1 / 48

Why are Artists Poor?

Lecture: Why are artists poor 080214 Powerpoint presentation accompanying file: Lecture Newcastle Master.doc. Why are Artists Poor?. Why are Artists Poor?. Because there are too many artists or Because there are many artists. Standard economists would say:.

uzuri
Download Presentation

Why are Artists Poor?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Lecture: Why are artists poor080214Powerpoint presentation accompanying file: Lecture Newcastle Master.doc

  2. Why are Artists Poor?

  3. Why are Artists Poor? Because there are too many artists or Because there are many artists.

  4. Standard economists would say: • An ‘oversupply’ of art cannot last for long. • In the long run supply adopts to demand. • As long as supply is larger than demand artists will leave the market and fewer aspiring artists will go to art school. This process goes on till artists earn incomes which are more or less the same as in comparable professions.

  5. But.. Artists have been poor already for a long time.

  6. But • It appears that artists are not like most other professionals. • They are willing to work for very low incomes. • It looks like the economy of the arts is exceptional. Artists behave ‘funny’.

  7. Income from art of Dutch professional visual artists in 2001

  8. Who is an artist and who is not? See also the appendix at the end of the presentation.

  9. So why are artists prepared to work for low incomes? • Is it because they receive more non-monetary rewards than most other professionals? • Or do art students expect that they will receive more non-monetary rewards than most other professionals? And when this does not work out, there is no way back? Artists are deceived.

  10. Explanations for the fact that aspiring artists are prepared to enter the profession while average incomes are exceptionally low. • Expectation of non-monetary rewards: the possibility of a high reputation, fame, workpleasure, independence etc. • Possibility of high incomes (extra high due to the winner take all mechanism) • Inclination to take risks / overestimation of one’s chances • Unwillingness to become well informed and consider risks (passion makes blind) • Believe in myths (one could be deceived)

  11. Are low incomes problematic? • There is no problem. Artists knew and know what they are doing. • There is a problem (1): artists deceive themselves (passion makes blind) They have to be protected against themselves. • There is a problem (2): artists are deceived (artists are victims) (society produces the artist’s passion).

  12. Taking risks is less risky if there is family which -if every thing goes wrong- can support the artist • The proportion of artists with well to do and well educated parents is higher than in other comparable professions.

  13. Non-monetary rewardsor expectations of non-monetary rewards • A high status (but…) • Being recognized by peers / having a high reputation / being famous • Self employed (independence) • Autonomy (independence) • Immediate work satisfaction (the joy of doing it) • Authenticity (self-realization) • Etc.

  14. The difference between Autonomy and Authenticity

  15. People romanticize the arts and so do many artists and aspiring artists Many myths exist surround the arts.

  16. Myths surrounding the arts -1often there is some truth in myths, but their truth is exaggerated some myths contradict others • Art is sacred. • Art serves the general interest. • Art is good for people. • Artists are autonomous; there is freedom of expression in the arts. • The work of art and the artist are authentic

  17. Myths surrounding the arts -2 • Artists are selflessly devoted to art. • Money and commerce devalue art. • Artistic quality can only exist if it is independent of costs and demand. • Artists have to suffer. • Talent is natural or God-given. • Everybody has the same chance of being gifted or talented (one is naturally talented)

  18. Myth surrounding the arts -3 • Certain talents in the arts only appear later in someone's career. • Success in the arts depends on talent and commitment exclusively. • Successful artists are often self-taught. • Given talent and commitment, equal chances exist in the arts; the best is victorious. • Price tells nothing about quality

  19. Passion makes blind The many myths make it difficult for (aspiring) artists to have a proper look at their abilities and prospects But ….. this may be less true today than it was 20 years ago? (See notes)

  20. Dutch professional visual artists in 2001Income from artwork

  21. How do artists manage to survive?

  22. How do artists manage to survive? • Family support • Partner support • Economic capital thanks to earlier work, heritage, allowances etc • Second jobs • Subsidies (but in the chart subsidies are part of the artist’s income from his art work).

  23. Artists have a work preference a work preference model of artists’ behavior • When artists with second jobs start to earn more than they need for living they cut down on the number of hours they work in the second job in order to spend more hours in making art.

  24. in appendix or artists have a non-monetary income preference model of artists’ behavior (Artist can also spend extra money on investments The model does not become indeterminate, when artists work full time)

  25. “Greedy” artists • Due to their work preference devoted artists can be very much oriented on monetary income, i.e. money more in appendix

  26. Many artists live on the edge. But falling down is less common than one would expect. Moreoever most of the time it is a self-chosen edge. (from here see appendix 1)

  27. Factors that influence the number of artists among others • Subsidies • Income of partners • Income in second jobs • The size of the art market • General prosperity

  28. Subsidies that are intended to raise the income of artists lead to more artists and not to higher incomes; they are contra productive. • Direct subsidies for artists increase numbers more than indirect subsidies

  29. Question Do the arts flourish in surroundings where prosperity and poverty meet?

  30. Today increasing the size of the market is also a matter of widening the scope of products visual artists can provide.

  31. With many artists competing it can be expected that artists who do relatively well try to keep many others from their circles by creating informal barriers and by attempts at professionalization. Over time there has been a process of de-professionalization and re-professionalization

  32. Some subsidies for artists assist in maintaining circles of recognition within a larger art world. So, to a degree, subsidies may raise (arithmatic) average income; this does not apply to standard income.

  33. In the arts the line between professional and amateur is not sharp and may become even more blurred in the future. The difference between an artist with a fulfilling rather well paid second job for two or three days a week and a passionate and gifted amateur with a well paid job who makes art for two or three days a week is often not that big

  34. Question regarding future developments • Can professionalization go together with large scale multiple jobholding and a blurring distinction between professional and amateur artists?

  35. A recommendation: commissions deals or contracts for/with artists and art organizations rather than grants (this may imply that the arms length principal will become less and less important)

  36. Conclusion Many artists rather than too many artists Artists are privileged rather than pitiful

  37. Hans Abbing Abbing, H. (2002). Why Are Artists Poor? The Exceptional Economy of the Arts.Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press. Abbing, H. (2006) From High to New art (inaugural lecture) Amsterdam University Press and www.hansabbing .nl Abbing, H. (2004). Living on the Edge. About Subsidies, Incomes and Numbers of Artists. Conference ACEI, Chicago, www.hansabbing.nl. Abbing, H. (2005). 'Let's Forget about the Cost Disease.' Pictures of art works and several articles in English can be downloaded from www.hansabbing .nl

  38. Appendices • Who is artist and who not? • ‘Living on the edge’

  39. Appendix 2

  40. Next slides extended version Two assumptions • Artists have a stronger preference for NMI over MI than other professionals • Work in the arts offers relatively much NMI and little MI Additional assumption Artists are better in making art and other professionals are better in making non-art.

  41. Artists face a survival constraint • The constraint depends on time, age and other personal circumstances • As long as artists do not earn more from art than they need to make a living they often choose to remain close to their personal survival constraint

  42. Artists versus other professionals:

  43. The indifference curves show that • Artists are prepared to give up relatively little non-monetary income in exchange for much monetary income. • Other professionals are prepared to give up relatively much non-monetary income in exchange for much monetary income.

  44. Frey, B. S. (1997). Not Just for the Money. An Economic Theory of Human Behaviour. Cheltenham, U.K. and Brookfield, U.S.A., Edward Elgar.

  45. In the case of an extremely dedicated artist, this artist is prepared to give up lots of money in order to gain a tiny bit more NM. The indifference curves will run almost vertical. Or not??

  46. Last slide extended version

More Related