> I don't like the idea of
>exhibit fees for artwork or objects.
>The museum is providing an artist
>(and the public) a valuable serivce by showcasing artwork and artifacts in
>a serious environment.  That in itself could be worth something to the
>artist down the road.
>

I'm siding with Jim O'Connor.  I think that at the very least a museum or
gallery should completely cover all the artist's costs (including materials,
fabrication costs, travel, crating, shipping, in-transit insurance, and
installation costs), and ideally should offer an honorarium to the artist.
If the gallery/museum/art space cannot afford much, it should offer a
combination that everyone can live with.   If it will result in a big $ loss
for the artist, the artist should feel free to reject the offer with no hard
feelings on either side.  We had an artist participate in an exhibition (we
paid all costs plus an honorarium) but refuse to come back for a mid-run
lecture because for what we were offering as a fee it was not worth his time
to reschedule the classes he taught, prepare slides and the talk, and spend
the time traveling.  He is a very well-known contemporary artist--I was
disappointed, but at the same time I really respect him for knowing his own
worth and sticking to it.

Only when artists respect themselves and let the art establishment know it
(nicely, without being obnoxious or militant) will artists themselves get
any respect.  It's a pity that most museums only truly respect artists after
they are dead and the museum staff doesn't have to face them in person.


Julia Muney Moore
Director of Exhibitions and Artist Services
Indianapolis Art Center