Canadian artists living in poverty - 43% earn less than $10,000

And just look at the economy now after Loco Jorge II part deux. Are Americans soured by unprecedented socialism for the  rich under Bushler, do you think, Sven?

Probably not nearly as sick as the Russians were of "socialism for everyone" under the Soviet system.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

And by 1998, public opinion in Russia favoured a return to Soviet communism. Putin observed  the attempts by oligarchs and western "investors" in 2003 to bribe members of the Duma. Gangster capitalism was said to have been a Russian experience only. But we know who the gangsters are, dont we, Sven. Your gangsters on Wall Street and Pentagon capitalists need tough love, Sven. Do you think this cosmetic government is up to the job? ha ha

Hey Sven or nusy, where in the OP was it suggested that everyone should be "supported by our tax dollars" or that everyone "deserves their choices to be subsidized"? That is a straw man of your own making. Nobody is trying to take your money boys so relax.
It is truly amazing. One mention of how others are living in poverty and the reflex for some people is to check their wallets.
I posted this because I think it says something about our priorities as a community that we simply do not value the arts very much. Eh?

just one of the concerned, thanks for posting this article and link.

I personally think it's a huge damn shame that artists live in poverty and are subsidized (when they do manage to get a few meager grants) so badly. I say this as an artist-wanna-be.

Of course, even within the poor artist category, white men are at the top in terms of earners. (That's why I use the terms "institutionalized" and "systemic" oppression, btw).  

I know a few writers and visual artists that live on grants. Some of them have partners with "regular" jobs. Some don't.

Here's some comparative stats from 2003. All dollars have been converted to Canadian dollars. 

Canada: Pop. 33 million    Spent on arts: $7.3 billion

US: Pop. 293 million      Spent on arts: $116 million (yes, million)

Australia: Pop. 20 million    Spent on arts:  $4.9 billion 

Austria: Pop. 8 million Spent on arts: $1.9 billion

Denmark: Pop. 5.4 million  Spent on arts: $105 million

England: Pop 49 million Spent on arts: $1.2 billion 

Finland: Pop. 5.2 million Spent on arts: $440 million

France: 61 million Spent on arts: $4.3 billion

 http://www.giarts.org/usr_doc/VitalSigns.pdf

P.S. Tax cuts to businesses are government subsidies. So is corporate welfare and corporate bail-outs from the government. If we add up all the arts spending in a year it wouldn't come close to the handouts the corporations get for profiteering for a select privileged minority, poverty for millions, and destroying the planet. My advice is, if you don't appreciate the arts, and if you don't think artists should be properly subsidized, go away and watch "King of the Hill" already.

Yes, I'm very upset about the turn this discussion has taken. Nothing about "discussing labour issues from a worker point of view". More like dissing artists as people pretending to work and of all things claiming that rich people give more to society than people who create culture.

From the left viewpoint, I'd rather not see this discussion simply dissolved into the greater issue of basic social entitlement.

Artists contribute a great deal to societies and cultures, and deserve recognition.

As an artist who's art does not make enough to pay the bills, I'm offended by other artists who think that  is anyone's problem other than their own. Nobody owes me anything. 

I have another job that pays the bills, and I sell what I can on the side. If I have enough freelance work to quit the day job, I will. Why should I expect otherwise? An artist who lives in poverty does so by his/her own choosing.

I apologize if I took the thread off track, but I wanted to demonstrate that some people have a sense of entitlement and priviledge they so easily deny to others. Our entire lives are subsidized from start to finish in North America and Europe and most often at the cost of the global poor. And still those who benefit the most will stand and proclaim "I did it all myself".

That is okay, mess. What I wonder about are the rightwingers who join this board just to diss its outlook and sabotage posts. I don't mean sven, who is a longterm poster (much as I disagree with his world outlook), but the usual trolls who happen on with crap like "An artist who lives in poverty does so by his/her own choosing", or talk about his/her sister who is a bit of a poseur.

What I'm wondering is how to get this thread back on the rails in terms of support for working artists (no, I don't just mean grant money).

Oldgoat: 

"Sven, I think your remark to Frustrated Mess was a bit beneath you.  This is not a modetorial intervention, you're welcome to lower your own bar.  Just sayin'..."

Sven and Mrs. Sven measure life itself by their tax rate, goat. He's only trying to get our goat in this world of "lefties".

As for his remark to FM being beneath him...he defines shallow materialism, but the poor bastard does not even understand that and so babbles forth.

