Part 1 (1/2)
Why Are Artists Poor?
The Exceptional Econo
Preface
Why is the average income of artists low? Why do so many people still become artists despite the prospects of a low incoifts like subsidies and donations? Are these three phenomena related? Is it because most artists earn so little that the arts receive so many subsidies and donations? Or is the abundance of artists and their low incomes due to the fact that the arts receive dona-tions and subsidies? Do artists who earn low inco sacriced by a system that pretends to support them?
In this book I will study the causes and consequences of the pervasive gift sphere in the arts, as well as low incouh about art and that, consequently, an artist's incoardless of one's denition of art, the expen-diture on art products has never been large Nevertheless, during the last decades, western nations expenditures on art have risen more than incomes Thus, the notion of under-consumption is hard to ift sphere, I examine the artists' motiva-tions, attitudes in the art world, and the ument I advance in this book is that the economy of the arts is excep-tional The impact of the mystique of the arts calls for a hts taken froy Nevertheless, round in econohout the course of the book
As an artist I am immersed in the art world When I look around me there is much that puzzles me I know of artists who earn a lot of ues who do relatively well Other colleagues ularly, receive grants and subsidies, or they have interesting second jobs Most of ues, however, are poor They hardly sell, have lousy second jobs, and yet they carry on I don't understand why they just don't quit the profession
As an econonore this confused state of affairs Using a phrase of Deirdre McCloskey, I cliaze down at the art world I notice that the economy of the arts, in its basic structure, resembles that of, say, food-production Both econoovern supply and demand Nevertheless, I remain puzzled by what I see For instance, I can't comprehend the numerous donations and subsidies nor the abundance of artists willing to work for low pay Even from this perspective on the tenth oor I nd it difcult to see patterns in the ongo-ing process
The contrasts and Janus-like quality of the arts are puzzling for artist and economist alike Therefore, this book proposes that the artist and econoether Because their knowledge and perspective can reinforce each other, they start to discern patterns in the arts economy This book tries to explain these patterns
Theaspect in these patterns is the two-faced character of the econons On the one hand there is a world of splendor, ofvery high incomes and of rich donors whose status is enhanced by their association with the arts On the other hand there is the large ; often they losein the arts andsupport froe sums of social security and other allowances not intended for the arts ow into it
The contrast also shows from attitudes in the arts that are intrinsically two-faced On the one hand money and commerce are rejected On the other hand trade is very present in the temple of sacred art, as it was in the temple of the Jews The temple of art cannot exist without trade More-over, the trade in art prots from the belief that art is sacred and beyond co the economy is protable: it is com-mercial to be anti-commercial Such denial and simultaneous embrace of money is present in almost any transaction in the arts Does this doublecontrast betealth and poverty in the arts? These are challenging questions that this book on the exceptional economy of the arts tries to answer
The Art Forms Addressed Because I am a visual artist I shall use exam-ples from the visual arts more than from other art forms, but this does not imply that my analysis only applies to the visual arts On the con-trary, in principal, I treat any object or activity that people in the West call art For the analysis of the econoe that experts (or the general public) sooner call cer-tain objects and activities art than other objects and activities For in-stance opera is often 'more art' than pop music In order to study this phenoh, will be excluded from the analy-sis
There is one exception; my analysis does not refer to the applied arts, but only to the 'ne arts' as they are called in the Anglo-Saxon countries or the 'autonomous arts' as they are called in mainland Western Europe In the applied arts, the surplus of artists is not as large and income is more reasonable In other words, the economy of the applied arts is not that exceptional
The book analyzes the economy of the arts infocus in the book will be co the economy of the arts in mainland Western Western Europe and the usa In many respects Britain ts in somewhere in the middle There-fore the book pays no separate attention to the economy of the arts in countries like Canada, Australia, or japan
