Community Building no image

Published on June 22nd, 2009 | by L. Corwin Christie

35

What You Do IS Worth Paying For, We Just Can’t: Non-Profit Organizations and Artists – Part 2


Photo by Greg Andrews

Last week I wrote about the indignation I feel when I see a company like Google wanting to use art without financially compensating the artists. The post and ensuing discussion on Facebook generated some interesting feedback, and many people expressed the concern that perhaps artists have set the bar low themselves.

This got me thinking about how it is that artists begin accepting less than they are worth–and I think, unfortunately, it is because of the close collaboration that artists have with non-profit arts organizations. And this is much more difficult to get irate about. As I rail against Google for devaluing the work that artists do, I can’t help but think back on the numerous non-profit arts organizations with which I have either been involved or encountered as an artist.

Non-profit organizations, those bastions of hope, those doers of good, whose belief in the arts propels us through the darkest hours of our economic crises, are they immune to the tirade I so readily unleashed on Google?


Here are a couple of scenarios that I have encountered in the last few years.

A small non-profit theater company hires non-Union designers, actors, and tech staff. Due to budget limitations, the theater pays each a scant stipend, which is realistically hardly more than the cost of gas to get to and from rehearsals and shows. The highest pay goes to designers and directors, the lowest to crew and cast.

A small non-profit gallery holds an open call for artists to be featured in a full-color, glossy catalogue that is then distributed (the gallery paying for postage) to 1000+ other institutions around the country, offering exposure for the artists at no cost to them. The artists whose works are featured do not receive a free copy of the book (they pay a mere $5 less for the publication than the general public). The argument is that their price is exactly the cost of publishing one book.

These two organizations have been around for a decade and just under a decade, respectively. Each is respected in its community and the directors of each organization have cut their own personal income as needed (going a year or more at a time without pay from the organization). Their personal sacrifices demonstrate their belief in the necessity of the arts. Their commitment to producing art trumps their desire to live a cushy life. But they ultimately cannot pay the artists a living wage.

Do NPOs perpetuate the undervaluing of art by expecting to have artists’ collaboration without paying them What They Are Worth? Doubtless, if either of the above examples had the funds it would pay its artists more–but both organizations benefit, and arguably only exist because of, artists’ willingness to work for little-to-nothing. Though there are actors, designers, painters, who choose not to work with the organization because of the financial sacrifice, there are enough others that the organizations continue to exist.

Obviously there is the striking difference between the net worth of Google and that of a small gallery, but the artists are still working for, ultimately, exposure. Perhaps they are not the heavy-hitting “professionals” like the illustrators that Google solicited, but nevertheless, a standard is being set.

Let us be realistic. Just as we, the underpaid in the arts world, raise our fists against the indignity of artists being asked for work without receiving pay, we are often the first to ask for favors from artists. Because we have no money, we do what we can (trade you free admission to our show, etc.), but maybe this is the crux of the issue.

Yes, artists have options. They can join unions (which may limit their opportunities to work) or decline jobs that don’t pay what they feel they deserve. They can choose to do it “for the love of it” and hope that the future will be brighter, more lucrative, just around the bend. But should they have to choose?

I don’t know what the answer is. I don’t feel good about bringing my indignant wrath against non-profit organizations, the likes of which I have worked for, with, and on behalf of, my entire adult life. I feel that it is fair to say, with some notable exceptions, that those individuals who establish non-profits arts organizations, especially sacrificing their own creature comforts to do so, want the best for the artists and want to produce the best art.

But I have seen too many artists who work with such organizations get caught in the seemingly endless cycle of uncertain paychecks, needing to balance additional temporary jobs in an effort to make ends meet, essentially working two or more full-time jobs to enable them to do their art and fill their refrigerators (not to mention pay rent, etc.). That lifestyle can have a negative influence on the art and the artist, and can make an artist’s sparkling potential sputter into mediocrity.

Without art there is silence. Without artists we have no stories, no history. When we talk about social media, about technological advancements, what we are really talking about are ways to communicate. We invest in the people who develop the newest, fastest way to transfer information among individuals. But we cannot forget that this is not the only way communication manifests. What about the people communicating in the same way that early man did in his cave paintings, in dances and performances, weavings and body decorations, storytelling and pottery? Art tells us about our history and our nature.

We are human not just because we can cure what ails us, not just because we can problem-solve or analyze or understand quantitative data. We are human because of those feats (artistic in their own right), certainly, but also, especially, because we can communicate through creations that may not be strictly, quantifiably “practical.” Art can be healing, therapeutic, exciting, energizing. Art can make sense of the world or touch an individual. Artists create works that convey pain, sorrow, joy, fear, love, hate, anger, celebration. Artists can reach audiences they have never met with the power of their work.

