Lecture: Why are artists poor080214

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:

• 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.

But..

Artists have been poor already for a long time.

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’.

Income from art of Dutch professional visual artists in 2001

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Series1Series2Series3

Who is an artist and who is not?

See also the appendix at the end of the presentation.

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.

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)

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).

• 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.

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.

The difference between

Autonomy and

Authenticity

People romanticize the arts and so do many artists and aspiring artists

Many myths exist surround the arts.

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

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)

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

Passion makes blindThe 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)

Dutch professional visual artists in 2001

Income from artwork

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Series1Series2Series3

How do artists manage to survive?

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).

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.

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)

“Greedy” artists

• Due to their work preference devoted artists can be very much oriented on monetary income, i.e. money

more in appendix

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)

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

• 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

Question

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

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

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-professionalizationand

re-professionalization

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.

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

Question regarding future developments

• Can professionalization go together with large scale multiple jobholding and a blurring distinction between professional and amateur artists?

A recommendation:

commissions

deals or contractsfor/with artists and art organizations

rather than

grants(this may imply that the arms length principal will

become less and less important)

Conclusion

Many artistsrather than

too many artists

Artists are privileged rather than

pitiful

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

Appendices

• Who is artist and who not?

• ‘Living on the edge’

Appendix 2

Two assumptions

1. Artists have a stronger preference for NMI over MI than other professionals

2. Work in the arts offers relatively much NMI and little MI

Additional assumptionArtists are better in making art and other

professionals are better in making non-art.

Next slides extended version

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

Artists versus other professionals:

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.

• 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.

•

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??

Last slide extended version