Dear Fiona,

I'm amazed at the intensity of your resistance to the simple idea of paying 
artists, as if doing such a thing would impose catastrophic hardships on 
everyone in the field, including the artists themselves, and close down museums 
right and left; and at your claim that my suggestions are somehow painting museums 
as evil exploiters of artists. All I'm suggesting is a shift of mind set on 
the matter, a reconsideration of a tradition many consider rather odd and 
imbalanced.

Before I respond to your points, I want to contradict your comment that I 
said that artists are being "taken advantage of" when they donate works to 
benefit auctions ... nowhere in any of my posts have I said anything like this, nor 
do I think such a thing. A rereading of my email will show you this. I made a 
mention of the fact that artists give works to auctions simply to point out 
that artists make their pro bono contributions to the community in their own 
way, just as others do. My general argument has simply been that perhaps artists 
should receive some payment when they lend or create works for museum 
exhibitions -- not when they participate in benefit auctions. No one expects payment 
when they donate! How did you get that from what I wrote? Maybe you're 
confusing my comment with Rusty's comment on the topic last Wednesday?

OK: the fact that some artists want to have their works shown so badly that 
they will accept invitations to exhibit them without payment doesn't 
necessarily make it right. Upper-middle-class families regularly hire third-world aliens 
as housekeepers and nannies, pay them less than minimum wage, and don't 
contribute employment taxes -- which is completely illegal -- but does the fact 
that folks accept these underpaying jobs make it right? If you toss a dog a bone, 
he'll pick it up -- what does that prove? Artists want to show their work, 
they are happy to do it, of course -- that's why they make it. Just like pro 
football players want to play football, novelists want to write, salesmen want to 
sell, curators want to curate -- and they all like to be paid. I think it 
would help if you question your depressing assumption that artists are generally 
such a sad, desperate group of people that it is their destiny to just accept 
whatever they are offered and never question or suggest change. Have you 
actually polled your artist friends to see if they really would prefer that artists 
not be paid so that museums wouldn't have to mount "a reduced number of 
exhibits," as both you and Timothy claim?

When artists join cooperatives to show their works, as you mention, it's good 
for them. It's one way to show one's work on one's own terms, and to have 
some control, to be empowered: one organizes one's own exhibition, one creates 
one's own opportunity. This is not a sign of desperation, it is a sign of 
strength and creativity. I don't see how this relates to the question of whether or 
not an artist should be paid when exhibiting in a privately or publicly-funded 
museum, where everyone else involved is receiving recognition and enhancing 
their resumes AND being paid as professionals for their skills and expertise.

I don't believe that if artists were paid for exhibiting that there would be 
museum closings all over the place, as you and Timothy claim -- what a dire 
and dramatic prediction! I think that museums could simply learn how to organize 
their budgets differently, perhaps operate a little more modestly, maybe have 
8 week exhibitions instead of 6 week exhibitions, I don't know ... perhaps 
even -- heaven forbid -- seek special funding for such payments. Do museum fund 
raisers ever consider raising funds for this particular purpose? Do they even 
try? How about a special event to raise money for exactly that purpose? Who 
knows how many private or corporate sponsors might like do donate $5000 a year 
to a museum so that 100 individual artists might receive $50 honorariums in 
their name? For goodness sake, I've heard that the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 
New York City benefits from a special endowment that supplies hundreds of 
dollars just for installing fresh flowers daily. Museums all over the country 
regularly offer free cocktails to thousands of exhibition reception attendees 
every month, and spend thousands of dollars on patrons' dinners, etc., funded by 
various sources. Why not ask all the guests to pay for drinks and dinner, and 
give the artists $100 each, big deal! Serve one less course. Publish catalogs 
with a few less pages. Print two-color announcements instead of three-color. 
One less item per year for the collection. One less new wing. One less party. 
Why is this so difficult to conceptualize? Paying artists in itself might even 
attract financial support from sectors that otherwise wouldn't think of 
becoming involved -- who knows, maybe even artists themselves might contribute! 
Certainly there is room for adjustment, even within the budgets of the smallest 
public exhibition spaces. It just takes an acknowledgment that the issue is a 
meaningful one, the will to do something about it, and a little creativity. As a 
number of the postings here have indicated, some museums and public galleries 
do engage in the practice of paying artists, and they seem to remain open.