Well, it's pretty clear that Sven joined this thread to a) mock people who take up art as a vocation, b) to boast about how much money he makes and c) to claim that as such he is entitled to dictate how artists make a living. I don't care how long he's been a poster here, personally. Such behaviour is despicable.

As for the question of making a living as an artist, it's a very difficult one, because art and capitalism are not exactly bedfellows. Already several posters have alluded to the number of people willing to 'buy' an artist's work as indicative of that artist's right to make a living. Historically, that's not how patronage works. Of course, right-wing critics will turn this problem into hyperbole and spin yarns about hardworking peeps earning keep to provide room, board and spending cash to pottery workers, but I would hope that sensible folk realize that it's a bit more complex than that.

 Is Van Gogh a great artist because his paintings get a lot of money at auction? I predict someone will bring up Barnett Newman's Voice of Fire soon...

This is a discussion about artists (including the sub-issue of government support of art).  So, if you confidently toss out some numbers regarding government spending, then one would naturally think that those numbers would relate to government spending for art, no?

Well...

Let's take a mere 10-second look at the link regarding your $7.3 billion number for Canada versus your $116 million for the US.

For starters, not "[a]ll dollars have been converted to Canadian dollars".  The 7.3 billion dollar figure is CN$ and the 116 million figure is US$.  But, that's a relatively minor point.

More importantly, have you ever heard of the expression: "Compare apples to apples"?

The US$116 million figure (or CN$141 million) is national (federal) US funding for the art (through the NEA).  So, applying the apples-to-apples principle, what does the Canadian federal government spend on art?

Well, looking at your link, total Canadian (federal and provincial) funding for "culture" is CN$7.3 billion.  Of that amount, CN$3.4 billion was federal funding for "culture".  Of that amount, only 7%, or CN$238 million, was federal funding for "art".

There's a monumental difference between your claimed CN$7.3 billion "spent on arts" and actual CN$238 million "spent on arts".

And, then, as to your "logical" equation that more government spending leads to more art and less government spending leads to "King of the Hill", then how is it even possible (t'would seem counter to the very laws of physics) for our Twin Cities, for example, to have a vibrant performance arts community?  Take a look at this list.  I would venture to guess that, for example, that per-capita theaters in the Twin Cities rivals, if not exceeds, per-capita theaters in T.O.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Mr. Sven: 

"If you're working hard (or honestly trying to work) and literally can't put food on your table, I'll happily send you a cheque. 

By the way, do you have any idea what percentage of working Canadians pay no federal income taxes?  I'd be curious to know.  Here, the percentage is about 36% (that was under Bush...and that percentage was a significant increase over his predecessor).  But, that percentage is expected to rise to closer to 50% under Obama."

Yeah, the number of tax dodges assigned to the wealthy and their accountants by conservative administrations here have  increased so that the, according to Derek DeCloet of the Globe, "The latest data from the Canada Revenue Agency show that nearly one-third of tax filers already pay no federal income tax...that's up from 18 per cent in the late 1960s"

Can't imagine the employment of such an insulting, ignorant bastard as yourself.

Okay.  I see the thread "Canadian artists living in poverty - 43% earn less than $10,000" and think: So, artists don't make a lot of money.  Not a surprise.  But, does that mean there is a problem in search of a solution, particularly a government solution?

I don't think so.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

In the U.S., 36% of all people with income pay ZERO federal income taxes and of those that pay zero federal income taxes, about 98% earn $40,000 or less.

My point in noting that is that there are vast swaths of people who contribute nothing to funding the federal government.  A certain percentage of those people (the truly poor) should pay zero federal taxes.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

 I wasn't going to bring it up but I did think about it. :D  That one is still puzzling  to me in terms of the high valuation put on it,   though I will admit that it's piece that you really have to see first hand to get what it's all about.  In person it's actually pretty durn cool and is much more then just three stripes.

 I think though the points you bring up about the value of art being solely  equated with the market pretty much hits on why these sorts of discussion are so difficult.  Art is an area that doesn't play ball so to speak.  To me the biggest problem is that art is really quite subjective so the discussions about get bogged down into 'good' art and 'bad' art which really in my mind is a discussion without any possibility of consensus or conclusion. 

To me money as some sort of main indication of it's inherrent value is a very, very small part of it.  I mean how many stories are out there about people who are now considered great artists and there works go for zillions and who were basically poor while living. I'd say the same could go for some art that right now that does make zillions. If we only used money to value it the someone like Thomas Kincaide, Painter of Light should be considered one of the greatest living artists of our time! My own subjective view on Kincaides work...that's just insanity. :D  His stuff, personally, makes me nauseous.  

