How Do Artists Get Paid?: From the Forum Discussion of Grants vs. Sales

Readers were interested in the issue of how art support shapes the art that gets made: how is sales-supported art different from grant-supported art? How is the Minnesota artworld shaped by the means of support available here? (In Minnesota, grants are more important to artists’ livelihoods than in some other places, such as, say, Los Angeles or Santa Fe, where sales are far more important than they are here. Art sales in Minnesota have never been what it seems they could be, given the level of support that people avow for the arts and the demographics of the state. What does this mean for the types or qualities of art found here? Here’s the discussion, featuring the artists Lauren DeSteno, Ray Rolfe, Dale Snyder, Sam Spiczka, and Jaime Longoria; to access it in its original form go to .

Lauren De Steno

Ann – a week or so ago you posted that you were working on a piece that explored the differences between grant-funded art works and non-grant funded art works (pieces that perhaps have to be saleable).

How is it going? I am interested in your research and conclusions. Care to share?

And since this is the “Feedback on Articles” thread, perhaps sharing a bit of your writing process would be interesting to the rest of us.

Lauren

Ann Klefstad

Lauren–When I said “working on some features” I meant mostly commissioning other writers to work on articles. Though I do write as well, I try to avoid posting too many of my own pieces on mnartists, so as to increase the number and variety of voices on the site. I will be doing an interview on this topic, though, and I’d like to gather enough information to generate an editorial on the subject.

My writing process? I run across things, they make me think, and I write down what I think. Mostly. (I am also working, at the moment, on a big prose-poem/fiction thing, a sort of “Paris Spleen” for rural Minnesota. Woo hoo.)

For instance, the germ of this grants/sales idea is from my previous residence in Los Angeles as contrasted with my life here–art in LA is almost completely sales-supported; in Minnesota, things are more grants-oriented. Granted, the times are different, but I’ve been watching what’s coming out of LA and it’s not _that_ different from when I was there. Another seed for this idea is Dave Hickey’s idea that art is made better by the strong desire of people for it–that is, if the primary mechanism of support for art is that people desire it enough to pay actual cash money for it, then the art and artists that survive are probably going to be pretty good; if they’re not, no one will part with that cash money. Grants money, on the other hand, is there for whatever turns up–of course, the process is highly selective, not just any crap gets funded, but the mechanism of relation between money, desire, and art is different in a grants economy. There are other indexes of difference as well–grants-funded art tends to be by intention and selection what you might call pro-social–seen as good for people. Sales-funded art needs to address not needs but wants–it tends to be more involved with appetites, prettier or more beautiful, sexier, tastier, that sort of thing.

Different ideas are engaged by the two structures as well. If you’ve ever read a final report form and answered those questions, think about the contrast between those goals and the goals of a painting that you bought because you couldn’t stand to live without it. They’re different.

I do think both forms of funding are good; I think we could do with a more sales-driven artworld in MN.

Shit. Now I’ve gone and stepped on my own lines. Lauren, you are so naughty.

AK

Ray Rolfe

Ahh very insightfull Ann. Thank you.

~R

Dale Snyder

Sales. Yes, sales are good.

Sam Spiczka

So, what you’re saying is, if I can make my sculptures tastier, I will sell more of them?

I am intrigued by the difference between sales/grant funded art. I agree that we need to increase the amount of “sales” funded art here. The main problem seems to be that people overwhelmingly purchase works in the below-$1000 range. How do we increase the public’s willingness to go out on the line for $5-$20,000? Is the problem the quality of work available in that range or is it the collector’s unwillingness (or lack of educational confidence) to assess the value of expensive works?

In the final analysis, perhaps our work does just have to be sexier.

Sam

Lauren De Steno

Thanks Ann, for the insight. Sorry for being naughty.

Ironically, I was out journaling on these topics today because I was particularly bothered by a grant award I heard about.

I agree – unlike NY or LA, MN relies on grant funding to make art possible. The culture here is fundamentally different. There is an overwhelming sentiment in the MN population that enjoys the idea of an “Arts State” as part of our “Quality of Life”. We are willing to endure higher taxes and make modest personal charitible contributions to arts organizations because it is their job to make art possible here – they have the expertise. And that’s not sexy. It’s practical. It’s Minnesotan.

It’s terribly civilized, logical, and you’d think it would work *really well. The artists are free (somewhat) from the marketplace and the consumers get to be “nice” – they don’t accept or reject art, they just passively fund it cause, well, it’s “nice”. It effectively removes MN artists and the general population from the vibrant and often messy economic process of having art in a community. And so you wind up with hotdish, I guess?

Another issue – having our money filtered cleanly through arts organizations forces them to perform a balancing act: support local artists or bring in “groundbreaking” work from other parts of the country/world.

I believe that part of the mission of an arts institution is to bring to their residents new art and new viewpoints – which can mean bringing in national/international artists. How often do they buy into the fame of NY and LA – picking exhibitions that bring prestige to their organization, allowing them to ride on the coat tails of the “sexy beast”? Do they feel forced into bringing “sexy” shows to Minneapolis in order to appease their well-to-do donors who like a big famous/fancy party – donors who could easily give their money to another institution? Everyone likes to feel sexy and contemporary.

