I received an invitation from the Minister for Arts & Culture to attend a Cultural Strategy Consultation Forum this weekend which will discuss the strategy for Arts & Culture in Ireland for the next two years. It will be an opportunity to discuss the "crucial issues facing the arts today and the policy priorities and actions required for the future". No doubt every other visual artist in my area received a similar invitation, but it's nice all the same to think that if I choose to take advantage of the opportunity then I just may be able to have some, tiny influence on how the Arts and Culture sector will develop over the coming years.
So it's got me thinking. If I get my 30 seconds to stand on my soapbox, what will I say? What's the one thing that I would like to tell my kids that I had a hand in influencing?
Maybe it's the retention of the artists tax exemption scheme that we have here in Ireland? It has to be the single most important financial support that I and every other artist receives from the state. As we face into another budget of cuts and tax increases there is no doubt that there is a serious threat to the scheme. It has been in place for 50 years and sends out a strong signal worldwide that Ireland supports and nurtures it's artists in very real, practical way. It is also an acknowledgment that making a living from the creation of art is a truly precarious career to follow and one that is deserving of some support.
Believe me I am completely in favour of making changes to the scheme, such as reducing the cap on income that an artist is allowed before paying tax, but cutting the scheme completely would inevitably lead to many full time artists just giving up trying to survive on their work and probably going back on the dole queue. In my own case the scheme makes up for the fact that I will probably never receive funding from the Arts Council as my work doesn't really "fit" the profile of art that they tend to fund. You see, I make paintings that have a broad appeal, don't really challenge the viewer too much but which people connect strongly with. And one of my goals is to actually sell my work. Unfortunately these criteria don't match the funding criteria for most Arts Council bursaries. So I, and many visual artists like me (the majority of practising visual artists?) will never receive funding through the Arts Council.
But I'm fine with that. I actually think it does make sense that whatever funding is available should probably be biased towards artists who are making less commercial work, more "challenging", less accessible work. Or just work that would not be commercially viable without a little support. And as long as the artist's tax exemption scheme is around I feel that I am being recognised and treated as fairly by the state as an Arts Council funded artist. I just have to make sure that I, and other commercially focused artists like me, sell enough paintings in order to get a meaningful benefit from the exemption scheme in the first place!
So I am a passionate advocate for the retention of the artist's tax exemption scheme, because among other things it ensures all qualifying artists, no matter what style or type of work they produce are treated equally and are given the opportunity to avail of the scheme. And what if the exemption scheme goes? Then we are left competing with every other artist for funding from the Arts Council. Funding which we would have no real chance of getting unless there was a serious rethink about how it was to be allocated.
But there is another equally important issue that seems to get far less critical analysis and coverage and that is: WHY do so few artists actually make enough money to take advantage of the tax exemption scheme in the first place? With statistics published that show as many 90% of all artists make less then €10k from their work does it not raise serious questions about the type of curriculum being taught in our Art Colleges? Or are we just producing artists who have no market for their work?
Where are the classes that teach students how to analyse the art marketplace to see where their work fits in and show them how to reach their markets? Or the classes that show how to prepare cashflow projections and business plans in order to set targets for the coming year? Why are we educating artists in a vacuum, with no connection to the real world of actually making a living from their work?
There seems to be a willingness to let graduates move out into the real world without giving them the skills required to actually survive in it. There's an acceptance that this is not what Art College should be teaching anyway. I disagree. Understanding the commercial marketplace, as much as the publicly funded one, is essential to anyone seriously thinking of making a living from their work. Being a self employed artist is really no different from being any other self employed professional, the same basic business and marketing skills are needed to develop a successful career. And so they need to form part (a small part) of the core Fine Art curriculum. And just as importantly I believe they need to be taught by arts professionals who understand marketing and business in the art world, rather than simply business experts.
"Business" for an artist is not simply about book-keeping or pricing or understanding tax matters. And it's more than just marketing and learning how to promote yourself. It's a way of thinking, one that ensures you always have concrete goals and objectives to aim for, that means you are constantly reviewing your progress and setting new targets.
So if I do get my chance to get up on my soapbox maybe what I'll say is....Any strategy for the visual arts over the next two years should provide for a review of current teaching in our Art Colleges and ensure there is a "business for artists" module included in the core curriculum. One geared towards equipping artists with the practical business skills required to enable them stand on their own two feet and develop a successful, independent career.