Can we please turn this distasteful conversation away from how much tax we pay and back to how we can support artists living under the poverty line?

ETA: Thanks ElizaQ!

Thanks, Catchfire!

Oh, I wasn't excusing sven. Just pointing out the odd phenomenon of posters appearing out of the ether just to diss artists in the most hackneyed ways: "I know someone who claims to be an artist but just farts around, and wants a handout..."

I find sven's outlook on life rather sad, actually.

I think that is a great point.  If government bureaucrats determined who is to be funded and who is not to be funded, then you have the government (of all entities!!) determining what is "good" art and what is "bad" art (or not "art" at all).

Governments have a difficult time handling thoroughly mundane problems like road potholes.  How much more ill-equiped is the government to make subjective decisions regarding the quality of art.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Buy their art, of course.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Hey...whadda you know, another poster appearing out of the ether to be a...right wing troll.

I agree with bsenka,. I'm also a working artist who spent years working a day job and honing my skills so I could kiss that government position goodbye and make my living doing something I'd rather devote my time and effort to.

Sure I'd love it if I could just get paid from the public purse so i don't have to worry about actually getting out there and marketing my stuff. Just think, a paycheck every two weeks, benefits, EI eligibility, paid time off, Paradise !! and all I have to do is sit around at home and produce whatever I want.

Fortunately, I'm a realist who knows that the key to surviving as an artist is to give the public what they want and as a result I'm not sitting around bathing in my own egotistical delusions about what people should want from me and decrying a lack of an income from my art as being based on other peoples ignorance.

Maybe if the Op had submitted a commentary of where they expected this thread to g rather than simply posting a link, the "real" solution to this problem would have surfaced right away. Buy more local art.

Go ahead do it, today. Buy more local art.

I have a few random thoughts. First I thought it interesting that the most immediate reactions by some is that whats in consideration is merely the government funding of individual artists, things like grants. To me thats very myopic. I don't know much about the grant systems we do have but overall I'm not against the idea. I don't personally think that everyone who considers themselves and 'artist' just should automatically get a grant to live on but to me that's really just a strawman as I'm not sure I've ever come across any serious proposal suggesting that what it means.

Supporting artists doesn't just need to be about grants. Where I live there is a pretty big artistic community. Through the work of the artists themselves through organized societies and co-ops  along with government entities the arts community as a whole is promoted. There are studio tours promoted by the tourism board which give you a map and explanation about each artist. There seem to be shows pretty much every other week in the summer months, and even an art school which many local artists teach courses at. The arts and artists as a whole is promoted as a valuable part of the vitality of the area. Even generic highways signs point to studios. I don't know specifically how this translates into the individual incomes of each artist but considering that the whole thing seems to be growing year to year there must be some value to it. It's also quite common to have most public festivals to have a large arts componant that is actually promoted along with whatever ever the main theme of it is.

With all of this some compenant does come from government funding whether at the local, provincial or federal.

I remember the first serious piece of art that I ever purchased.

About 20 years ago, I was meandering around the "Four Corners" area of the American southwest principally looking at Native American art (I have a particular interest in Native American ceramics).  I ran across a guy who had a tiny little shop alongside a highway and ended up spending a half day talking with him about his particualr ceramic art (he was a young artist, just getting his start, and had no other visitors the entire time I was there). I was captivated by his pottery.  While he was just starting in his art, I was a student with, essentially, no money (you know, the ramen-noodles-on-a-hotplate kind of a lifestyle).  I really wanted to buy one of the artist's pieces but the piece I was interested in was a bit over two grand.  So, we struck a deal: He would give me the pottery and I would take it back with me home to Minnesota and then I would send him a check for $100 every month until the balance was paid (which is exactly what I did over the next two years).

Twenty years later, the artist is now very well-known and will sell some of his larger, highly complex pieces for $100,000 or more.  Yet, of all the pieces of art that I have that I would not want to part with, regardless of the amount of money offered, is that ceramic piece (it would be among the last five things, art or otherwise, that I'd ever agree to part with). 

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Sven,

I think you might have hit on a point which has to do with access. The studio tours that I mentioned are great, because you actually get to see and talk to the artist in an informal setting. A person might be a great artist but if no one sees it or has access to seeing it then they might as well be the worst artist in the world. I do think that there can be a place for things like government funding to help promote things like access. There is still onus on the individual when it comes to specifc marketing but the broader community can also benefit. In the case where I live people actually purposely travel to the community or region just for all of the art stuff.