Finally, I have to say that your comment "nobody is making a person be an 
artist" is a very sad thing for you to write here; as if you believe an artist 
deserves to have a hard life by some sort of free will choice. If everyone 
thought this way, nothing in the world would ever change for the better. And when 
you suggest to me that "Perhaps you should be writing to congress or the 
president about this matter rather than this museum list," you seem to forget the 
purpose of a discussion list, and that I have been only responding with my 
opinions to the postings of others. A museum official who thinks the idea of paying 
artists is a good one will figure out a way to make it happen, whatever 
congress or the president might think; "faulting the nation," as you advise, seems 
somewhat pointless and evasive.

Nowhere have I meant to imply that museums are "bad guys," as you suggest; 
I'm sorry you have taken that impression, maybe I write in an over-dramatic way. 
My hope here is to simply question certain common preconceptions and 
practices, and encourage the consideration of an idea to those who might otherwise not 
have considered it. 

Allan

In a message dated 9/26/05 5:03:01 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:


> Dear Allen: I have to agree with Timothy, and was just about to write 
> concerning his point that most artists would not be happy if museums reduced the 
> number of exhibits that they offer in order to pay some artists to exhibit.  
> Closing galleries or the museum for half the year because the museum couldn't 
> afford to pay the artist would also certainly not benefit the artists, the 
> public or the museum.  Many artists do want to show, so much so that many of 
> them will join cooperatives in New York City where they have to pay $1500 for 
> the gallery space for a 3 week show, plus cover all shipping, announcement, 
> mailing and reception costs as well as having to sit in the gallery.  In my 
> museum we offer all that free.  And I also want to go back to your point that 
> society/museums take advantage of artists by asking them for free services 
> (art) and donations of art work to auctions.  Whereas it is true that art 
> auctions are ways that museums raise money, noone is forcing an artist to 
> participate in an auction or an exhibit.  Further, artists are not the only people who 
> are asked to give, whether it be time, money or objects.  I get requests from 
> non-profits all the time and I give to the ones that  make the most sense 
> for me--many of them being art institutions, but others being things like the 
> Red Cross or Planned Parenthood.  Should people who help build homes for 
> Habitat for Humanity be reimbursed for their time and skill?--of course not, they 
> give freely because they want to do it.  In the same way, although I strongly 
> believe that art should and is a very important part of being human and 
> therefore should be respected by society--and I would be very happy if there was 
> a way to pay artists as professionals--nobody is making a person be an 
> artist.  I advise all my students who want to be artists that it is not an easy 
> life and that more than likely there will not be a  lot of money in it.  Some 
> choose art as a profession, some do not.  Finally  (for me--these are my last 
> words  on the subject), you state that the museum is tax exempt and therefore 
> government-sponsored, but the museum gives back to the public in all sorts of 
> ways--through exhibits, programs, free admission, etc. Quite frankly, there 
> is a problem with funding the artist, but it is not the fault of the museum, 
> it is a fault of the nation.  In Canada and Great Britain a great deal more 
> government money is given to the arts than in the United States, indeed, 
> although the United States is the richest country in the world, art is not well 
> supported--note that it is the first thing to go in the public school system.  
> Perhaps you should be writing to congress or the president about this matter 
> rather than this museum list (although under this current administration I'm 
> rather worried about the already mounting debt and who is going to pay for 
> it). It is a real pity that Americans in general do not appreciate art, but 
> museums are not the "bad guys" they are really trying to educate their visitors 
> to respect art and artists, which then leads to support of the arts.
> Fiona
> 
> Timothy McShane wrote:
> 
> Hi Allen:

I'm not sure which "Canadian system" you might be referring to in the 
statement; "under the Canadian system the artists' unique contributions are 
recognized to have a certain monetary value, and the artists have a right to be paid 
for them."   Certainly, no such recognition is enshrined in the Canadian legal 
system as represented by the Copyright Act and its provisions for the 
protection of exhibit rights (this is where I felt you might be mis-interpreting the 
laws of Canada).   Those provisions only allow for the holder of exhibit rights 
to determine when, how, and under what circumstances a work may be publicly 
displayed--there is no discussion in the Copyright Act relating to the receipt 
of payment for allowing the exhibition of a work.   Rather, the exhibit rights 
exist to ensure a work is not displayed in a "Top 100-Most Hideous Uses of 
Chartreuse" type exhibit, or (less facetiously), in a show that would represent 
the work with political or social overtones that the artis
t did not intend and does not agree with, thus compromising the artist's 
intellectual property rights.   