Art makes us human. Non-profits arts organizations need to be able to employ artists at a rate that is livable. I understand that it is much more easily said than done. But we must demand this of ourselves, this should be the goal. We can be the example. Let those who can pay do so. Please. Art is not a luxury item.

Tags: , , , , ,


About the Author

Corwin is enrolled at Carnegie Mellon University in the Masters in Arts Management graduate program. A Chicago native, Corwin received her B.A. from Oberlin College, researched her undergraduate thesis at Magdalen College, Oxford University, and spent the last few years in Denver, CO.


Related Posts



  • http://www.fracturedatlas.org Adam Huttler

    Some great points here. I was speaking to a colleague the other day who argued that artists need to break out of the non-profit mentality themselves. Her proposed model was that artists stop pursuing grants, fellowships, etc. and simply begin pricing their work at an appropriate level. In theory, the burden of fundraising would shift fully to the NFP orgs who present/produce their work, which is appropriate given their greater infrastructure, etc.

  • Tara Scroggins

    I totally agree.
    I also think that non-profit dayjobbers need to get out of the “do it for the cause” mentality. We MAM alumni who are fundraising, marketing, etc., have a little more incentive (student loan payments and Linda Babcock’s negotiation training) to ask for a higher salary and better benefits, but many in our field don’t see that as the norm.
    I only halfway believe in the looming succession crisis, but part of the solution is for arts organizations to offer competitive compensation packages in order to attract the next generation of capable leaders. After I was laid off in January, I have to admit, I was seriously considering making a move to the private sector because of the difference in pay. Luckily, I was offered a position in the arts world.
    In summary, I think that when artists and arts managers stick up for their individual financial interests it will benefit the field long-term.

  • Lisa

    As an artist and designer, I am regularly asked to contribute work for free on both fronts – what other careers does this happen in?! Bleeding heart that I am, I often did provide design to non-profit organizations I believed in. But as money got tighter and tighter, it finally dawned on me that when asked to do pro-bono design work, there was ALWAYS money in the budget for the printing, but none for the designer. And these were organizations whose mission was to support artists – except for, apparently, the ones they actually worked with. As much as I believe in community and generosity of spirit, I have stopped giving my work away for free even if “a lot of people will see it.”

  • http://www.fuckclassicalmusic.blogspot.com/ FCM

    Do you remember the last time you met a romantically desperate person?

    It wasn’t really a turn-on, was it? This can happen to physically beautiful people, to the same effect.

    Romance aside, desperation is poison to friendships and business. It’s not really a character fault, but a perversion of a basic need. Deprive someone of the love and acceptance they desire, and they will begin to yearn for it in uncontrollable ways.

    Well, classical music is like a really hot chick with a bad case of desperation. She’s got the goods, personality, cute laugh, good T-zone skin, but she’s so caught up in proving her self-worth that she’s become a desperate tramp who wants to please everyone.

    When did we become beggars? When did art become medicine – something that you tolerate, because it’s *good for you*? HEY. Wake up call. You know what? WE’VE GOT THE GOODS. WE ARE THE SHIT. WE MAKE SOMETHING THAT NOBODY ELSE CAN MAKE.

    WE ARE THE MUSIC MAKERS, AND WE ARE THE DREAMERS OF THE DREAMS.

    It’s time for the world to come to us. And I don’t mean it’s time to retreat into ivory towers. We’re taking our ball and leaving the playground to go smoke behind the bleachers.

    We’re not holier than thou, we’re just fuckin cooler than you.

  • http://www.frankalmond.com Frank

    To FCM- absolutely. Best post I’ve seen in awhile.
    FA

  • Nicole Beck

    I am a large-scale sculptor who has found myself in a vicious circle of leasing my works to municipalities/organizations that do not pay well for their placement. Fortunately, I have searched high & low and have found a few that will pay between $2500-$5000 to “lease” the sculptures for a period of time. BUT! there are a lot of municipalities offering a scant $250-500 for leasing a LARGE work! (even $1000 is NOT enough) SCULPTORS- DO NOT ACCEPT THESE TERMS- because you hurt everyone in the process by setting a precedent! These monies do not even cover transportation costs. It is disrespectful to the sculptors who already have such exorbitant operating expenses in studio space/ materials/ fabrication/ equipment/ transport and to say nothing of install & deinstall & insurance!!! PLEASE LOBBY FOR HIGHER STIPENDS…

  • Ryan Butts

    I agree with the premise of this article (and these comments), but I wish that someone had a real solution. As someone who manages a non-profit theater company, I can tell you that it’s not because we’re hoarding money. There always have been (and always will be) artists willing to create and perform art for the price that can be paid. The unfortunate reality (at least for theater companies) is that live theater is an expensive, inefficient business. I can’t do the same thing with less people. Technological innovations rarely allow me hire less people, but labor and physical production costs continue to increase. Yes, you can technically make art with a few people an idea and a free space, but what if I’m interested in producing high-quality, theatrical productions? The best I can do is pay as much as I can, and try to keep my overhead down, right?