Or is there a more crucial issue facing the visual arts that should be changed in the next two years? Let me know...
So it's got me thinking. If I get my 30 seconds to stand on my soapbox, what will I say? What's the one thing that I would like to tell my kids that I had a hand in influencing?
Maybe it's the retention of the artists tax exemption scheme that we have here in Ireland? It has to be the single most important financial support that I and every other artist receives from the state. As we face into another budget of cuts and tax increases there is no doubt that there is a serious threat to the scheme. It has been in place for 50 years and sends out a strong signal worldwide that Ireland supports and nurtures it's artists in very real, practical way. It is also an acknowledgment that making a living from the creation of art is a truly precarious career to follow and one that is deserving of some support.
Believe me I am completely in favour of making changes to the scheme, such as reducing the cap on income that an artist is allowed before paying tax, but cutting the scheme completely would inevitably lead to many full time artists just giving up trying to survive on their work and probably going back on the dole queue. In my own case the scheme makes up for the fact that I will probably never receive funding from the Arts Council as my work doesn't really "fit" the profile of art that they tend to fund. You see, I make paintings that have a broad appeal, don't really challenge the viewer too much but which people connect strongly with. And one of my goals is to actually sell my work. Unfortunately these criteria don't match the funding criteria for most Arts Council bursaries. So I, and many visual artists like me (the majority of practising visual artists?) will never receive funding through the Arts Council.
But I'm fine with that. I actually think it does make sense that whatever funding is available should probably be biased towards artists who are making less commercial work, more "challenging", less accessible work. Or just work that would not be commercially viable without a little support. And as long as the artist's tax exemption scheme is around I feel that I am being recognised and treated as fairly by the state as an Arts Council funded artist. I just have to make sure that I, and other commercially focused artists like me, sell enough paintings in order to get a meaningful benefit from the exemption scheme in the first place!
So I am a passionate advocate for the retention of the artist's tax exemption scheme, because among other things it ensures all qualifying artists, no matter what style or type of work they produce are treated equally and are given the opportunity to avail of the scheme. And what if the exemption scheme goes? Then we are left competing with every other artist for funding from the Arts Council. Funding which we would have no real chance of getting unless there was a serious rethink about how it was to be allocated.
But there is another equally important issue that seems to get far less critical analysis and coverage and that is: WHY do so few artists actually make enough money to take advantage of the tax exemption scheme in the first place? With statistics published that show as many 90% of all artists make less then €10k from their work does it not raise serious questions about the type of curriculum being taught in our Art Colleges? Or are we just producing artists who have no market for their work?
Where are the classes that teach students how to analyse the art marketplace to see where their work fits in and show them how to reach their markets? Or the classes that show how to prepare cashflow projections and business plans in order to set targets for the coming year? Why are we educating artists in a vacuum, with no connection to the real world of actually making a living from their work?
There seems to be a willingness to let graduates move out into the real world without giving them the skills required to actually survive in it. There's an acceptance that this is not what Art College should be teaching anyway. I disagree. Understanding the commercial marketplace, as much as the publicly funded one, is essential to anyone seriously thinking of making a living from their work. Being a self employed artist is really no different from being any other self employed professional, the same basic business and marketing skills are needed to develop a successful career. And so they need to form part (a small part) of the core Fine Art curriculum. And just as importantly I believe they need to be taught by arts professionals who understand marketing and business in the art world, rather than simply business experts.
"Business" for an artist is not simply about book-keeping or pricing or understanding tax matters. And it's more than just marketing and learning how to promote yourself. It's a way of thinking, one that ensures you always have concrete goals and objectives to aim for, that means you are constantly reviewing your progress and setting new targets.
So if I do get my chance to get up on my soapbox maybe what I'll say is....Any strategy for the visual arts over the next two years should provide for a review of current teaching in our Art Colleges and ensure there is a "business for artists" module included in the core curriculum. One geared towards equipping artists with the practical business skills required to enable them stand on their own two feet and develop a successful, independent career.
Or is there a more crucial issue facing the visual arts that should be changed in the next two years? Let me know...
Well, I got my chance and managed to get my suggestion across. I'm happy to report that it was received very well by the Minister, who deemed it an "excellent idea". Let's see if it leads to anything...
ReplyDelete