I have been away for a few days due to a very poorly Grandpa, but am still thinking about the CCS meeting (see previous three posts) and the issues it brought up. I still need to send them some feedback so I don't want to forget anything!
Adressing the conversation in order of relevance then, the most contentious issue and most pertinent for me, was that of the artist and their employment or working patterns.
It was quite worrying that the document talked of jobs, employers and skill sets (even standardising an artist job description!) when this model bears little relevance to how most artists operate. Personally, I am of the 'portfolio career' persuasion. This translates as: Working in the studio and exhibiting: at the Tate; for Oxford University; some (teeny) book sales; and getting paid for the odd talk or activity.
I have no pension, plenty of debt and certainy no savings. I feel foolish even saying that and still choosing to live my life as I do.
Additionally, the document did not address the fact that artists are responsible for generating so much of their own work; they do things for free, apply for funding or look for partnerships. Does all this activity fall under the radar then? Again a-n came into its own as one of the few bodies/publications that truly understands how it all works. I am often spurred on by the fact that I see my peers in the magazine. It is a bridge between the land of graduate to mid-career artist that is (I think) the most difficult.