  • http://twitter.com/Corwin82 corwinchristie

    Ryan:
    Most of my experience as an artist has been with non-profit theaters, and I completely understand where you come from. It’s a trickle-down philosophy, and I wish that there WERE a solid solution to getting the NPOs (at the top) the money that they deserve to provide the services they do, so that that, in turn, is passed on to the artists. It’s interesting to see the kind of reactions that are being expressed in the comments, because I think we are all trying to muddle out where this demand needs to begin. From the NPOs? The artists? The funders of NPOs? Who puts their foot down first, demanding that a certain level of fiscal responsibility (er..not exactly what I mean to express the concept–demanding an operating budget that rewards all involved, from the patrons to the funders to the producers to the artists) be taken by all parties involved? Are the negative repercussions too crippling to the community? Or are they worth the risk of elevating our standards for ourselves?
    Corwin

  • Removed by Request

    This comment was removed at the request of its author.

    I have, however, left the reply that I wrote to the original comment. It is posted below.

    Corwin

  • http://twitter.com/Corwin82 corwinchristie

    Anonymous:

    I assure you, I do not believe that “if artists just believed in themselves strongly enough, we’d all be self-supporting and non-profits would disappear into much-deserved oblivion.”

    I am an avid supporter of NPOs, but this does not preclude me from wanting artists to get paid. By advocating that artists get paid I am not suggesting that NPOs are predatory. In fact, I ALSO think that it would be great if an organization such as yours could afford to pay more staff, and not have to rely so heavily on volunteers. Though it is obvious from your budget that this is not at this time possible, I ask: would not you and your organization ever like to be in a position to build your full-time paid staff? There are many people in many positions in the NPO/artist relationship that are not being compensated fairly.

    I am not of the belief that NPOs should model themselves on for-profits or should be relegated to the trash-heap if they cannot pay. Rather, I believe that all of us who do what we do, who give our time, our resources, our energies, our talents, have to be realistic in accepting that we cannot indefinitely sustain ourselves in a perpetual cycle of donation. I am infuriated by budget cuts that result in widespread arts casualties and the curtailing of non-profit funding below reasonable operating abilities. I know too many organizations that have gotten caught in the volunteer-based death spiral. Never did I relish the demise of organizations that folded for lack of economic stability.

    I cannot emphasize strongly enough that I do not condemn NPOs for being in the situation, nor do I devalue to role that they play in enabling artists. The purpose of my post was to call attention to this struggle, the issue that affects both artists and the organizations that want to support them in every possible way, but are limited by the public-at-large’s perception of art as a luxury, and resultant lack of funding.

    Corwin

  • http://kathleenmaloney.blogspot.com/2008/12/caught-in-money-trap.html Kathleen Maloney

    Here is a link to my analysis of why artists are treated as a fungible commodity. After 20 some years in nonprofit arts I finally started questioning the system. http://kathleenmaloney.blogspot.com/2008/12/caught-in-money-trap.html

    There is a small group forming in Minneapolis/St Paul as an artist-owned production cooperative. We are NOT a nonprofit but we intend to exist in relationship to nonprofit arts groups– and commercial creative businesses too. We are set up so that the artist workers are the owners of the company–we are in control of everything.

    We don’t have a website yet but if you would like to know more please send a note to: newbohemianflats@earthlink.net

  • http://cwow.org Ben Goldman

    The primary way to get paid in this society is through entrepreneurial initiative.

    The arts and artists have largely based their sustainability on a centuries-old patronage model that rewards only a fraction of a percent of hard working individuals with extraordinary talent.

    NPOs are also stuck in this model, seeing the most basic aspects of capitalist entrepreneurship as antithetical to artistic values (think consumerism, commodification, etc.), and instead remaining beholden to a wealth-oriented elitism that ultimately defines value as investment-grade appreciation. (I work in the visual arts where this economic model is most dominant.)

    There’s only one way to break this pattern and generate broader renumeration of artistic effort in 21st Century America: NPOs need to learn, teach, and foster creative entrepreneurship for artists and arts administrators.

    Sure there are risks, but who said the arts isn’t risky business? The patronage model may protect the chosen few (the classic winner-take-all), but it leaves most of us out in the cold, talking (complaining, whining, dreaming) to ourselves.

    We need to take the risk. Or stop wondering why the arts receive such short shrift in America.