My situation is a rural one and if it wasn't for the community promotion I wouldn't know that some people even exist. I had a similar experience last year. I found a guy through the toursim brochure and loved his stuff. There was no way I could afford to buy the painting outright so we struck a layaway deal. I'm almost done paying for it. It also works to his benefit because he knows a certain, though pretty small, amount of money will be coming in as well he gets to continue displaying the painting with a 'sold' sign on it. That in itself is a small bit of marketing for him. This would never have happened if I hadn't picked up the tourism brochure and been able to develop a person to person relationship. 

I don't go to galleries any more when I'm off the coast because art is expensive and I'm living on a low fixed income. Even a very small framed nature painting by Brenda Carter a few years ago (at the gallery in Merrickville, just west of Kemptville, Ontario) goes for about four hundred bucks. which for me is a mortgage payment here. Luckilly there's two artists here n the coast who occasionally put brush to canvas and make their work available to the public two or three times a year, but ony one of the two works at their art full time. I can usually get a nice painting - unframed - from them for about $150 which is more my ability to pay.

When I go off the coast (not very often) sometimes I see an exhibition run by 'the starving artists group'. I don't know what to make of them - are they for real?

Those are some great points, ElizaQ.  Attending community-organized and community-promoted art festivals is one of my favorite pastimes.  The city of St. Paul has an annual "Art Crawl" that takes people through a tour of the many (usually hidden) little art galleries in the downtown area (probably 90% or more of the galleries are not "shops"--they're just where the artists work).  There are many community-promoted events like that around the Twin Cities.  And, I think those events are great.  Like you said, it gives unknown artists access to some publicity and then the artists...and their work...have to take it from there--and either sink or swim based on the appeal of their work).

By the way, here is an example of one of the piece of ceramic art produced by the artist I was referring to above.  I would estiimate this piece to be maybe 30-35cm in height and, while the photo is not the best, it gives you a little indication of the intricate and detailed work that goes into his pieces (even the bottom of this piece is likely carved as well).  It takes a lot of time to complete a piece like this (multiple firings, many slips, and much, much hand etching).  My guess is that piece would sell for around $15,000 (maybe more).

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Hi ElizaQ

Excellent posts there, I was sort of expecting this thread to be about the how government *should* be directly supporting artist through programs like grants, but it went all Fidel, so I just ended up confused.

Here in BC there's a pretty significant infrastructure in place for artists to get out there ans show their works, all those artists have to do is access that infrastructure. Those highway signs are cheap to get, and there's some criteria as to operating hours in order to get one ( we don't want people who're just driving around following those signs to galleries that are only open one day a month ) There are inexpensive venues provided at festivals ( usually government funded ) there are community arts councils who'll bend over backwards to help an artist whose willing to work find a "suitable' venue. There's designated artist spaces in parks and public areas eg Stanley Park and Queen Elizabeth Park in Vancouver, the list goes on.

THE biggest problem that I've seen is a lack of marketing skills on the part of artists themselves. It's like some artists think that their art should just sell itself. That's a rare bird IMO, and maybe artists should pay more attention to the marketing issue than a lot of them do. Every successful ( as in not getting rich, like Bateman, but not eating grass and leaves ) I've run across has gotten a handle on promotion whether that be through directly marketing their stuff to the public ( meet the artist  ) or finding an "effective" gallery space.

Cheers Sven, I can see why you're attached to that artist's work. Of course to be able to afford it and pay the artist for his/her time and skill, one does need to be in a high tax bracket. Unfortunately, I could only cough up for the cheap mass produced knock off.

One of my clients is an association promoting Aboriginal arts (visual, performance, musical etc) and they work a lot on promotion, diffusion, dissemination...

Not all artists have the personality to market their own work, and it is unfair to expect that of all of them. There are ways artists can join forces and hook up with those skilled at promotion and dissemination.

No, art certainly won't sell itself, but there are ways of supporting the promotion process.

It is also necessary to promote a culture that values the arts. A lot of people who will think nothing of buying electronic gadgets would never spend serious money on art.

Public spending on the arts doesn't just mean Canada Council type grants - there is also the concept of 1% of all new building projects - public and privates - being set aside by law for artwork.

Hi lagatta, yes, not all artists  have the personality to market their work however there are people they can hire as agents do do that for them eg, galleries. Likewise, "shy" artists can hook up with more experienced artists under some sort of mentorship program should they choose to do so and got to marketing school, so to speak.

IMO, marketing should be a part of every art school's cirriculum with stress being put on just how important the topic is should an artist decide that he/she wants to make their living with their art. As far as i can tell, most art schools teach art, not how to make a living at as an artist and upon entering the "real" world of art as a profession, it can be like jumping into a bath of ice water.

