Do Artists Need a Union?
Boy, I picked a heck of a week to become a union-card-carrying screenwriter. As you probably know, the Writers Guild of America is on strike (for rightous reasons you can read about here.) Last night, I went to a "solidary" cocktail party with members of the WGA, Writers Guild of Canada, and Writers Guild of Great Britain. Our major topic of conversation was how to convince the public that writers have a real grievance. After all, this is a job so many people want to do that they'd do it for free. And that's part of the problem. Ask any rank-and-file member of, say, Actor's Equity, AFTRA, or the Screen Actors Guild if they thought they'd get paid a living wage without a union. No way. In any "Gee, I'd do that for nothing" profession, eager young wannabes are willing to be exploited for the sake of a big break. Without collective bargaining, a handful of superstars would be highly paid, while everyone else lives with five roommates in an outer borough, borrowing rent money from their parents.
Wait. Does that sound like the art world?
With all the Norma Rae rhetoric whizzing around me this week, I can't help wondering why visual artists don't have a union too. The most obvious reason is that unionizing has to come from the top. The WGA, for example, was founded by top Hollywood writers, because only they had the clout to stand up to the studios. Today's art stars are less likely than rank-and-file artists to face issues like sleazy accounting, "lost" inventory, excessive fees (such as the galleries that "invite" you to show, then ask for several thousand dollars for "publicity"), or bankruptcy courts thinking consignments are part of the gallery's inventory. But if, say, the top 200 artists banded together, they could insist on a standard ethical deal for all artists.
And what would be in it for the art stars? How about the issue that writers are currently fighting for: royalties. In every other creative field, when someone makes money selling your original creation (novel, song, cartoon, movie, etc.), you get a royalty. But not visual artists. If Jasper Johns sold a painting for $500 in 1969, $500 is all he got, even if it's worth many millions today. An artists' union could lobby for legislation that would give artists a percentage of the purchase price every time their work is sold at public auction. (The auction houses get a 20+ percent commission from the buyer, plus another commission from the seller. Don't tell me there isn't a percentage in there somewhere for the artist and his/her heirs.)
Oh, and how about group health insurance rates?
Think I'm just daydreaming? Tell it to my face. I'll be on the picket lines in New York tomorrow.
Photo: from the WGA strike website.
Labels: artist union, royalties, wga strike
posted by Lisa Hunter @ 4:40 PM
20 Comments:
This post has been removed by the author.
Well, there's CARFAC... does that count?
http://www.carfac.ca/
http://howsmydealing.blogspot.com/
MC-
Yes, it does. Canada's support of artists is really impressive.
I know nothing about how the art business works, but are the galleries the artists' employers? The same way the studios employ writers? And if so, are the galleries unified under an umbrella organization of some kind? If the answer to either of these is no, how could they form a union? Who would they bargain collectively with?
Not that they don't deserve the things you mention, but how could it work logistically speaking?
Just curious.
[Cross posting on Alex's blog]
To make a screenwriting analogy, the galleries are more like independent movie producers. They're not employers -- they're the people who put together the creative product and the money.
So the answer, then, perhaps is not unionization, per se, but rather legislation. A arts lobby could push for laws that would require that visual artists (or their heirs) are paid a royalty percentage on the resale of their works... tough to enforce, though, unless you happen to be a high-profile artist, whose work is traded openly on the secondary market... So, in other words, the successful artists get some protection, bu the independent little guys don't. I suppose that's pretty much like the writers' situation... the ones that have jobs want to get paid more, and the ones that don't have jobs just wish they could get paid, period.
artists are independent contractors. "art" isn't normally a "collective" activity.
So are writers. And writing is about the least collective profession you can imagine. Most of us never even change out of our pajamas unless there's a cocktail party.
niiice one Lisa :)
Artist need something, I would say there is far too little benefits for entry level artist, and definitely a way for artists to make a livable wage is needed. Most important is that a discourse seems to be beginning and I would say its important that artist get involved in it.
