Jim O'Connor writes:

>I'm curious-why are museum professionals astonished that an artist might
>want to be paid for the display of his/her work?  Does the museum agree not
>to charge an entrance fee when the artist is not paid?  The museum has
>expenses to meet, right?  The artist doesn't?  Who pays his/the artist's
>rent?  health insurance? for materials, research?  The museum gives the
>artist exposure?  Where would it be without artists? Needless to say
>(maybe) is that the exhibition of contemporary art (and the livelihood of
>its curators) depends entirely on the work product of artists.

I guess I am a museum professional, and I'm not astonished.  However, I
think the weird economics of the art world are what they are because in the
big picture there is lots of supply of art -- and relatively little demand
for it.  There are certainly many artist who are as competent at what they
do as there are lawyers who are competent at lawyering, but society doesn't
demand (and pay for) the products of artists the way it does the services
of lawyers.  This does not make for a healthy economic structure for
artists -- or for most museum professionals, whose salaries are dismally
low.

Museums do benefit from an artist's years of unpaid struggle and sacrifice.
On the other hand, many artists I know would themselves be willing to pay
a museum in order to have an exhibit, because they recognize the marketing
value such a show represents.  When I do solo shows of emerging artists I
invest a minimum of $25,000 in that artist's work.  Larger museums invest
much more.

It's not a great system, but nobody created it -- it has just evolved into
what it is and the forces that hold it there do not seem headed for change.


Stephen Nowlin
Vice President, Director, Williamson Gallery
Art Center College of Design
1700 Lida Street
Pasadena, CA 91103 USA (626)396-2397  fax (626)405-9104 [log in to unmask]
Williamson Gallery website:
http://www.artcenter.edu/exhibit/williamson.html