Method and For the artist and economist join forces is easier said than done The culture of economists differs from the culture of artists, as was observed in The Two Cultures by C P Snow1 Artists and econoes Nevertheless, the apparent con-ict also offers ain each chapter with a confrontation between my beliefs as an artist and my beliefs as an econo both points of view seriously, I will try to deal with the econo so, I will also ey
But by using the artist's perspective along with that ofreaders along the way On the one hand, artists and other people working in the art as well as readers educated in another social science may nd the story to be too econouical I must also warn the reader that this book does not intend to produce the precise, rigorous and parsimonious research often associ-ated with economics In order to make sense of the exceptional econouities that confront the study of this peculiar econo to satisfy both the artist and economist inside me, I hope to satisfy the reader as well
The analysis in this book rests on existing theories, available data, and on my own 'eldwork' in the arts The observations I raphic empirical source within an interpretative approach to economics2 They contribute to the picture of the arts eco-nomy as I portray it in this book I have tried to create a convincing pic-ture In this context, I advance a series of theses and propositions I would be the rst to acknowledge that the empirical support for some of these theses is insufcient I also feel that more input from institutional economics would have been fruitful Because, after all, I am desperate to resume my artwork, I am more than happy to let other, more skilled and patient researchers ll these lacunae I certainly hope that my picture of the economy of the arts will inspire readers to draw their own picture Only then will soe
The questions that are raised at the end of each chapter will hopefully serve to sti of the text less passive The questions do not have a single 'correct' answer The questions will hopefully invite the reader to reect on the chapter's ndings
For Whoroup I had in ues are likely to recognize much of what I have written The analysis will hopefully help the of their econoree with all of my conclusions, but I think they will enjoy the discus-sion Because of its critical stance, I think that this book should be a must read for all prospective artists It should make them want to reconsider their decisions that led them to become artists
This book is also written for economists interested in culture I expect that for thehts The saoes for other social scientists I have tried to present econohts in a way that willfor non-economists
Foremost, I have written this book for art ad in arts-related jobs Because they are the 'mediators' between the arts and the rest of the world, they must be especially puzzled by the exceptional character of the economy of the arts I expect that they as well as students who intend to nd arts-related work shall beneta variety of courses in cultural studies, cultural econo, and art htforward advice, but hopefully its insights will provide the reader with cognition, inspiration, pleasure, and soe Group, the Erasmus University, the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sciences (ocw) and the Netherlands Organization for Scientic Research (nwo) all made nancial contributions
I am especially thankful to my friends Arjo Klamer and Olav Velthuis Klamer contributed in several ways to this book First, he ca scholars around hi interest in econo with Arjo I try to show that some of my views are better than his Thirdly andthe manuscript (Even an extremely authority-phobic person as I am could handle this criticism from a 'superior' friend) Olav and I share important socio-political views Therefore he has been aprocess Our discussions encouraged one
I also want to thank the following people who all made essential con-tributions to the book: Steve Austen, Maks Banens, Mark Blaug, Deirdre McCloskey, Krista Connerly, Peter Cross, Wilfred Dolfsje van Eekelen, Karlijn Ernst, Marlite Halbertsers, Teunis IJdens, Suzanne Janssen, Rianne Lannoy, Berend Jan Langenberg, Wouter de Nooy, Henk van Os, Pieter van Os, Bart Plantenga, Merijn Rengers, Marc Rosca, Barend Schuura Weidenhaer Wolfson, and PW Zuidhof
Finally, I would like to acknowledge the following tohich I vis-ited between August 1997 and February 2001 while writing this book Apart frokok, Barcelona, Brussels, Budapest, Istanbul, Liege, London, Poznan, Prague, and Reci These lively towns and the people I met there made this project hile ForI ae to make such a fuss about it
Chapter 1
Sacred Art
Who Has the Power to Dene Art?
