Cait forwarded me an article that was published in this morning’s Globe and Mail based on a report recently published by the Hamilton-based consultancy group Hill Strategies that aimed to create “a statistical profile of the country’s artists.”

From www.theglobeandmail.com

The results are probably unsurprising to anyone who has ever worked in the arts, though it was sort of shocking to see that systemic discrepancies in pay and net income are represented in the arts just as they are in every other sector, including this rather sad tidbit:

“According to the Hill study, the poorest-paid Canadian artist category is that of female visual artist, with average earnings in 2005 of $11,421, closely followed by female artisan/craftsperson ($12,307), female musician/singer ($12,449), and female dancer ($12,502).”

Or this gem:

“Aboriginal artists are especially poor earners – just $15,900 on average, 30-per-cent lower than the average for all artists.”

Tracey Emin, I’ve got it all, 2000

What I’ve found genuinely surprising about the Globe‘s online story is the incredible number of comments (93 the last time I checked!) that have been posted in response to the report. For the most part, the responses seem to hinge on whether or not the government “owes” the artists more grant or subsidy money, and contrarily whether artists should “expect” to make a living wage doing something they’ve “chosen” to do. While I know that the topic of the extent to which the government is responsible for supporting the arts is often a heated one because it is based in some pretty fundamental beliefs about the role of the state and the importance of culture and the arts to larger society, I find all the rhetoric of entitlement and choice really tired. Really, for most Globe readers and responders, no one has “put a gun to their head,” forcing them to do the job they are in. And, whether you have a full-time day job that you don’t love but that gets you by, or if you’re working part-time to try and supplement your artmaking, doesn’t everyone think they are entitled to make a living wage in some form or another?

I think what most interests me with these sorts of responses is how they do not consider cultural jobs work or labour, but instead leisure activities which people who decide to call themselves artists then devote too much time to. Especially since many art practices since the 1960s have increasingly resembled, involved or incorporated the everyday activities many people take up at their paid jobs on a daily basis – the kind of labour that looks like work and is often rewarded by a salary.

I’m optimistic that the AGYU’s Waging Culture report will be a bit more thorough, especially since they’re taking into account the difference between income derived from artistic practice vs. from a “day job” and the amount of time devoted to artistic production.