The Artist as Economist

(A Class Act, Part III)

In a situation where individual artists (as opposed to organisations) are not able to apply for funds directly, those who are able to stay in the profession in the long run are either those artists who have other substancial means of income by social heritage (and therefore perpetuate the public perception of art as class system-led), or those who operate in a largely commercial way, with little room for the conceptual or the non-commercial.

Exhibiting in places outside the perceived ones where art should be, such as museums, is extremely important to generate awareness of the diversity and importance of art. The UK public’s exposure to contemporary art has improved immensely due to artist-led initiatives taking it to unusual, non-institutionalised places.

Artist-led galleries taking place in unconventional places like disused churches, breweries, and even car garages , have allowed for art to be visible at all levels of society, and at the same time allowing artists to thrive and express their self-determination.

As well as artist-led galleries, the concept of the artist’s open studio or open house is interesting as it goes towards the Italian idea of the “bottega”, where the process of making art is demystified, creating a displacement of the concept of “inaccessible art”, perhaps exacerbated by the traditional division between alienating, isolated residential areas and busy, bustling city centres. This has generated significant cultural growth in places where open studios and houses happen, like Brighton, which started with a few houses opened by Ned Hoskins in 1982 to protest against the lack of visual arts in the Brighton Festival and has now grown to over 200 open houses every year. Similar open houses and open studio events happen every year in England, Scotland and Wales.

Without investing in the individual, the collective suffers. Without believing in the value of the collective, the individual is alienated.

The post below about public funding for the arts in Scotland is extremely important on this point.

A presto!

Links:

a-n Collections: Trade-Off, with links to several articles about the art market, written and edited by Emilia Telese with articles by Ayling & Conroy, Rachel Cattle & Paul Stanley, Patricia Fleming, Charlie Fox, Martine Rouleau, Guyan Porter, Ken Pratt,:

www.a-n.co.uk/trade-off/

Artists’ Open Houses: http://www.artistsopenhouses.org.uk/ Brighton: http://www.aoh.org.uk/2008/

A Scottish Perspective on the economy of artists – by Leigh French

This evening, special guest Leigh French from Variant talks to my art and economics blog about the debate around the proposed changes to the funding system in Scotland, which touches upon the economic crisis and the situation in which many Scottish artists find themselves. I hope this will generate some discussion about the implication of these changes and how they will affect artists in Scotland and beyond.

From Leigh French, Variant

There is much confusion over the formation of Creative Scotland and its remit, responsibilities and functions. What the proposed changes will mean for artists is being still further confused in what appears to be inter-agency horse trading. In the absence of transparency, the need for "confidence" in the "process" is much invoked. Here is what we think is actually going on…

Creative Scotland has been proposed as the abolition of the Scottish Arts Council (SAC) and Scottish Screen. If the Scottish government get their way, having previously failed to get the Bill passed, these two Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPB) are to be superseded by a single body, Creative Scotland.

From Leigh French, continued

We are now told Creative Scotland will firstly take the form of a "publicly owned limited company" after which it will be established as a statutory NDPB through the Public Services Reform Bill in 2009 (which will deliver a 25% cut in Scottish public bodies and scrutiny bodies by 2011 if it is passed). This we believe is the same set up as Scottish Screen — the Scottish Arts Council differs in that it is incorporated via Royal Charter, which we understand provides it additional protection (Scottish Screen has an in-house legal team).

Whether Creative Scotland or Scottish Enterprise should be the lead strategic body that receives the public funding for support of creative industries has via the "creative industries working group" (stacked with Enterprise Agencies) been passed on to the creation of a "creative industries forum, which will include all such agencies [and now also believed to include COSLA] and answer the question about who takes which decisions."

From Leigh French, continued

The Cultural Commission, established in 2004 to gather "views and opinions from the people of Scotland on where and how culture in Scotland should be supported", cost us around £500,000. What is the justification and expense of the plethora of policy-based consultancies from 'A National Cultural Strategy for Scotland', by Bonnar Keenlyside, in 2000 right up to today, just to end up at this juncture?

Section 99. of the 'Stage 1 Report on the Creative Scotland Bill' is worth quoting in full regarding Creative Scotland's budget:
"The Finance Committee noted that the new body will have the same grant in aid that would have been provided to the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Screen despite Creative Scotland having 'new and wider functions than its antecedent bodies'. The Finance Committee received written evidence from the PCS and Unite trades unions, which represent staff at the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Screen. The unions expressed concerns regarding the possible effects that an increase in remit without an increase in budget could have on the workforce, stating that it could put 'considerable pressure on the budget for staff and workloads' and that it would be 'left to an increasingly demoralised workforce to create something new and radical'.”