What is happenig now may be similar to what happened in the late sixties in the movie industry, as the industry expanded and individual producers emerged the old studio system had to change, the studios operated much like SOHO galleries did they had a B movie system where they could nurture new talent, they had exclusive contracts with actors, writers, directors who first worked learning the trade, those contracts were enough to provide an adequate living for the talent until they either matured or, dropped out, the investment in the talent sometimes payed off sometimes it didn't, but the payoff was large enough to cover the ones that didn't pay off, which is what happened in the SOHO galleries, the investment in an artist included a studio, a materials allowance and enough cash to get by on, that justified the 50/50 split, I think the Peter Halley decision pretty much wrecked the willingness of galleries to make the monetary investment to nurture artist, yet the 50/50 split seemed to stick around out of habit and needs to seriously be re negotiated, and it has to be artists that start to take back control of their business dealings, and as you make the analogy the galleries are more like independent movie producers, It is time an agent acting on behalf of the artist negotiate terms with the gallery, the same way an agent acts on behalf of writers, directors, and actors, the art market has become large enough, and has changed enough to make this the time the discourse begin on how the art market be reorganized so more money finds its way to the artists who after all are the manufacturers of the only commodity the art market deals in, as well as provide the intellectual property that fuels the discourse.
Wonderful comments, Joseph. The history of the 50/50 split is particularly interesting. Damien Hirst has negotiated his split... but he did it AFTER he gained a powerful position. Many artists are buzzing about using the potential of the internet to gain more control in their careers.
I am currently making work that is (among other things) about the disempowerment of artists in a raging art market.
Organizing artists would be worse than herding cats, as many of us are compulsive about being in our studios, and resentful of anything that steals our time.... to use another metaphor, we are the lumberjacks who are too busy to stop and sharpen our axes.
We're all too overworked and isolated to organize. But that could change as more artists interact via blogs.
In the meantime, if we think of ourselves as sole proprietors or small business owners, we can join groups like the Small Businesess Service Bureau (www.sbsb.com) to get health insurance--not cheap, but cheaper than individual policies.
Since art is not a needed commodity, there is little support for the kind of legislation that would create an equitable economic environment for a visual artist.
See, there's the issue. I don't think art is a "commodity." I think it's intellectual property, just like music, writing, etc. Am I wrong?
Artists do...
Check out:
GAG.org
Is there additional writing somewhere about the history of the 50/50 split? The comments so far have been great. What are some of the sources for that information?
What are some of the sources for that information?
People who were actually involved, I'm not sure if it is written about directly, seek out people from the SOHO art scene and ask about it.
Lisa, I have been thinking about this post for days as I finish up my art market painting, particularly your reference to art as intellectual property.
The incongruity between the royalty rights of visual artists vs. recording artists, authors, composers, all the artists in the film industry, etc., is quite staggering. This inequity becomes even more pointed when you consider that most art objects are one of a kind originals that are never reproduced, so once the object is sold, the artist gives up the object, and only sees that one payment of 50% of the value (if they are lucky and their gallery pays them). No matter how hard the artists work, and how well they succeed in their careers, it is only other people that will make money off of the artist's work: the artist will never see any of it.
Makes me have more respect for Damien Hirst as activist or role model for empowering artists.
This is all so unjust that it is almost enough to get me out of my studio to do something about it (or at least continue to head in the direction of making art that calls attention to it).
Thanks again!
sorry late again..." droit de suite" is a 3% royalty to be paid to the artist on all subsequent resales...(originated in France)...CARFAC pioneered the
concept of artists getting paid for showing in non-commercial galleries...(I know CARFAC was mentioned, but this again is an international progress, free for all artists of all nations to enjoy...all of their documents are available for a pittance & a membership...) "Ding an Sich und Erscheinung " (Kant) means 'the thing -in-itself & phenomenon', referring to the two parts of art, the intellectual property & the physical phenomenon of that thought...(so both people were right)...
The 50% thing has arrived as a result of the entry of art into more traditional retail outlets where owners are used to buying things wholesale then marking it up double...
Last...whoever said that art is not a necessity, well...should be spanked or something...or given a free painting...(can't decide if this needs negative or positive conditioning-any thoughts?)
p.s. grain of salt with everything this morning...
Post a Comment
<< Home