ON MONEY AND ART AND A GENERAL STATEMENT AGAINST THE GENERAL NEGATIVE NANCY STATUS QUO
If I can't exorcise I can perhaps at least create a distance between me and them - to keep my own head straight. I am convinced that thoughts, or thought patterns, are contagious, and I simply don't want to contract the disease.
//During the weekend I had the opportunity to participate in a talk about ART and MONEY (a good old seemingly inexhaustible topic). Thankfully I took some things with me this time; as it so happened I had spent the previous evening with the moderator JWF contemplating the issues he wanted to bring forward. > His thesis (if taking the liberty) was basically that cultural workers/producers/activists constantly struggle with problems of funding. The word "funding" here suggests stipends, funding or support given by national or international government institutions. As a consequence of the recent economic crisis and a general shift towards a more neoliberal/ conservative/right-wing politics all over Europe, we should not expect there to be more funding in the future. On the contrary, we should prepare for there being less money. Thus we ought to look into new strategies - and he was specifically pointing towards (what I call) crazy artsy money making schemes. Basically; we are smart and creative - if the finance and tech people can do this, so can we.
Just to keep track, we made a mind-map over some different strategies that are used today:
- Popularized events with ie entry fees
- External sources (individual: freelancing/ part time jobs or collective: ie restaurants, mini-cinema etc)
- Funding: public/ corporate/ crowd-
- Crazy artsy money making scemes CAMMS like engaging with Bitcoin/ organized lottery/ stocks/ Robin Hood etc.
We also looked at the arguments against/ potential obstacles:
- Engaging with capitalism would suggest ethical compromises that might be contrary to the purpose of the artistic practise.
- "We dont have the time or the money"
- Meritocracy: The system is a selection process, a "survival of the fittest". This suggest the assumptions that a) there are too many artists and cultural producers for what the society needs or can support, and b) that there are no other ways to evaluate and select good art than the juries of the public financing institutions
- That if we can fund our work in other ways the funding will be cut even more (aaarhg!)
- That if we can fund our work in other ways the funding will be cut even more (aaarhg!)
In my opinion there are two major problems with the present status quo of relying mainly on government funding (because I would say that there is such a status quo; admitting to a part-time job is like admitting a major failure, and there is a strong assumption that the "thing you are" is based primarily on where the money comes from*).
The first problem is: VICTIMISATION: We do actually have the option to refuse the dependency to government funding and create new systems for financing our practises or art spaces. Perhaps this means that we must divide our time and engage more with the rest of society. For some reason many culture producers seem to prefer being dependent to considering the options (so in the end they just sitting on their ass complaining - haha, this is like a crash course in how to make enemies in the art scene..). Why? Is it because there is someone to blame? That its safer to be restricted by an outside institution than taking on the full responsibility for doing what is necessary to continue ones practise?
1) If it is an ego issue it should definitely be overcome,
2) And honestly, we already do divide our time, as friends, and lovers and parents and secret part-timers.
3) And perhaps it would be good both for us and the rest of society if there were some more interfaces to meet.
One can also ask the uncomfortable but relevant question why the the big population should pay for something that most often than not is produced by a group of culturally active people for the same group of culturally active people. One could also ask why we should produce stuff to support an enormous (art)market of relatively well-paid individuals whilst we still struggle to barely get by. In regards to these questions one could suggest different forms of internal markets/ exchanges/ alternative currencies - simply to keep the money within that small group of culturally active people who actually cares. It would be cool to discuss that with an economist. Anyhow. The situation as it is leads to the other major problem of:
INDEBTMENT: The taxpayers expect something back for their money ie that we produce art that they can understand or are interested in. Honestly I don't think thats all that strange, but since I'm personally tired of explaining what I do to people who care little and know less, I simply prefer to make my own money. As soon as you get government funding you need to adapt to their guidelines and to some degree be responsive to people about what you do.
Anyhow. The talk was only one hour (what do you manage to do in one hour?) and I doubt anything changed because of it. My friend JWF also said another thing that I find very true:
ARTISTS ARE OFTEN VERY CONSERVATIVE
Yes. Few people seem interested in refusing dependency to the government funding systems. Few people that I meet can talk about their parttime job without wanting to place guilt somewhere about the funding that ought to have been given to them. If they talk about their parttime job at all. More people are openly patronizing or snobbish to those other cultural activists who try to manage outside of the commercial systems. And all this is very tiring and ridiculous. So yes, this is my statement against the general Negative Nancy STATUS QUO. Dear cultural- and activist colleagues - Get over yourself, and your self righteous attitude and grandios idea of self worth, and just let yourself be entertained. Find new ways and strategies to fill the gaps where the current system doesn't work for you, and drop the judgemental crap about other peoples choices. Im sure we would all have more fun that way.
* I have btw worked out my own definition after getting fed up with people asking me "if I live off my art practise" with a blasé smirk as if to say that I wouldn't be for real if I didn't. Basically I consider the answer to the question of "what are you" to be the activity around which you organize the rest of your life. In my case it is my art practise. For someone else it might be there career in politics or being a dad.
Whatever you do to support yourself economically whilst doing that important thing is irrelevant. A person isn't necessarily a cleaner regardless of how many hours they spend cleaning. Etc.
Stockholm
14-02-18
14-02-18
