Discussions of Day 1

Replies

  • So many questions here...

    From an acitivist's perspective working with a-n's Paying Artisst campaign I would say that without an economic system that places financial value on artists to ensure they get fairly paid for their work then diversity suffers and only those artists that can afford to work for free and support themselves through other (private) means will continue to be able to practise.

    If we value the idea of social mobility in our democracy then we need to support the notion that a young person from a non-privileged background can go to art school and go on to become a working professional artist. Unfortunately, this is an ideal that is rapidly fading, driven by student debts, high costs of housing and studio rental etc. Therefore, if we want art that doesn't come from a single perspective then we should expect that the government and the various agencies that deliver government policy do all they can to support individual artists with tax breaks, grant incentives, access to benefits where necessary and not just pour money into cultural buildings and institutions. This is surely common sense.

    It is not artists asking for a special handout over other groups - the arts have always been chronically underfunded in the UK even in the best of times and this isn't the best of times! It is economic and cultural sense that if you want a healthy and vibrant artistic sector then support systems need to be in place that encourage artists to grow and prosper.

    The ways that artists make a living are many, some rely on public funding, others have jobs such as teaching, others have a commercial practice and can sell work at a profit. The point is that if we value art as a society then we need to value artists first and foremost.
    • Good point, Joseph. When I was young social mobility was normal daily life (I would not have had the opportunity to go for higher education without) - so I often wonder, how we got to this point and why.
      And the question might be: how to get back to that point?


  • Creativity is a human potential , however there are differences in this whole. An economic structure that allows anyone to develop their potential would be really wonderful. Generate substantial income is a sensitive issue to consider , many issues are rooted in the culture and believe that the state's role should be still to allow the potential of development, not being well - being a matter of removal of the financial cycle, but to allow basic questions and depth of thought, and then the question of substantial income can be solved with creative attitudes cultivation and existence , distancing us from the financial accumulation issue. While considering the important role of the state , I do not think that should be fully responsible for generating sources for creativity. Experiments edify man / woman however, the sacrifice should not be the basis for an artistic choice.

  • Being an Artist should allow anyone who seriously has considered the option to struggle and strive the same way many other professions does. Meaning this, income should be made available, and opportunities should be accessible in similar ways as for everyone out there. 
    The first question if an economic structure should be build to allow the flourishing of the idea that everyone is an artist, therefore we should create an economic structure for scientists because everyone deep down is one, and so on. Therefore, it doesn't even make sense. Art necessitate the sacrifice at each point, as every other profession does. The point is, not allowing the artists to have to sacrifice so much that at the end we will have an artist living a life lacking the dignity of a profession that can see the fruits of its work coming to be. The welfare state has always had this responsibility. But this shouldn't be the excuse for the "every artist within us" to "play" the artist and live on social support. Artists have to admit that they are living as entrepreneurs who like risking persistently. Everyone at some point has to give up or compromise to achieve and make real his/her "masterpiece". I have never seen or heard of an extraordinary person who has become such by working only 6-8 hours a day, and spend the rest of the day hanging around without purpose. With such a high insecurity out there, artists and the arts are lot more vulnerable, but it is a field that likes to be communicated as "fragile" and as "to be protected", but I believe there is much more "core" to it; ways are to be found, new ways, because the ever evolving world requires such and a lot more. 

  • All ways artists decide are good for them are legitimate. I would not preffer one situation to another. I went through all stages. Most of the time I had to survive. And I like one particular issue about it: Jose ortega y Gasset states that in times of crises you learn to swimm. And then, before drowning you hold to the buoy that will hold you above water. I see no inconvenient in taking risks and looking for the best ways to deal with life. Risk situations are = to life. It accentuates and stimulates awareness, intuition and lucidity. But I also enjoyed being able to freely do what I wanted and create some of my most fragile and delicate work.

  • My personal conclusion after reading and sharing ... Feed all people in the world first, what an elitist point of view to speak about sustain only for artist ... What a shame as an artist to consider that we have hard work and that we don't receive enough money for it , ( more taxes for paying salary to the artist, good idea for sure FN, SVP, FPö, can take it ) ... We need to build a new economic system i am totally agree, but in order that all people in the world have time to do what they want, playing football, watching series, or anything else i don't care, we have enough money in the world for doing that , and enough Artist wanting to take risk and giving for free some colors on the life of the other. JfR - AMHA ( A Mon Humble Avis. )

  • there is much art in science. At least most valuable research involves an artists regards on the matter.The scientific process is not so far from the artistic. 

  • All civil necessities need subventions: transportation, doctors, hospitals, schools, roads, in some cases housing, care of the elderly, artists, and the list can grow endlessly. As long as the one who provides the dough does not have any say in the content or the wrapping of the piece of art, there is no conflict in this. But then, I do not live in a dictatorial country.   

  • Hey Alex. Good to "see" you! I am often invited to lecture about the art/science situation. They are more alike than most people think. Both artist and scientist try to understand the world and then portray it as they see it. A scientist produces an article or a talk in a conference, which is then judged by his or her peers. An artist will end up with a painting/sculpture/dance, which will also be judged by their peers. And both worlds are very political. It's about who you know...

    Having said that, "good" science presents an argument that you may not agree with, but as long as the logic behind it is sound, it is valid. another measure of good science is the ability to repeat an experiment and come up with the same results as the first time. But how does one define good art? It is based on personal taste. I've heard my sculptures defined as modern masterpieces by one person, and "something that looks like it got hit by a truck" by another. 

  • I believe it should be possible for artists who WISH to turn the arts into a profession, to live off their arts. It is not always easy and often also requires teaching etc., but the status of the artist as a profession should be recognized and artists should be supported to be able to make their livig as far as possible. Of course there may be artists whose skills are not sufficient to really have a perspective of becoming professional artists and living of their arts. 

    What makes an "Artist"? What makes a "Professional"?

    In any case, I think it must also be possible for people who do not want to make their living with arts to express themselves artistically. I miss the education/access/participation/amateur perspective in this jam session - or I cannot see anywhere whether the expression "artist" used in most questions asked only refers to "full-time artists".

    Also those who are doing arts "just for fun" should be supported, have access and the right to express themselves artistically (and we know from research that it is actually not "just for fun" but a lot of other things happen at the same time).

This reply was deleted.

Activity wall

Natalia Skoczylas, Andreea Codreanu, Manu Willekens and 1 more joined CAE Jam Session Platform
35 minutes ago
Andreea Codreanu updated their profile photo
1 hour ago
バーダックMW Jean Moul, Rabia Muhammad, Alegria Aisha Zelva and 9 more joined CAE Jam Session Platform
16 hours ago
Rabia Muhammad updated their profile
17 hours ago
Angela Russo updated their profile
21 hours ago
David Huyghe, Vassiliki Panagiotopoulou and Michèle Delagrange joined CAE Jam Session Platform
yesterday
Tom Van Heule, Valesca Rymenants and Jordy Michiels joined CAE Jam Session Platform
Sunday
Stef Leenaerts, Dwayne Mulcahy, Nore Maes and 1 more joined CAE Jam Session Platform
Saturday
More…
Image 1