Interestingly enough, I think the US has a culture that appreciates art moreso than Canada does. I'm just basing that on personal observations, nothing else. Aside..it took an American to teach me, a Canadian, that we have poetry on our money.

Ummmm yea, those electronic gadgets.. I'm still trying to figure out what I'd do with a personal GPS unit if I had one. I mean the advertising people tell me I need one, but they don't give me any reason to "need" one. I did, however, cough up for a PVR last December, so now those advertising people are ancient history.

I could get behind a law that requires  new construction projects to devote a percentage of their budgets to public art. I'd want some conditions though, the main one being some sort of "guarantee' that the available funds will be accessible to new or emerging artists rather than just going to already established artists like university arts professors.

Once we get up into that realm, it becomes more about the artist's name and nepotism than it does about what the public wants to see as a reflection of their culture...IMO, again.

 Excerpt from Mel Hurtig's god-awful  Truth About Canada 

Welcome to the Northern Puerto Rico

Sven, the most successful civilizations in history have without exception supported the arts and sciences. That correlation should make you wonder if there's a cause and effect relationship, I'm hardly the biggest fan of the arts on this board, I'm into Hollywood comic-book movies and that sort of thing. However, whenever there's discussion about taxpayer funding of the arts, it's often "fiscal conservatives" railing against 0.07% of the budget going to the arts, or something like that.

Putting aside "science" (and leaving that for another thread), how have "the most successful civilizations in history" actually "supported" art?  Are you saying that the governments of all of those civilizations funded art (and artists), akin to the National Endowment for the Arts in the U.S. or similar funding in Canada?  If so, I hardly think that's the case.  Have successful "societies" supported art?  I don't know (so I won't argue that point) but much historical "support" for art was in the form of private patronage.

Causal in the sense that a society that supports art will be (or will, even, more likely be) a "successful" society?  I don't think there's so definite a causal link.  But, I will say that societies that support art are likely going to be more interesting and vibrant than they otherwise would be.

It's not whether the precentage is 0.07%, 0.7%, 7.0%, or 70.0%.  The issue is: Should governments be funding art?  I think ElizaQ made a very good point this past weekend regarding community promotion of local artists.  But, whether a federal government should be spending any money funding artists in the form of grants or otherwise is questionable.  At a minimum, such funding necessarily requires government bureaucrats to determine what art is "good" and what art is "not good" (or not "art" at all) or to determine which artists are "deserving" of funding and which artists are not.  Governments are ill-equiped to make those kinds of subjective decisions.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Of course the faulty distinctions of this paragraph are ideological and without historical grounding. To dissolve them, we need only point to the powerful Medici family of Firenze, who provided a few popes, bankers and rulers (including one named Lorenzo) and sponsored perhaps the greatest artists the Western world has ever seen over a period of 400 years. Of course, Shakespeare, Spenser and Marlowe were given patronage by the Queen of England, and they ended up producing a few pretty good works (although I could skip the last 10 books of the Faerie Queene). Add Mozart, Handel, Bach and Beethoven to the list and the above quoted pasage begins to look quite foolish.

But this, again, perhaps misses the point. As if 'great art' is a result of how much money an artist may or may not be getting. We might as well draw a correlation between the lasting artistic merit of an artist's work and the income she received when she composed it, thus producing the conclusion that artists should be starved for their own benefit. But that will bring little solace to artists, I should say. The fact is that art results from a large number of cultural factors, and the ability to afford a litre of milk a week is hardly a key determinant. Indeed, the best eras of artistic production emerge from acommunity of artists who speak and truck with ach other their ideas, processes, drawbacks and successe. If this is anythign to go buy, the better we foster and support a community and collaboration of artists, the betterart we, as a nation, will produce.

A king or queen or Pope making a decision to support or not support an artist is quite a different thing than society, collectively, saying, "We're going to spend tax dollars of everyone to support artists".  Historically, I hardly think there was a conscious, collective decision by the members of society to "support" art.  Individual royal or papal decisions to support artists is more analogous to individuals (today) making decisions to support or not support artists than it is to a government entity, such as the NEA, making such decisions.

I would simply counter that by saying: "As if "great art' can be divined by government bureaucrats or 'elite experts' (read, principally, as academics)".  I think a handful of designated "experts" are no more likely to be able to determine which contemporary artists will create art of lasting value and importance than the art market can.

There probably more than a little truth to that.  And, that's why I think ElizaQ's comments about community-promotion of local artists are so appealing and make so much sense.