Measuring the experience: the scope and value of artist-led organisations

MEASURING THE EXPERIENCE #35

Such a situation suggests therefore that the arts funding system must have other intentions for its support of artists and artist-led organisations over and above their value as ‘economic units’. An alternative way of recognising the contribution visual artists make might be derived from looking at how their work contributes to a ‘visual arts critical mass’. In order to operate effectively, the arts infrastructure relies on there being a steady stream of artistic activity from which it can select the most appropriate artists and the highest quality work for exhibitions, commissions, residencies, public and private collections and so on. In this way, it is not dissimilar to the world of professional football. This depends for its success on there being a pool of would-be star players, whose abilities are viewed over time by scouts and managers whose job it is to identify new talent and facilitate transfer of promising players up the rungs of the ladder from smaller to bigger clubs and eventually, for some, to the premier league. By supporting the critical mass of artists, the arts funding structure can be said to be ensuring that quality will emerge and investing in artistic posterity.

It has been recognised both historically and contemporaneously that, in their own right, communities of artists are a valuable commodity to a location. This as much because of the ‘life-style’ approach artists adopt and their non nine-to-five pattern of working as because of their willingness to colonise and create an identity for locations which because they are surplus to requirements and run-down (and therefore cheap to rent), are largely undesirable to other users. In such ways, artists are recognised as contributing to the cultural vibrancy of an area, in a climate when culture is used to demonstrate quality of life, social well-being and to indicate economic stability.

The requirement to have a vibrant visual arts critical mass is apparent when looking at the development of arts strategies which are concerned with long-term change. For example, a key aim for Visual Arts UK, the year-long visual arts festival in the North of England, was to engage in new ways with communities and audiences and by doing so, change the poor perceptions of the visual arts that existed there. To achieve this, the Year needed access to the pool of artists nationally and regionally from which the “over 3,000 individual exhibitions, events, commissions and residencies”[1] could be drawn. To be effective, Visual Arts UK as a whole needed a high-quality programme which included the input of well-established artists of national and international status as well as that of artists from the region who were at various stages of their careers. It could be argued that it was these two elements which created the winning combination of high-profile projects which attracted national media coverage and the programme of grassroots activities which, because they involved artists from the area, would appear to have encouraged considerable local and community involvement.[2]

[1] Alan Sykes writing in Northern Review, December/January 1996

[2] The total number of people who visited galleries and events during 1996 was 500,000, roughly double the number from the previous year, see Northern Review as above.

MEASURING THE EXPERIENCE #34

A similar variation in numbers of artists in an area occurs within the case studies. For example, Eastern Arts Board, which covers the counties of Bedford, Cambridge, Essex, Hertford, Lincoln, Norfolk and Suffolk holds a database of visual artists which contains a total of 200 names.[1] In comparison, 250 artists took part in the Cambridge Open Studios between 1993-1995, and 258 artists contributed to the Norfolk & Norwich Visual Arts Festival between 1994 and 1996. However, grant aiding both of these ventures offers Eastern Arts a means of working beyond the relatively small artist constituency already known to it. Notably, both Eastern Arts and the local authorities who assist these ventures view their input as a positive way of assisting a broad range of artists and makers who may otherwise have a limited input to the arts environment.

However, the ability of funding bodies to maintain and expand such areas of support has been limited by the funds available and the call made on them by a diverse range of arts organisations. This raises the question of how the arts funding system can hope in future years to respond to the expectations and artistic aspirations of a growing and arguably more street-wise artist population. Support to artists policies have tended to focus on improving artists’ economic base through involvement in public art and community-based schemes, provision of training, advice and information aimed at heightening their business acumen, and support of artists’ resources including studios and workshops. However, the over-supply of artists which has been identified by recent research will inevitably affect the level of income that might in the future be achieved by artists. This is because a larger artist population has the effect of reducing opportunities for each one to be economically viable, whether through sales of work or provision of visual arts services or by achieving art world recognition through exhibitions, commissions, prizes, etc.

