Astronomic
prices go around for pieces of art, collectors can make a fortune by buying and
selling art, but how about the artists? They have a relatively low income and
often have to take a second job to make
a living.
Although
artists tend to care more about the personal satisfaction they get from making
art than about their income, a welfare state cannot allow these group of
professionals to receive a much lower income than other professionals do. Apparently
the poverty in arts seems to be structural.
Benefits
and subsidies can inject more money into the arts, but this primarily
leads to more artists and does not higher the income.
Other schemes
were invented in an attempt to amortize the situation of the artists. In
the Netherlands there were the ‘Beeldend kunstenaars regeling’ and the ‘wet
inkomensvoorziening kunstenaars’. Those resulted in a higher number of
artists or artists quitting second jobs
to have more time to paint. So all of these schemes turned out to be
ineffective.
In fact
artists who cannot make a living by painting need to be seen as consumers who
spend money on their hobby instead of
producers.
Ward Van
der Gucht
Hans Abbing,2011, a handbook of cultural economics, p437-444.
http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/802/TOWSE%20EBOOK_pages0449-0456.pdf
I think this article is very interesting because of the point of view. We all know that enormous amounts of money go round in the arts sector, but apparently some artists even have to take a second job to earn their living. This means that the talent to sell the art has way a bigger impact on the prices than the talent to create the art itself, which I find quiet a shocking conclusion.
BeantwoordenVerwijderenRenaat Pieters