(As an aside, there was a big news item related to this issue a few years ago 
when a national right-wing political candidate played a popular tune by a 
well-known Canadian band at a political rally--without troubling to secure 
performance rights.   The band was outraged at having their music and by extension, 
themselves tied in with this politician's campaign.   The band rightly 
condemned the campaign and asserted their intellectual property rights in the 
Canadian press--I don't know what role this one incident played in the campaign, but 
certainly the political did not fair well in the polls after that....)

I am unfamiliar with any example (anywhere, but in Canada in particular) of 
legally enforced payment when an artist has not requested payment--I can't 
imagine which of our laws that could come under.   As noted above, the Copyright 
Act carries no provisions requiring payment for waiving of exhibition rights, 
and any agreement between an artist and a public venue "for a purpose other 
than sale or hire" would be handled under Contract Law--but here a contract would 
have to specifically include a promise of payment in order to be enforceable 
to secure payment.

For the record, I do agree with your assertion that people ought to be fairly 
compensated for the work they do, and that a monetary value can be applied to 
the work artists contribute to producing exhibitions.   However, I disagree 
that cash payment is/should be a required form of compensation for an artist 
exhibiting works at a public institution, or that the absence of a cash payment 
somehow implies disrespect towards the artist.   I applaud the efforts of 
those museums and galleries that have the means to offer payment to artists.  
However, if it should become the norm, and artists come to expect/require payment 
for participating in exhibitions, then I expect there will be a drastic 
decline in the number of contemporary art shows at a great many museums/galleries 
that will find themselves no longer able to afford to produce those exhibits.   
I can't see how that will benefit either the museum or the artistic 
communities.

Cheers,

 

------------------------------------------------------------
Tim McShane, Assistant--Cultural History
Medicine Hat Museum and Art Gallery
1302 Bomford Crescent S.W.
Medicine Hat, AB    T1A 5E6
Tel: (403) 502-8587
[log in to unmask]

   
> 
> 
> 
> [log in to unmask] 09/26/05 11:37 AM >>>
         
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Tim,

Your explanation is helpful, the difference between our two countrys'
conceptions of artists' rights is made very clear. I not sure what it is that 
you
think I might be misinterpreting?

What seems important here is that the under the Canadian system the artists'
unique contributions are recognized to have a certain monetary value, and the
artists have a right to be paid for them; if an artist should choose to 
forego
payment, that's the artist's choice, just as it would be here with a
songwriter or playwright, etc. -- but the right is still there.

As you describe in your own practice, the right is respected. As I understand
it, payment is often even enforced by law when the individual artist neglects
to ask for it. And the fact that the law exists at all certainly sets a tone,
and communicates a community belief that artists' contributions have tangible
value. In the U.S., not only are artists seldom paid for exhibitions, the
question is usually never even considered worth thinking about -- as is 
indicated
by some of the responses in this thread.

Our arts institutions often receive funds from the government -- or, at the
very least, tax advantages -- and it seems to me that when a government gives
money to an arts institution it is an indication that the public expects
artists to receive support; yet the institution administrators here generally 
think
helping the visual artists "build their resume" and receive "recognition" is
all the support they deserve -- while nearly everyone else involved is paid!

Allan


Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the 
addressee and may contain confidential, proprietary and/or privileged 
material.   Any unauthorized review, distribution or other use of or
the taking of any action in reliance upon this information is
prohibited.   If you received this in error, please contact the sender
and delete or destroy this message and any copies

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ 
. You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending 
a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the 
message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to 
[log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff 
Museum-L" (without the quotes).

   
> 
> =========================================================Important 
> Subscriber Information:
> The Museum-L FAQ file is located at 
> http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/. You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by 
> sendinga one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of 
> themessage should read "help" (without the quotes). 
> If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail messageto 
> [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read 
> "SignoffMuseum-L" (without the quotes). 
> 
=======================
Allan McCollum
63 Greene Street, No. 308
New York, NY 10012
U.S.A.
(212) 431-0212
Email:
[log in to unmask]
Website:
http://home.att.net/~allanmcnyc

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).