combination an artist and architect is, especially in terms of large-scale ambitious public art. But it became clear during their talk that they weren’t just trading on that strength, they actually had a very measured and considered approach to everything they do.

Firstly, they mentioned applying for things like a pair of crazies when they first set out (I think about 10 application a month were mentioned). Their approach is to try and find ways to ensure their practice: looking for opportunities that will serve as ways to fund/realise/initiate work. There were many words used such as squeezing, stretching used in the context of squeezing your practice into all avenues.

I think this is an approach that I (and many other I’m sure) can learn from. Instead of dismissing opportunities and not applying because of the overwhelming restrictions/demands, try to see how the opportunity can be used /altered/improved to fit your approach. I suppose for some things this is similar to taking a brief and re-writing it for an artist. This is shifting the commission to fit your practice rather than trying to fit in with the brief (I personally think this is quite transparent and can be a waste for everyone involved).

They had been fortunate to work on projects in places before regeneration rather than as cake icing. They also stressed their disagreement with this: artists being used as decoration; being brought in at the end of a project to tick a box or add frills.

Another important thing I took from their talk was NEGOTIATION!! Don’t take everything as read, be straightforward about what you would like and try to be involved in projects from the start. They said this made projects more difficult to achieve/carry but ultimately made them richer. In one project Sans Facon actually got to pick their own team to work with – a rare event I’m guessing, but, see, it is possible…

They also mentioned that once they had done one project that involved a professionally printed publication at the end, it was much easier to inspire confidence and secure other projects/commissions in the future.

So in summary, work very hard, persevere, be creative and question your working conditions and find ways to ensure your practice.