How often is this at the expense of regional artists? Can it be viewed as such?

I know these statements won’t make me very popular… I guess I am a little dis-illusioned with the grant process right now.

Responses, anyone?

PS – Old Man Coyote, where have you gone? (Sanopi)

Sam Spiczka

“I know these statements won’t make me very popular… I guess I am a little disillusioned with the grant process right now.”

Yeah, nobody likes it when you state the obvious. Elephant? there is no elephant here…

You seem to combine exhibitions and the sale/creation of works by individuals. Are both of these included under the headline of “funding” artists? I guess I instinctively thought “funding” fell under the heading of direct grants. (Probably because of setting this up as a public/private dichotomy that Ann did. General collectors usually don’t set up exhibitions, they just buy the stuff and have people over for coffee.)

Direct grants for individuals is actually an incredibly small percentage of the state arts budget. The rest of it goes to administration and “educational” activities. So, even the state/regional arts boards, to me, do not actually fund that much work relative to their size. Don’t get me wrong, there are better grants here than a lot of other places. All this to me is a strong argument for increasing the number of direct sales to strengthen the arts base.

Exhibitions are nice, but they don’t pay the bills. And when you get down to it, what we are talking about here is paying the bills.

Perhaps artists are to blame in the sense that we will often use our energies taking part in shows and setting up exhibitions (which really do not make artists money) at the expense of actively trying to “sell.” There is alot of prestige in being in a show.

When selling something is considered as big an accomplishment as exhibiting it, we will probably do better.

How’s that for being unpopular?

Sam

Jaime Longoria

>It’s terribly civilized, logical, and you’d think it
> would work *really well. The artists are free
> (somewhat) from the marketplace and the consumers get
> to be “nice” – they don’t accept or reject art, they
> just passively fund it cause, well, it’s “nice”. It
> effectively removes MN artists and the general
> population from the vibrant and often messy economic
> process of having art in a community. And so you wind
> up with hotdish, I guess?

I love you! It is passive/aggressive. And it destroys the drive to excellence of those artists it benefits the most. Fallon’s review of the “Grotto” perhaps illustrates what is wrong with the “hotdish” approach to art support. The artist; given great funding, platform and attention produces bad art. The critic is compelled to “like” it in spite of the certain knowledge that it is bad art.

>
> Another issue – having our money filtered cleanly
> through arts organizations forces them to perform a
> balancing act: support local artists or bring in
> “groundbreaking” work from other parts of the
> country/world.
>

In rural terms it is like bringing in a Champion sire and parading him through the grounds and hoping that insemination magically occurs via imagery.

Breeding after all is far too messy and gross for the MN mindset.

> I believe that part of the mission of an arts
> institution is to bring to their residents new art
> and new viewpoints – which can mean bringing in
> national/international artists. How often do they buy
> into the fame of NY and LA – picking exhibitions
> that bring prestige to their organization, allowing
> them to ride on the coat tails of the “sexy beast”?
> Do they feel forced into bringing “sexy” shows to
> Minneapolis in order to appease their well-to-do
> donors who like a big famous/fancy party- – donors who
> could easily give their money to another institution?
> Everyone likes to feel sexy and contemporary.

Not the Coyote. Glitz offends me. And there is effectively no “contemporary” . Much of what is brought to the MN scene is second string to its first venue.

I do not blame the Institutions; it is the artists that sit on the advisory committees who are to blame for the decision to make MN a backwater stop on the path to global fame. Too many are sold on the idea of “networking” their way to NY/LA/SF etc.

We need to call for “integrity” in who one is as an artist. If you are from MN then make art “of” MN.

[. . . . ] you all have spoken the words I would have ( coyote en vapor)

con hermanidad
Jaime

Jaime Longoria (Coyote 256)

On the unpopular art of elephant hunting in a hotdish state that has plumb run out of money!

Junk all art funding and start again to support the building of a “Arts Industry in Minnesota”. The AIM program. A ten year funding of efforts that create markets and venues for the self sustaining activities of Artists state wide. Require harsh accountability of utilization of dollars and statistical validation of equitable distribution of resources and benefits.

Require that the system improve through a quality program on a quarterly basis with wedsite reporting to the artists of MN.

I know I am unpopular but who cares; I am an artist,

coyote 256

Sam Spiczka

This site could be a catalyst for a strong arts industry. A couple really smart modifications that make it easy for collectors to log on (perhaps an Amazon like function: collectors who purchased Jon Doe’s art also bought A, B, C…) combined with an actual bricks and mortar gallery or informational building (with selected works and high-speed computers hooked up to the site for free. Free coffee too, yeah, that’s the ticket!) could work quite well.

[ . . . . ]

Sam

How do you think art is best supported? Post your ideas to the forum (click link at the end of this article) and let’s continue this discussion. Stay tuned for interviews in this space with gallerists and funders on the question of how best to pay artists for making the art we love.