  • basicallystupid

    For every Artist out there making a living on their Art there are at least 20 people trying to make a living on the Artist. I would rather not sell and starve then give my work away or sell it for less then I think it is worth. I do not let pictures of my work be used without compensation. I do not speak for free.
    I remember when I was finishing my MFA degree I was already building a name for myself. The Dean of the Humanities approched me to do a piece for the University and they would pay for the materials. I laughed at the thought and he asked what was so funny. I told him that if he thought I should give him my Art why didn’t they give me my education for free. He was kind of indignet and replied, well we need to get payed for teaching. I replied that I needed to get payed for working on my Art. Needless to say I never did the work. Some poor sucker did something for them that sucked. So they got what they payed for. LOL

  • postbono

    Reading this was a balm to my weary spirit. Ive been “living on belief” for a year and it’s taken a lot for me to pull myself away from a struggling non profit in order to save my sanity to actually be an artist again instead of an administrator and fundraiser. honestly i feel almost like i’m removing myself from a cult, its got so much dogma and belief attached to it, that if you leave, its like you are a non-believer, giving up on a dream. But I never dreamed of spending weeks upon weeks with my hand out, hoping money falls from the sky. I take much greater pride in earning some sort of living, and having free time to create art when I want to.

    I’ve had to really coach myself that I am not giving up on my ideals if i leave my current nonprofit — if anything I am standing up for my ideals by refusing to continue to work 60 hours a week for free or extremely low pay. (not even minimum wage).

    I agree with so much that has been said here. I am grateful I stumbled across this article. It actually has helped me say NO MORE . Now i hope i really turn back to my art supplies and can start over, fresh and productive, someday again. Right now I am so exhausted by it all. Thank you for your strong words and good questions.

  • Pingback: Twitted by InternetArtist

  • http://www.springboardforthearts.org/blog/blog.asp laura zabel

    I do believe we should question how NPO value artists and their work and I think this is completely linked to the question of how NPO value and compensate their staff. I think those are two symptoms of a “we teach people how to treat us” problem that ends up de-valuing art for the rest of the community.

    But I think the problem isn’t so complicated. Mostly, it’s a matter of being intentional. The organization I work for just had our annual fundraising event last Friday. The event included 5 performances and a show and sale of 6 visual artists. We scrimped and scratched to get printing, venue, food, booze and media donated…but we paid the artists. The performers all got paid, with the exception of the high profile headliner – who got to pick a piece of art from the sale (for which we paid the artist.) The visual art was juried (in order to provide the artists a group show for their resume) and we split the sale proceeds 50/50 with the exhibiting artists.

    So, the artists did provide a lot for this event – they made significant contributions of time and talent and energy – but they also got paid.

    And, perhaps most importantly, everyone attending the event knew that half the money they spent was going to the artists. Which communicates something to them about how we value art and artists.

  • http://dot-org.blogspot.com Paul Botts

    As long as this debate continues to be conducted in an alternate reality, artists will continue to be both low-paid and deeply frustrated about that fact.

    What’s missing in the conversation is the biggest variable: the supply-and-demand dynamic. Not the one which everyone focuses on, monetary compensation, which is mostly just a result here; but rather the one which does actually drive this particular bus, namely human desires.

    “what other careers does this happen in?”
    Many of them, but politics and sports are two good examples for illustration. As with the arts, in those fields the few at the very peak of the pyramid get paid lavishly (in money and/or in fame), while vast numbers of people who are only slightly less talented/skilled get paid little or nothing at all. And also like the arts, the vast underpaid strivers continue to try to work in those fields until they absolutely are not allowed to do so anymore, despite getting paid poorly if at all. So what, we might ask, do professional sports and professional politics have in common with professional arts?

    “WE’VE GOT THE GOODS. WE ARE THE SHIT. we’re just fuckin cooler than you.”
    Bingo, there it is: spending one’s lifespan being an artist is to many people way cooler — more interesting, rewarding, in several ways — than spending it doing most other things. Which is also true, for many people, of being in professional politics; and also true, for many people, of being an athlete. And that is the demand curve which in real life makes each of those sectors operate the way they do: that the demand for lives in those fields vastly exceeds the supply of such lives.

    Of course not everyone who wants to be a professional athlete, or political staffer, or artist, can be — one must have the ability and the training. We have in this society normalized the aspiration for a life in the arts; hence with every generation the percentage of those young people possessing the genes for it who seek out and receive the training for it, increases. There are many obvious markers of that steady change: the ongoing boom in enrollments in conservatories, the insane popularity of TV shows celebrating the aspiration to be an artist, and many more. The result is that the number of adults having the talent and the training to plausibly pursue a life in the arts continues to increase ahead of normal population growth, as does the fraction of those who decide to do so. Which leads to results such as the number of taxpayers listing artist income on federal tax returns having _doubled_ in a single generation (1970 to 1990).

    “We’re taking our ball and leaving the playground to go smoke behind the bleachers.”

