(Submission to the
contemporary visual arts and craft inquiry)
© Donald Richardson, November, 2001
In the more recent past, many artists achieved professional recognition
with little or no formal qualifications. Vincent van Gogh is
perhaps the most obvious example. On the other hand, many who
have received full training at an art school have achieved little
in the professional field. So it must be evident that 'professional
status' in art has no necessary relationship with formal training.
This does not apply to designers, however. Whereas designers
cannot begin to practice without considerable technical knowledge,
artists can often depend upon native talent or develop what they
need during their practice.
This means that, whereas it is logical to insist on formal qualifications
before a designer may be considered professional, artists establish
this status by obtaining commissions and/or achieving exhibition
in recognised galleries or groups (as an alternative to obtaining
formal qualifications). The key criterion for artists is disinterested
peer recognition (long a successful operating principle of the
Australia Council). One method of establishing professional status
is to participate in a group exhibition annually or a one-person
exhibition every four or five years. Panels of professionals
could be established to decide on difficult cases.
___________________________________________________
The term 'arts industry' is nonsense and should be discontinued.
Industries are characterised by producing goods or services for
which there is an established demand or for which future demand
can confidently be expected through sales promotion (speculative
investment). However, artists - by definition - if they are truly
artists, do not produce items for which there is a pre-existing
demand, except in the most general sense (eg for landscapes or
portraits). True artists are innovators and experimenters whose
primary thought is to create something unique. Whether there
is a public demand for the produce is secondary. This is entirely
opposed in principle to how an industry works.
People who produce pictures or sculptures to order, following
established forms, are operating to a large extent as craftspersons,
not artists properly so called.
Commissioned works, such as portraits, are in a unique position
in that the artist operates creatively but has to conform to
what may be termed a 'design-brief' in that the portrait must
represent the sitter. This applies also to works commissioned
as integral elements of churches and other buildings. These artists
could validly be considered to be operating as designers.
Another situation is where an artist creates a picture which
is then reproduced, as limited-edition prints, by a printer (a
craftsperson). Thus, it can be seen that the categorisation and
terminology suggested in my first paper is useful in distinguishing
the various aspects of an artist's work and, so, helping to decide
principles of remuneration.
There is a visual arts market or economy, which consists of commercial
galleries and dealers. These operate by selling on commission,
on behalf of artists, their products. They operate in exactly
the same way as any other marketing entity, ie by selling goods
for profit and (if they are functioning well) promoting these
goods in the market. Apart from the product the market sells,
it has absolutely nothing to do with art per se.
Designers usually work in or for an industry at established rates
of remuneration. On the other hand, each artist must establish
for him/herself the selling-price of his/her works. This cannot
be derived from time-on-task or other economic measures: it can
only come from establishing and maintaining a reputation in the
market.
________________________________________________________
It is long established that employed craftspersons and designers
price their labour by the hour at agreed or established rates,
or are paid award or negotiated wages. This cannot apply to artists,
who do not produce things for which there is agreed demand or
remuneration; consequently - except for those who have established
a reputation and can sell their products at a reasonable price
- artists usually live in poverty. While the tenacious persevere
in the hope that they will achieve a reputation eventually and
be able to sell their product, there must be many who have been
discouraged and give up. This must be a great cultural loss to
the country. The logical solution is to allow those artists who
achieve professional status by the means outlined above, but
are economically impoverished, to draw the dole so long as they
persevere with their work. Such people could not be labelled
'dole bludgers' because most artists actually work longer hours
than employed people do.
_______________________________________________________
Taxation
Whereas it is, of course, equitable for artists to pay income-tax,
moderated by deducting legitimate expenses, art should be generally
exempt from the Goods and Services Tax.
In the first place, the GST places an inequitable burden on the
art market (galleries, etc) because the mark-up on sales is usually
only 33 1/3% or, at the most, 40%, whereas generally the mark-up
is 100%. This situation is, in turn, unfair to artists who are
not really in control of the prices for their works and cannot
raise them to cover the GST.
But, further, artists who are registered as businesses and for
the GST, and who operate their finances diligently, operate at
a loss for many years on end and - because they are able to claim
refunds of GST paid on materials they use, studio rental etc
- are usually in a credit relationship with the Taxation Department.
So, the tax system gains nothing from artists and artists have
the unnecessary burden of keeping account of the small items
of material they purchase (those who have the diligence to do
this: otherwise they lose these amounts entirely).
This is a stupid and unfair situation. The best equivalent in
other fields is that of the genuine farmer who stays on his property
producing products, but also for life-style reasons, though he
is economically impoverished. Such farmers operate businesses
at a loss, as do most artists most of the time. So artists should
be able to qualify for similar concessions as those available
to such farmers.
|