In any case, as has been referred to earlier, the profession of visual artist is not readily defined in economic terms. The recent research by the National Artists Association[2] has confirmed earlier studies by Ruth Towse[3] and others which had demonstrated that artists exist on extraordinarily low levels of income and that only a small percentage can hope to earn their main income from their artistic practice. It would therefore only seem to be possible for more artists to earn any income from artistic activity if the volume of opportunities for paid work and the various ‘markets’ for artwork were to increase dramatically, and there is no evidence so far that this is likely to be the case. Indeed, it has been argued that a pool of artists operating in highly-competitive conditions is a prerequisite of a thriving art scene, just as a capitalist economy depends for its efficacy on a high level of unemployment.

[1] Note that this figure was provided by Eastern Arts which was in the process of updating the database. The Crafts Council study above suggests there are 1,387 craftspeople in the Eastern Arts Board area.

[2] Draft report on fees and payments to artists, Phyllida Shaw & Keith Allen, National Artists Association, 1996

[3] See surveys discussed in The economics of artists’ labour markets, Ruth Towse, Arts Council of England, 1996

MEASURING THE EXPERIENCE #33

Artist led and the development of arts policies

“Often an invisible process, artists continually provoke and respond to urban renewal, and thus make visible to other artists and audiences features of [the] terrain not previously recognised or valued… [and] inspire other artists to follow suit.”[1]

The study has revealed a considerable and growing interest amongst arts funders for the work of artist-led organisations which are recognised as being valuable because their way of working relates to a range of policies which address local, regional and national aspirations for the visual arts. In several case studies, the obvious rapport between arts officers and artists’ organisations has led to the development of adventurous projects and programmes which were of notable benefit to both the local and regional arts environment and to the artists.

By assisting artist-led organisations, arts funding bodies may be perceived in some ways as taking a pragmatic approach to support for artists. This is because whilst schemes which offer direct support to artists (in the form of grants to buy time or undertake specific projects) can touch only a small percentage of the visual artists currently practising in a particular area, support of an artist-led project may enable a funder to assist to however small a degree, a larger group of artists. This raises the issue of how arts funders can assess the number of artists they might wish their policies to address in some way, as well as how they might extend the scope of their future policies for support to artists, especially now numbers of artists are increasing.

It is fair to say that the growth in artist numbers combined with changes in the current structures of arts boards mean that these bodies find it increasingly difficult to maintain a working relationship with an artistic community which is broadly-based both in terms of artform practice and career stage.

An example of the difficulties the funding structure faces is exemplified by looking at the number of artists there might be in London. It has been said that there are some 35,000 people in London within the broad category of artists, commercial artists and graphic designers and of those, between 2,500 and 3,500 are “full-time professional artists”.[2] However, as there are difficulties in defining what might constitute full-time practice and given that the professional status of artist is not measured by income levels, it must be assumed that this figure doesn’t represent all artists who would consider themselves to be professional artists and who might therefore look to London Arts Board or a local authority for some kind of endorsement or support. Another way of arriving at a figure for the number of artists in London can be estimated by counting those located in group studios in the city, which provides a number of some 2,000 artists[3]. As it is estimated that only seventeen percent of the artist population is housed in group studios[4], it could be calculated that there are some 11,000 artists in London[5] who might seek to have a relationship in some way with the arts funding system.

[1] Visual arts and crafts statement, London Arts Board annual report 1995/96

[2]The Arts & Cultural Industries in London: key facts, London Arts Board 1996

[3] This figure is derived from the database of group studios created for Stage 1 of this study with the addition of groups included in the Whitechapel open studio events for 1996.

[4] Taken from an analysis of readers of Artists Newsletter, Wood Holmes, 1991.

[5] This figure excludes craftspeople which are estimated to be 25,000 in England, Scotland and Wales with 1,998 of these based in London. (Crafts in the ‘90s, Cherry Ann Knott, Crafts Council, 1994)