    Except that we’re not, because performing as an artist is more personally rewarding than not doing it and is also moreso than doing other things. Pay me peanuts to haul the garbage or do accounting or do sales and I’ll tell you to piss off; pay me peanuts to play jazz in clubs and I will find a way to afford to play jazz in clubs. [Or play third base, or be a political aide, whatever.]

    “Or stop wondering why the arts receive such short shrift in America.”

    Except of course that we don’t: the U.S. spends far more money on the arts than does any other large society. Charitable giving for the arts tripled after inflation from 1964 to 2004; the NEA budget isn’t even a large fraction of _federal_ arts funding, before we even get to state and local government funding; Broadway alone collects more revenue in ticket sales than the entire theater sectors of Great Britain or any other nation; etc. The amount of resources being poured into the professional arts by this society has risen steadily for at least three generations now and it was already large.

    So then if the sector is awash in money, why is it still true that so few of those trying to be professional artists can make a living wage? Because of the supply/demand dynamics which matter most: those of human aspiration. The demand is for a life in the arts; the supply that keeps rising is of people with enough talent and training to plausibly pursue that desire. Therefore, as documented by the tax returns and many other indicators, the money in the arts is being divided up across more and more artists.

  • http://kathleenmaloney.blogspot.com/2008/12/caught-in-money-trap.html Kathleen Maloney

    So now the “supply and demand” argument has been dragged out. Geez. Have we learned anything recently about capitalism? And the free market? Is life supposed to be a zero sum game where some people get to lead a full life (whether they are doctors or bankers or artists or whatever else they want to be) and everybody else should just shut up, put up and be content with scraps? Will the market, unfettered, bring happiness or health or fulfillment to the majority of people? Nope. Just check out the daily news to verify that little fact.

    So there is an NPO sector to even out many kinds of inequities in this country. Mostly that has worked for quite a long time. But when private philanthropy, dependent on investments, topples big time there goes the balance.

    Market failure times two.

  • http://dot-org.blogspot.com Paul Botts

    The facts just summarized have nothing to do with capitalism (the exact same demands play out in non-capitalist societies, unless there is some society I’m not aware of in which people don’t find being an artist to be rewarding). And the arts market here and now is certainly anything but unfettered (!). [Whether it might get flatter if it was....well that's an interesting question, I'm not sure offhand, but since there's no chance of that happening in our lifetimes it's really just academic.]

    No zero-sum game is described or implied by the above description of basic reality — if anything exactly the opposite. Wikipedia has a useful definition that may clear up your confusion.

    Also: any “private philanthropy, dependent on investments” is not much relevant to the arts sector in the U.S. since less than 15% of all revenues of arts non-profits, i.e. less than 5% of revenues of the arts sector in toto, comes from foundation grants.

  • xfrench

    I’m with Paul.

  • http://www.mattcalcavecchia.com Matt Calcavecchia

    I am a visual artist but I also work for an NPO that does economic development. Since we are finance people we do a fairly good job of asking for what we are worth. That being said, we continually run into the following sentiment: “Aren’t you guys a little overpriced for being a not-for-profit?”

    The truth is we are underpriced but the stigma of being a NPO is significant. People don’t like the idea of economically healthy NPO’s because the perception is it somehow lessens the nobility of the mission. This idea has just occurred to me in writing but people need to be needed, so if donors think their dollars will help a desperate arts oriented NPO stay afloat they are probably more likely to give. Being poor and needy is perhaps the NPO’s greatest asset…perhaps.

    But I like what Paul Botts has to say about this topic. I think the rewards of being an artist extend beyond financial. There are relatively financially sound fields artists skills can be applied to. Architecture, Design, technical writing, etc. This of course does not mesh with the romanticized notion of being an artist. The idea of getting paid for being ourselves, for saying what we want, and for doing what we want. Getting paid has become proof that our people love us and need us.

    (On a side note, i’d like to express my love and need for sanitation workers.)

    I think there is another contributing factor of the “normalized aspiration” to an art career, and that is the university system. It seems to me universities and art schools are more than willing to enroll students in art programs, and why not? However they do a fairly poor job of educating those students on how to live as an artist. Instead they perpetuate an unrealistic perception and mission of what it means to be an artist. Students and professors pump each other full of idealism which can lead to disappointment when studies are applied in the real world. That being said, I find myself pondering where we might be if we took the idealism out of our schools.

    Very interesting topic! Thanks for the article Corwin.

  • http://dot-org.blogspot.com Paul Botts

    “we continually run into the following sentiment: “Aren’t you guys a little overpriced for being a not-for-profit?” ”

    This all-too-familiar anecdote really makes me cringe….the private non-profit sector has in recent years moved well past the old concept of being just a catchbasin for stuff that government fails on and business doesn’t care about. But one reason so many Americans aren’t aware of what the sector actually is, and can do, is its awful name: “not-for-profit.” That term reinforces a number of old stereotypes, including the idea that such enterprises are somehow not allowed or not expected to bring in more dollars than they spend.

