On Demand
Support art(ists)
By Claudia La Rocco
September 1, 2008
This Labor Day weekend, most of the artists I know didn’t plan getaways. They stayed put, luxuriating in the chance to do nothing but … work. On their art.
We’re all familiar with the plight of working class Americans who have multiple jobs but can’t make ends meet or afford health insurance. But we don’t often associate this plight with artists, even though many of them face it.
One terrible example: an email petition has been circulating to raise money for Jillian Peña, a promising young choreographer who sustained severe injuries after being hit by a car on August 11th. She seems, thankfully, to be mending, but she is uninsured. The medical bills will be staggering.
Jillian Peña’s “Mothership.”
You may recall our debate about the $100 million Koch gift, and my mention of the “2003 Urban Institute survey which found that ‘While 96% of Americans value art in their communities and lives only 27% value artists.’”
We don’t hear about artists’ struggles because we don’t see art-making as legitimate work; if I had a dollar for every time I heard a politician pit a “frivolous” cause like the arts against “real” social issues, I could pay off Jillian’s medical fees myself.
Recently, I met with Katherine DeShaw, the executive director of United States Artists, a private organization dedicated to one simple, beautiful goal: giving money to artists, no strings attached. And it’s serious money: $50,000, a decent year’s salary.
“There’s a sense of righting a wrong - it’s been a really, really tough 15 years for artists in this country,” DeShaw said, citing that hateful 96/27 statistic. “As a friend said, ‘You want the painting on the wall, but you don’t want the artist in the living room.’”
USA is only two and a half years old, and the nominating system isn’t perfect; as DeShaw acknowledged, there’s been an imbalance toward the visual arts, and toward male fellows. Too, some people worry that USA is drawing down funds that could be better used in pre-existing systems.
But the good here seems to dwarf the bad. A glance at the fellows shows many worthy recipients, including artists you can see in New York this fall: Paul Chan, who will visit the New Museum this month; Joanna Haigood, the artistic director of Dancing in the Streets’ “Breaking Ground,” which will present its next site-specific Charrette in October and Sigi Moeslinger and Masamichi Udagawa of Antenna Design, whose innovations abound in our subways and streets.
Enjoy. And remember: no artists, no art.
Comments
Comment from Aynsley V
Date: September 1, 2008, 9:45 pm
ahh art-making as legitimate work. It’s been fascinating, challenging and totally eye-opening to advocate for art-making and art-going in the Catskills this summer (away from our relatively insular NYC arts community.)
We’ve had rich (and shake-inducing hard) conversations with potential audience members about who art is for and why it is worth $15 for a ticket… ($15 for a performance created by a number of live artists who have worked for months somehow is not as easy to stomach as $15 for a yoga class or even $50 for a plumber or contractor)
Dancer and choreographer Benjamin Asriel is doing a totally interesting project related to financing dance. He has an interesting blog entry on dancer pay here:
http://www.basriel.com/Project_Paper_Trail/fiscal_blog/fiscal_blog.html
Comment from Claudia La Rocco
Date: September 2, 2008, 11:02 am
Hey Aynsley - thanks for the link … and I would love to hear what some of the answers were regarding $15 being hard to stomach … I have to go back and look at the 2003 study again, but I don’t recall it really getting into the “why” so much, simply the depressing “what.”
Comment from brian rogers
Date: September 2, 2008, 11:37 am
I think that even if we were all selling tickets for $5, or giving them away for free, there would be resistance from certain folks. I don’t think (in the city, at least - it may very well be a different story upstate, where a lot of full-time residents have trouble making ends meet) it has anything to do with the real financial burden imposed by ticket prices - rather, for some people, there is an unspoken (if subconscious) condescension toward art and artmakers. Which is why we have so much trouble valuing it properly, or at all. I mean, if people will drop $12 on a martini without thinking twice, why the angst over $15 tickets to a live performance? Conversely, I also smell this kind of condescension around the big institutional gifts to places like the State Theater - what are these gifts really supporting? Do they really reflect a commitment to artists? Or are they just buying prestige? There is definitely a trend in this country (there was an article in the times about it not too long ago) toward funding big capital projects in lieu of artistic and operating support. And ironically (for me, at least) - I think a lot of people in this country value arts education a lot more than they value professional art and artmakers.
Comment from Claudia La Rocco
Date: September 2, 2008, 11:50 am
To your last point, Brian - that valuing of arts education over art making of course has a lot to do with why so many companies have education built into their mandates. In order to be funded, to get those grants, they need to show that they are “giving back to the community” and being good neighbors, etc. - with the not-so-subtle subtext being that it ain’t enough to just make art …
It’s all so crazy, especially when you think about the sad state of arts education in this country. The rabbit hole just keeps going.
Comment from Aynsley V
Date: September 2, 2008, 6:32 pm
Yes, this trick of valuing it properly! It seems like the trouble comes from people being condescending or inexperienced related to the arts–but sometimes also from artists themselves. We get in these ruts of almost expecting/glamorizing the struggle. I’m reminded of the controversy over Cedar Lake actually having money. (there are many issues within that, but there’s something about artists finding something wrong with other artists really getting paid.)
Here are two interesting answers/questions we found related to $15 being hard to stomach:
One seemed related to class and/or a sense of art being not relevant for the majority of people, “why is it that some people get to sit around making art and talking about art while others have to work for a living?” (This was a case where I think more arts in education would be directly helpful. And it also felt like an important viewpoint to consider when making art… how do we make sure that art is a conversation with audience members. Do we distinguish between art that is primarily in conversation with other artists and art that is broader in its scope?)
And the other answer/question was actually from others who consider themselves artists, “We’re artists so we don’t have money to spend. Can’t you just let us in?” hmm.
Comment from Claudia La Rocco
Date: September 5, 2008, 11:51 am
Thanks, Aynsley. It’s always irritating to run into artists who have so internalized the “starving artists” cliche that they equate popularity with selling out - and feel they don’t have to buy tickets! Although, certainly, critics never expect to pay …
Write a comment