Taonga Whanau Secrets Revealed
Forum > Rants
by Artbasher 20 Sep 2005 11:45 pm
3 Comments
Article of the Month September 2005
If you are not a regular reader, you should check out my original review of Taonga Whanau before proceeding.
The University of Canterbury responded to my request for information regarding Taonga Whanau at SOFA gallery. There was no rat and no smoking gun. These are the facts.
Taonga Whanau FACTS:
SOFA Support Trust spent around $5,000 on the show. This covered materials (MDF and Perspex), printing, travel and accommodation for the artists.
The Christchurch Arts Festival paid the artists' fees - $800 each for a total of $2,400.
The University of Canterbury spent nothing. That is technically true, but not actually –some of the data-projectors were borrowed from them at no charge. This costs the university money, but it leaves no record of them spending it.
Average SOFA Show FACTS:
The average SOFA budget is approximately $3,000 per show. About half of this goes on printing, writers and designers fees, $500 for and artist fee and the remainder on incidental expenses and materials.
MORAL:
So nothing happened right? SOFA did not do anything "wrong" and neither did the university. Maybe SOFA Support Trust spent a bit too much on a mediocre show, but that's their prerogative, as it's their money. The Christchurch Arts Festival simply paid the artists the same as they paid all the artists in the festival.
HOWEVER:
But I'm still not satisfied. It's taken me a while to work out why. What I guess I was hoping to find was some ridiculous amount of money the university had spent, then I could squarely point the finger and say, "Shame on you for spending so much money on crappy art." But I can't say that. The money came from several different sources – The SOFA Support Trust is private money, raised mostly from selling art through the SOFA Print Project earlier this year. The Christchurch Arts Festival received money from both corporate sponsorship and CNZ.
Can I complain that they were paid more than other artists at SOFA are paid? How can I say that $500 is more justified than $800? What about $2,400, or $10,000, or even $100,000 for that matter. The justification for public spending on art seems to be to increase the amount and quality of art New Zealander's have
That's interesting. I hadn't realised it was part of the festival, probably because it carried on quite some time afterwards. That kind of makes sense then, as a show it was VERY earnest and read in the context of Applaud 2005 was intended to a appeal to certain kind of audience: politicians and other assorted powerful. The opening night at CoCA was much the same and consistent in overall theme with Taonga Whanau.
In terms of Taonga Whanau, you have already negated liberal argument 1. As for liberal argument 2, I don't think it applies because I didn't think TW all that 'deep' as such, though pleasant enough - but as I wan't to avoid using the 'M' word and sounding like Don Brash, perhaps we could say that the aspect that appealed to CNZ, the festival organisers and the University may have been that it was 'cultural'and 'cultural' contemporary art is often short on the ground in Christchurch. And South Island curators notoriously panic and fall to pieces whenever the 'M' word is mentioned because 'M' arn't very visible down here. But as the festival is about entertaining the public rather than challenging it (not always a bad thing under the circumstances - more flies with honey etc) it seems appropriate.
The problem with your Renaissance analogy is that most of the big art patrons then were incredibly sophisticated, educated, rich, worldly people and thus immediately in touch with, if not dictating, the art of the time. Even Michelangelo had to do what Julius II told him to do, but Julius was sympathetic to his talent. By the way, actually the Sistine was frequently in use for public ceremonies. Most ducal, papal etc palaces also functioned to an extent as public places and centres of government, so they did have an eye to impressing the punters with their immortal fame and glory. Sadly in out Democratic and venal age, the same conditions are not easily available.
Artists getting paid is not something to complain about.
There is no arguing about the the lack of taste or actual concern that any instituion actually has. That includes art schools and the public of any show at any given time.
The sad thing is You. That you argue that artists shouldn't be paid and your sad and pathetic moralising about it clearly shows that you really are in denial of the economic realities artists face. Go get mom to pay for your food and rent and leave those working the least paid profession in the world alone.
By the way...
Over 80% of government funding of the arts does not go to artists anyway. If an artist sells through a gallery they front up the time to make the work and the materiails and then give the gallery 30 to 50% of the cost of selling the work to the gallery who represents them.
Embarrassed for you
But only when they provide something of value to another who is willing to exchange their hard earned money for it. Anything else, such as government funding for artists who otherwise would have to find something useful to do, is the actual "denial of the economic realities that artists face." Artists should not be paid by decree from someone who did not earn and does not respect the money they are paying with. Artists getting paid to make bad and mediocre art is absolutely something to complain about, critique and if possible change.
My main point in this article is that government funded artworks, galleries and artists are inferior to those produced by the free market. I think you need to address this issue first. Should we pay for bad art just to keep those people in their jobs? To support their inferior products and talents? Bad artists or institutions don't deserve to be paid for what they produce, and good artists will always succeed. I'm an artist too BTW ;)