    I’ve never yet heard a really compelling proposal for a better name, but somebody would do the sector a real service by coming up with it.
    http://dot-org.blogspot.com/2007/02/we-need-new-name.html

  • xfrench

    I like what the folks at the Center for Cultural Innovation are doing (http://www.cciarts.org/). Programs for training artists in business and entrepreneurial skills, funding and development. As an artist that went through their training, I found it very useful.
    I don’t think claiming that artists need to be like business people is the answer, because art, as a pursuit, is not widget building, or widget marketing for that matter. Many people practice it that way, but I often find the market focus that creeps into one’s vision dilutes the quality of the work, producing worse widgets as a result.

  • Heather McCowen

    Matt, your last paragraph REALLY resonated with me:

    “I think there is another contributing factor of the “normalized aspiration” to an art career, and that is the university system. It seems to me universities and art schools are more than willing to enroll students in art programs, and why not? However they do a fairly poor job of educating those students on how to live as an artist. Instead they perpetuate an unrealistic perception and mission of what it means to be an artist. Students and professors pump each other full of idealism which can lead to disappointment when studies are applied in the real world. That being said, I find myself pondering where we might be if we took the idealism out of our schools.”

    I’m an administrator for a university with a music conservatory and a theatre conservatory and an am a product of a high level music training program myself. We’re starting to see that realization of redefining what it means to be an artist after you graduate across the board in Higher Ed arts education. But it’s really hard to change that tanker’s course. How do you fit in the rigorous training needed to even get to a high level and still find time to prepare for all the things that life as a working artist entails? One of my former institutions started making a dent by starting with community outreach a mandatory curriculum component. But it is only a start. From my own experience, it seems that music students are far less realistic than the theatre kids. And part of that IS the faculty they are studying with. Working actors have lived that life and communicate it to their students. Many music faculty tend to have full time jobs with the local big name symphony orchestra and haven’t had to piece together 5 sources of income to pay rent. How can those faculty mentor this new crop of musicians from personal experience? Some can, but some are pretty far removed from the day to day.

    It’s a big issue that we’re wrassling with, but I’m thinking we need to wrassle with it WAY more.

  • http://twitter.com/Corwin82 corwinchristie

    Heather, Matt, your conversation about the higher education of artists touches on some great points–and one that I am surprised that you didn’t mention is the cost associated with so many of these programs.

    While scholarship and financial aid are available, an actor pursuing an MFA can accrue as much as $100K of debt to cover tuition alone. I applaud programs that accept small classes and have no tuition charges–rather, they pay their students a living stipend.

    The actor who pursues his MFA at a school without such a system, however, who has had to take out student loans and accepts his diploma along with a huge debt, regardless of his savvy and talent, is likely going to have a greater difficulty repaying this debt than his similarly-indebted counterpart graduating from law school, or with an MBA.

    Corwin

  • Bonnie

    I am an artist and a designer. One of my design professors in the 80′s told me this story:

    He had a good friend who owned a restaurant in town. His friend suggested my teacher have the class design new restaurant menus, and then he would choose one for his restaurant, and pay that student. My teacher said to him, “Great. And when do you want us to come in for dinner? He then explained that the class would each eat a meal and choose the one they would pay for.

    I have never entered design contests because it does indeed devalue the value of creative services. I also do not donate work to non-profits just because they support the arts. I do choose to do pro-bono work, and to give my artwork to people who will love and value it. But I do not believe for a second that giving away artwork or design services for free or cheap is in any way going to lead to more sales. It will, in fact, lead to more requests for freebies.

    I do my artwork because I love to do my artwork.

    While artists around me are stressing about not selling their artwork this year, I am embracing the freedom from having to cater to any paying audience, and exploring new ideas and mediums while no one is looking, or paying.

  • http://dot-org.blogspot.com Paul Botts

    “While scholarship and financial aid are available, an actor pursuing an MFA can accrue as much as $100K of debt to cover tuition alone.”

    Well…okay, but the key phrase there is “as much as” — the great majority of individual student-loan debts are far less than that. According to the College Board, for 2008 the average total student loan debt for all BA graduates was $12,400; the average debt for those who took out student loans was $22,700. (The first average reflects the 40% of college graduates who had no student loans, the second figure doesn’t.) Even if we assume that much again for the half or so who go on to get graduate degrees, the mean doesn’t get anywhere near even $50,000 let alone $100,000.

    “The actor who pursues his MFA at a school without such a system, however, who has had to take out student loans and accepts his diploma along with a huge debt, regardless of his savvy and talent, is likely going to have a greater difficulty repaying this debt than his similarly-indebted counterpart graduating from law school, or with an MBA.”

