How can artists command the same job security as arts administrators?

The following summarises discussion around one of 20 topics put forward at the March 08 BSide Wellington Independent Theatre Practitioners Forum. Please add to this discussion. For more information on BSide please see the forum discussion "About BSide".

Title: How Can Artists Command The Same Job Security As Arts Administrators?

Convenor: Thomas LaHood

List of Participants: Alan, Andrew, Mel, Miriama, Morgan, Noel, Anne, Sarah, Faye, Rhys, Jean, Diane, Rosemary, Darrell

Discussion and recommendations:

Provocation comes from a comment heard in passing, noting the amount of
arts administrators publicly advocating the arts. Why is it that these same people are paid and supported to visit festivals etc, when the very same artists they champion struggle to stay afloat?

Administrators are attached to a business model - they understand financial systems, where artists often do not. A fundamental difference is that administrators are employed to do their job in contrast to independent artists who may be working project to project and unpaid in between.

It"s important to recognise that administrators are often electing to work in this sector over more lucrative employ in the commercial realm, and do so because they are committed to championing the arts. There is no doubt that they deserve whatever security their jobs provide.

The frustration for artists is that they can approach their work as professionals, even gain critical success, and still be going back to the breadline between projects.

Some overlap here with the roles of producers discussed in other groups - a need for more scouts, agents and brokers out there connecting artists with opportunities.

Artists also choose to be independent - and there is a value (non-financial) to this freedom. But it is also sometimes a hard, sometimes unbearable road, and it requires sacrifice.

The value of the artist"s craft was discussed, along with the perception by society of that value and the value of other roles of the artist, ie providing opinions. However it"s clear that artistic value will never fit a business model, due to such paradoxes as the need for failure.

There is a need for infrastructures that support artists - such as the touring circuits discussed elsewhere - but also at the level of Government support. Why is the PACE scheme so unsuccessful? Is there no way artists can demonstrate a certain level of practise in order to qualify for a breadline subsidy?

Many of these questions, it was found, surround the cultural value of arts specific to New Zealand. Much discussion about the relative cultural appreciation of sports compared to arts. It is clear that the long view is required - the view to education, advocacy, and articulate lobbying.

B-Side represents a positive beginning to the lobbying process. Union support exists in the form of Actors Equity (Australian) - but it seems New Zealand actors are not taking it up. Also, independent practitioners benefit more from advocacy than unions.

Initiatives like Artists in Schools were commended, and it was mentioned that arts education seems to be improving in general.
A current "battleground" for the value of artists is in the media, and this is perhaps where we can make a change in the immediate present. We need to lobby for more and better arts coverage and also to be open to "putting ourselves out there" - ie to be better at taking criticism.

In many ways the discussion revolved around paradigmatic and cultural issues that can only change over time, and perhaps are already doing so. What we can improve now as artists is to promote ourselves and have confidence in the value of what we do, to actively seek advocacy on our behalf from administration and existing infrastructure, and take advantage of opportunities like B-Side to articulate clear needs for further infrastructure developments.