Yesterday, the AGYU (Art Gallery of York University) released their long-awaited Waging Culture Report, which surveys visual artists living in Canada (who voluntarily took the survey) for demographic and statistical data. The aim of the report was to offer data to governmental bodies and cultural policy planners since a nation-wide survey of this kind has not been completed since 1993.
results to create the USA’s Most Wanted Painting, 1992,
from diacenter.org
The statistics that have resulted from the survey run the gamut from interesting and idiosyncratic to downright depressing. Some findings of note:
– Day jobs and grants are still getting the average artist by, while their studio practice is often an expense rather than a revenue generator: In fact, the typical artist lost $556 from their studio practice in 2007. The vast majority of an artist’s studio revenue is from sales (54%), with grants (34%) and artist fees (12%) making up the rest. Expenses that exceed an artist’s revenue are covered by other employment income.
– Visual artists have higher levels of education than the general population, but this is often directly disproportionate to their artistically-generated income: Over 84% have at least an undergraduate degree, and almost 45% have graduate degrees (compared to 23% and 7% of the total labour force, respectively). The higher an artist’s education level, the less they earn from their practice after expenses; other income sources, however, do increase proportionately to the levels of education.
– Some sort-of good news: Artists in Quebec earn the largest net income from their studio practices (median: $1,383) and those in Alberta lose the most (median: -$2,000). Ironically, artists in Quebec have the lowest total income (median: $15,089)
– And: The wage gap between male and female artists is significantly lower than in the labour force as a whole, a mere 10% for artists versus 36% for the total labour force. The difference in sales, however, is a full 48%.
While I know the methodology of the report has sometimes been controversial, and I’m a little wary of framing other forms of work and income that are not derived from a studio as “non-art related work,”* I think it’s important for the AGYU and Michael Maranda to devote time and effort to try and insert this information into the discourse about art, money and funding in Canada. Sometimes the only way to get your voice in to all the bureaucratic rhetoric is to speak the same language.
* While I firmly believe artists need the financial stability, time and space to be able to make the kind of work they want to make and do the research necessary to continue their practice, I’m not convinced that devoting time and effort to other projects – like desk jobs in the arts or elsewhere, writing gigs and curating – necessarily detracts from their practice or whether it instead informs and can be an extension of their studio practice. This is coming from an admitted workaholic, but I’m interested in the boundaries in the art world between “real work” and “art work” and whether those really hold up when tested.
Michael Maranda weighed in via email:
Hey, Gabby,
Thanks for the blog post … I appreciate it.
I do agree, reservedly, on the role of day-job to practice question. We all feed off of what we do, but I think it’s important to make a separation when it comes to questions of money, particularly when speaking to policy. The fact that we have day-jobs (and, if we prorated the amount that artists earn from those day-jobs to full time employment, many would have comfortable livings. Not yet solidly middle class, probably, but certainly much higher than they are now) cannot take the place of solid support for the arts and coherent policy decisions that take into account the situation of the primary producers who are located, at least according to the rhetoric out there, at the centre of the ‘creative economy.’ Assuming, of course, that the arts are considered relevant and useful to the civil society.
As for the intermingling of artists and various other employment … that then becomes a question of the various avenues that the ideas and approaches of artists take in engaging in society more broadly. The gallery, public or private, is an important loci for the presentation of ideas, thoughts, and research (the peer review journal of visual arts) but it can’t be the only engagement of a vibrant and healthy arts discourse if the intent of a practice is to negotiate thinking about the world. That it happens, often, in part-time employment situations is to me the only side benefit of a lack of financial security for practicing artists as a sector.