    True most of the time, but actually now is not one of those times: sectors like banking and law are imploding and have largely stopped hiring new graduates. Graduates of music or theater conservatories, at least, have some incremental options they can pursue when full-time employment is lacking: the arts sector has varieties of short-term or part-time gigs, or folks take on some students, etc. Fresh law school and business school grads have roughly no such options, their employment situation is really all-or-nothing. When law firms have stopped hiring young associates and half the business sector has collapsed, there’s no version open to them of taking on some students or getting part-time work at an arts non-profit or etc.

  • Susan Pope

    Paul, et al, you give pause for thought.

    And come to think of it, you don’t see a lot of plumbers responding to auditions to plumb for free because they love it so. or amateur community plumbing societies forming in the evenings to plumb the community streets and buildings for a lark after their day jobs at the office are done.

    If there were such a society, I wonder if the citizenry would be able to tell the difference, or if they would rave about the amazing plumbing produced and ponder aloud why these amateurs weren’t plumbing “on Broadway”.

  • opiyojok

    What a great discussion on a complex issue! In an earlier life, I got a graduate degree in Folklore which, at its core, was about understanding how collective expression gets codified into different types of art forms. My own research was on dance and music in East Africa. If you spend any time reading folklore literature about these topics, you will find that over time and across the globe, artists seem to find themselves in the same type of undervalued, swap-for-art, or just-get-me-drunk-for-playing-at-your-wedding arrangement. Indeed, few societies around the world even have the possibility of being a full-time artist (by which I mean, living entirely off of your art).

    I don’t say this to suggest “its just the way it is” but to acknowledge that this is a large issue that has plagued artists for a long long time. What it is we should do, I don’t really know, but I find it sometimes helps to identify the context in which a problem arises as a way of identifying a solution.We’re up against a difficult situation with people working in a diverse field that doesn’t lend itself well to “certification,” “licensing,” etc. the way another field like architecture, the law or plumbing. In the type of marketplace we deal with, these are the stamps of approval that help merit a particular individual a certain, commonly accepted scale of pay. For an artist, its no so easy and, unfortunately (perhaps because of the way in which our society relates to art on an individual level) many people do not understand or appreciate the skill, time and materials involved in making a particular piece of art. Maybe that’s one place to start.

    I also wanted to note that while some people have commented that plumbers, lawyers, etc. don’t get hit up for freebies, its not all that clear cut. Many lawyers, for example, do pro bono work. Accountants are asked to serve on boards so they can look over the books. Plumbers and electricians (as I know from first hand experience) are often asked to help out friends or acquaintances for discounted rates or even for free. So, its not ONLY artists. But it IS true that for many artists, EVERY request is a “discount” or “favor” and that’s just no cool.

    I work as an arts administrator at a community art center and we do indeed strive (and take pride in) paying artists their worth where we are able (which is most of the time). Its a challenging fight, especially when a funder questions a line item that pays, say, a musician a fair market rate for their performance. But as part of our mission is to provide professional support to working artists (affordable studio space, gallery spaces, etc.) that target emerging talent, this is an important part of our agenda.

  • http://dot-org.blogspot.com Paul Botts

    “Many lawyers, for example, do pro bono work.”

    True, though with a crucial difference: law firms take on pro bono clients quite formally and only up to a set fraction of total lawyer time expended. In other words lawyers don’t do pro bono work unless they are already doing enough paying work.

    “Accountants are asked to serve on boards so they can look over the books.”

    This practice is fading away though. The tax-exempt sector of corporations (those entities which we all call “non-profits”) is catching up to the for-profit world in disallowing this practice at least with regard to formal accounting work and responsibilities. Standards of practice for the corporate sectors (both the non-profit and for-profit varieties) now require that a corporation’s audit be performed by a hired outside CPA, and companies large enough to be doing serious accounting always have a salaried financial staffer responsible for the books.

    “Plumbers and electricians (as I know from first hand experience) are often asked to help out friends or acquaintances for discounted rates or even for free.”

    As a special favor, sure. But not because anyone thinks they love doing plumbing, right? And hence everyone involved sees such favors as a special deal, not as a primary way for plumbers to carry out their trade.

  • Charlene

    An interesting argument, however I am surprised at the blame addressed to NPO’s. Are we to blame teachers for a declining education system? Is it the fault of a teacher for accepting a low paying job? Is it the fault of a teacher that classrooms are crowded and supplies are low, forcing students to provide the chalk and copy paper?

    If we lived in a true meritocracy, talented individuals would be paid his/her worth no matter the profession–teachers, artists, and pro athletes alike. But we do not live in a meritocracy. Worth is connected to revenue. Pro athletes are paid well not because of their talent per se, but the income generated around the sport. Pro athletes want their cut of the income they helped to generate from a major sporting event just as actors want their cut of the income they helped to generate in a blockbuster movie. If the money is there, it should be shared.

