Corruption in the arts

Oh, you guys.
I’ve waited years to post anything about this, cause of all the fury. Also cause I didn't wanna get blacklisted. I still don't, but I give many less cares.

I have a lil pet peeve. Or maybe that’s not the right phrase… it’s like a- like when a shitty parent gives their three-year-old Mountain Dew rather than milk or water. And not just once,- as a matter of course. Modus operandi: Mountain Dew in a sippy cup.

And then the parent gets way too defensive when the fact of their child’s pre-diabetes or malnutrition or rotten teeth get brought up. Like screaming-in-a-Wal-mart-parking-lot, jabbing-their-lit-cigarette-at-you level aggressive.  

It’s like that.

Except instead of a three-year-old, insert Artist. And the role of parent tonight will be played by an Arts Advocacy Organization.

Like corruption in politics, it’s this thing exists so completely in all areas of the art realm that very few people actually notice it; like the wallpaper.

Pictured: Insidious corruption.

I think we’re all familiar with the concept of people trying to “pay” artists with exposure. My response to most of these is bye felicia. Please wash hands after using the restroom.

Typical exchange.

Far more egregious, however, is when those people who claim to be advocates for the arts pull the exact. same. shit.

They should know better. 

So when I received this mass email from an arts advocacy group,- with which I was a paying member,- 

Logo Contest!

[Generic Arts Advocacy Org] would like a new logo.  We had one specifically for the 50th anniversary; but now would like a generic one.   So get out your pens, pencils, markers, paints etc:   and design a logo for [Generic Arts Advocacy Org].

I responded to the group heads with a one-line y’all should know better, and my phone exploded. Behold the 11-part text response from the acting president:

So maybe contest wasn't the 'correct' word. There is a dedicated group of people out there that are trying their hardest to bring awareness of the arts to our community with the limited resources they have! 

Trying to redefine ourselves with a visual identity on a 'scrape-by' financial situation is not a crime and I take offense that some might think that we are trying to exploit an artist out of some financial gain! 

Week after week many in the group continue to labor over how to be more inclusive and meet the needs of the local arts community! POSITIVE, CONSTRUCTIVE input is always welcome!

I agree that the majority of artists don't get paid enough for the time and creativity they put into their art. [Generic Arts Advocacy Org] is not some individual or business out there trying to get something for nothing. We are a 'club' organization that is trying to  provide a service to the community by continuing to bring awareness of artists like you. 

We don't have unlimited funds to commission an artist to design a logo. We are just trying to stay afloat because of things like; now we can't even have a show at many places because we have to buy liability insurance that will cost several hundred dollars a year! 

We were just looking for help and input from other local artists. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water! 

Oh yeah, I totally see how being paid in 'exposure' via a club is 100% different to being paid in 'exposure' via an individual. I decided to graciously not mention that the group heads decided they wanted a new logo on a whim.

In response, I sent him this email:

Okay, now that I’ve got a keyboard in front of me I can be more verbose. [Generic Arts Advocacy Head], I’m interested in your responses, especially as they relate to you as president of an arts advocacy group and a longtime arts board member. 

But first, the issue at hand.

Artists should be paid for their work. Full stop, period. I give zero shits about how noble or deserving or whatever your organization is. If an artist chooses to donate work, that’s different; key words being choose and donate. Other equally important words in this scenario include tax deduction and in-kind contribution.

But we’re not talking about that, we’re talking about a self-professed arts advocacy group asking for free labor in one of the most exploitative ways possible and then using arts advocacy as an excuse for exploiting artists.

To quote, “Trying to redefine ourselves with a visual identity on a 'scrape-by' financial situation is not a crime and I take offense that some might think that we are trying to exploit an artist out of some financial gain!”

You ([Generic Arts Advocacy Org]) are absolutely exploiting artists. That is literally the definition of what you’re doing. It doesn’t mean it’s necessarily sinister, but it is exploitation. You’re using all the resources available to you, and that’s fine. You’re also absolutely doing it for financial gain. Yes, you’re doing it to stay afloat, and that’s still financial gain. You are gaining your choice of logos from a stable of artists who used their accumulated skill, education, materials and time to create a product you will use, benefit from, and not pay for.

Again,- literally the definition of financial gain.

But that’s not what bothers me.
The fact that I have to defend an artist’s right to wages for services rendered to an arts advocacy group should give you some insight into where I’m coming from. In this culture, art creation is a non-job. It’s fun, so it couldn’t possibly be deserving of payment. Never mind that the marketable stuff requires hundreds of thousands of dollars of education, thousands of dollars of equipment and an incalculable amount of skill. Never mind that the people who ask for free art never ask some schmuck on the street; it’s always the people with hundreds of thousands of dollars of education, thousands of dollars of equipment and an incalculable amount of skill.

It’s the people who do it for their job.

Now here’s the thing about doing it for your job: someone has to pay you at some point.

Ooo I get mad just copy-pasting that. And I'm not using this exchange to shake my finger at this group specifically; I'm using it because it's written down. This exact thing has happened to me, and likely all artists, many times. It is the corruption of the very organizations that claim to protect and promote us.

Sometimes it's something little, like a logo. Or, as I encountered just last month, an artist will quietly be "strongly encouraged" to "donate" a large formal piece, and in exchange, the artist gets on the short list to exhibit. Um, hi? Isn't your mission statement to give local artists a low-cost place to exhibit? Funny, I never hear the word extortion at those hoity-toity patron fundraiser banquets.

Unrelated: possibly the best name for a catering company.

Too often I have found that arts advocacy organizations work tirelessly to promote... arts advocacy organizations. Artists are the means to an end,- and that end typically doesn't include an artist being paid for labor. It generally looks more like federal grants and generous philanthropists covering operating costs.

And, as you can see in the exchange above, such do-gooding, for-my-benefit groups cannot be called out on this behavior. Their do-goodingness negates reproach, they say.

Don't get me wrong, there are some supremely excellent advocacy groups out there. There are also bottom-feeding chum-suckers preying on artists' desperation to be recognized. Because if you're as infrequently paid as artists, it's all too easy to forget the point of working is not marketing, but to pay your goddamn bills.