Feeling Uncomfortable About Art Alex, who is both artist and economist, lives in a house with six adults and two children They share a living rooe educations and work in technical professions Alex noticed that at home he usually behaves like an economist rather than an artist That way they all speak the sains to behave like an artist, his housemates feel less comfortable Once a week Alex picks little Judith, one of the children in the house, up froether Soalleries or museums Judith is four and still enjoys it The other day her fa-ther, Eddy, conded to Alex that he is pleased that Alex is bringing some cultural education into Judith's life She really can't expect to receive etically
Cultural Superiority versus Inferiority Alex nds it hard to characterize his own art People knowledgeable about art usually characterize his artwork as so-called contearde They add that his art reveals aspects of outsider art or 'art brut'1 Alex thinks that this puts him in a no-arde art and traditional circles He exhibits in both areas However, Alex soon discovered that these two areas in the arts do not carry the saht in the art world Each year Alex exhibits his pastel drawings of 'heads' as he calls them in an annual portrait show The portrait painters who exhibit in this show have one thing in common: they are not asha the course of the show, Alex had to be an atten-dant He had plenty of time to watch people Froer visitors reher their appreciation of the work Most of the people, how-ever, pass right by his ithout stopping, as if there's nothing to see When he confronts theh they do not realize he is the artist They usually say soood, but personally I don't like it” But he is delighted to learn that some visitors a minority only have eyes for his work When Alex confronts the here that could be called art Alex notes that these visitors express this as if it were a fact Unlike the earlier group, they did not express it as a personal opinion There was no apology Alex is struck by the asyroups
Why is it that Eddy, in the rst illustration, apologizes for being unable to provide his daughter with a ? And how can we explain why the exhibition's ordinary visitors, the ones who prefer the traditional paintings, apologize for not showing s, while those who prefer the avant-garde paintings are angry at being confronted with the s?
To be honest, as an artist and an art lover, I take the difference in behavior for granted I think that certain kinds of art are superior to others, and therefore, I nd it natural that one group has no respect for the art preferred by the other and that the latter group looks up to the art of the rst group As a social scientist however, I aroups' respective appraisals, and I desire to understand it
Is it possible that certain artworks are 'more' art than others? This depends on one's denition of art So, what is art? Although this is prob-ably the last question one would expect in a book about the economy of the arts, I intend to show that the discussion of the question is essential for the analysis of the arts economy
1
Art is What People Call Art
When I aues in the arts, ays end up in discussions about what art is and what isn't But when I a economists in the art-economics eld, we never discuss this question Likewise, in books and articles on the economics of the arts, economists seldom pay atten-tion to the denition of their subject ress of cultural econo is reputed to have replied, 'If you got to ask, you ain't never going to know'”2 Throsby then dis by this is that if you need to ask what art is, you will never know At the same ti that it is tacit knowledge; that it's not only ie into words
Not dening the subjectart always have an implicit notion of what art is and isn't in the back of their s3 For instance, in many studies on the economy of the arts no atten-tion is paid to pop ht are unclear Is it because pop music isn't art, or are there other reasons?
As an artist and art lover I want to believe that works of art are prod-ucts that have intrinsic qualities that ultimately turn the are art, others are not But if sos into art, I ues would disagree with Hence the heated discussions Evidently, contradicting views exist on what art is, and this does not help in the construction of a timeless deni-tion of art
Given these kinds of controversies, it is understandable that econo-h to make absolute statements about what art is The subject matter can also be discussed in relative terms, however How do people dene art? Do soer say in the denition of art than others? And how do these differences translate to the econo, Throsby touches upon a phenome-non that is important in the present context If Throsby had written his article on the econo was active as ais that in those daysan artist At that ti did not see himself as an artist He reat entertainer, as did his audience, but not as an artist Since then, Jazz has turned into art, even with retroactive effect So Throsby can cite Ar with no qual how the boundaries of art can change so profoundly Values have changed and so has the denition of art Back then Jazz was not considered 'real' art and now it is On the other hand, many art lovers consider the late nineteenth century Gers hardly as 'real' art anymore Thus it follows that what people call art is relative; it is not based on intrinsic qualities, as the artist inside me would like to believe