    Where is the accountability of the artist? If your work generates income you should do your part to sell it. If a musician is booked for a gig than he/she should be advertising his own gig, not sitting back and letting the promoter/venue do all the work. Want more money? Help draw a crowd, help generate income and you’ll get your cut and continue to grow your revenue generating opportunities. A musician who can barely fill a 50 capacity coffee shop should not expect as much income as an artist who fills a 1200 seat theater, or 40k stadium.

    Visual artists–how about helping to market your own exhibit openings? If no one shows up at an artist reception or no one buys a painting from the exhibit is it the host NPO’s or for profit gallery’s fault? How many times have I been to a dismally attended artist reception and the artist blamed the gallery? Many times artists do not do anything to promote themselves, they don’t create web pages, they don’t create listserves or social media sites. Artists should promote themselves. If I were looking to book an artist I would pay more for an artist who I know would help publicize the event. Artists and those who purchase their work (whether it be visual art, performing, or music) should see the transaction as a partnership, not just an exchange of dollars. The promoter should do his/her part to promote the artist and event just as the artist should do his/her part to promote the event and his/her art. Both artist and promoter win if it is a partnership. Want more pay? Negotiate up front what you will provide other than strictly the creation of art. Start making yourself a commodity and you’ll start getting paid like one.

  • http://dot-org.blogspot.com Paul Botts

    Lots of good stuff there Charlene, thanks. I did find these statements a bit odd though:

    “Worth is connected to revenue.”

    Wow that’s not the society I’m living in. (And thank goodness!) What’s connected to revenue is not “worth” or even the entirety of “compensation”, but simply one particular form of compensation: salary. In real life most Americans consider all sorts of other forms of compensation to be relevant to their choice of work. If salary was the only factor that meant anything then no lawyer would ever leave private practice to become a judge, the staffed non-profit sector wouldn’t be flooded now with smart young people passing up higher-paying jobs to work in it, no successful business leader would ever decide to run for elected office, the competition for starting teaching jobs wouldn’t be so ferocious, and so forth.

    And of course becoming a working artist is another example: everyone involved understands that the compensation comes in additional forms than money. Plumbers after all make more _money_ than most artists do, but nobody publicly applauds plumbers or celebrates their skill in the local newspaper. Etc.

    “Pro athletes are paid well not because of their talent per se, but the income generated around the sport.”

    Actually the vast majority of pro athletes are not paid at all well. For example for every major-league baseball player (minimum salary $400,000) there are about five minor-league full-time pros (minimum salary $1,000/month and no salary during about half the calendar year). Ditto hockey and basketball (in those sports some of the minor pro leagues are in Europe but half the players in them are North Americans who haven’t made the major leagues). Most pros on the tennis and golf tours barely break even after their travel and other expenses; a small minority collects most of the prize money. And of course none of that even factors in the many thousands of _aspiring_ pro athletes who work day jobs while playing in “semi-pro” leagues where they get paid $25/game, spending years entering PGA qualifying tournaments for no money, etc.

    So: a teeny number who’ve hit the big time make big piles of money; a larger number are able to work full-time in the field making enough to pay basic bills if they’re careful; and a much larger number have to find other means to keep a roof over their heads. All of which rather precisely describes the distribution of monetary incomes among, say, professional actors musicians and painters.

  • Pingback: More Musings on Exposure as Payment | The Present Group Journal

  • http://bizmiss.wordpress.com Lauren Venell

    I have to agree with Brian (comment #12). Creative professionals (of all people) should not rely on outmoded systems of distribution (or exposure) in order to make a living. Particularly now that we live in the Internet age, reaching a wide audience is not the problem. The challenge is making people care enough about you to want to support you and your work financially. Sure, we can bitch and moan about how big companies (or small non-profits) don’t pay us what we’re worth, but the solution isn’t to demand higher pay from these organizations, it’s to take responsibility for our own promotion.

    I think we can take a page from folks like David Horvitz, Miranda July and Ze Frank, who spend as much creative energy figuring out to reach people with their work as they do on the pieces themselves.

    Now obviously, it’s not all about the distribution, it’s about the work itself, too, and if your work isn’t good enough to stand on its own, it doesn’t matter how many people experience it. It is not your god-given right to be a professional actor or painter any more than it is your god-given right to be a professional golfer. If people don’t care about your work, they won’t pay anything for you to continue making it. Better keep practicing and trying, even if having a day-job makes it harder.

  • Anon

    I’m missing the point of this article – it’s been the same story for decades. We all know art is not a luxury, that no one has an answer, and the conversation revolves in circles yet again.

Back to Top ↑

© 2012 Carnegie Mellon University



Back to Top ↑