On the basic income: first if you like the arts please reply to the public consultaion questionnaire. It takes less than a minute. Even if you dont like it please reply.
The basic income pilot over the last 3 years was very successful in my opinion. It showed clearly that artists with some financial security could be more ambitious with their work - even if that was simply investing in a bigger canvas. This is quite literally true because if you only have a few quid you cannot really justify 200 on a large canvas. Artists i know who recieved the basic income in the pilot, quite literally painted bigger and bolder. I could actually see the change in their work. And they began to put decent prices on their work and actually sell.
Meanwhile As a fairly established artist many people assume i have no financial worries but actually it is a very precarious existence. I applied for the basic income along with 8000 others. Only 2000 were chosen by lottery.
I applied because i during the pandemic i got the pandemic payment and i can tell you i really enjoyed the few months where there was money coming in every week regardless. This was the first time for this in twenty years (except during recession).
I am a freelancer basically in my late 50s. And so are many people. But quite a lot of freelance jobs are necessities- plumbing, electricians etc. but art is effectively a luxury item - so sometimes there is no demand. If the phone doesnt ring or there are no sales i can quite literally be down to my last few hundred in the bank. I still shudder when i think of 2009-10. No sales for two years. I had to sign on. That was the other time i had regular money coming in. But it was degrading. I was assesed and asked would i retrain. I am and was one of the best portrait painters and painters in ireland- i had had 15 solo shows by 2008, several in museums. Is a country seriously going to let that kind of talent be retrained to be a joiner? At 40? Itd be like asking a concert pianist to learn how to type. All for a lousy 40 grand a year. (Basic income is about half that btw).
And this is what a basic income for artists would do - it would stop artists and people in music and theatre and literature signing on. Which every artist did as a matter of routine in the 80s and 90s and well beyond. So this in fact led to an assumption within the arts that you were signing on so you might be asked to help out painting sets for a theatre company or playing a gig in an arts frstival but offered 50 quid for the week. This has in turn led to a sort of “free” arts economy so that even the arts council has instituted a “pay the artist” policy. Because the amounts even from the arts council grants are not really realistic incomes. A long way off the esri average annual wage.
So the 325 a week would go a long way to giving some security and underlying strength to our arts sector without the indignity of signing on and pretending to seek work. It would actually be better for the books - it would be an honest accounting.
And i believe the basic income scheme for artists should be universal. So that the criteria for recieving it have a fairly low bar to allow the very young to avail of it. Or maybe there could be a bias towards early career artists. Not age, because a lot of women rejoin the art world later in life. so i think a simple track record in the arts sector you are in should be enough to secure it for 5 years and it could be renewed ad infinitum. The only reason it would stop is if you switch career. To something secure like plumbing or undertaking... ha
My daughter did her thesis on universal basic income for all. She remarked disparagingly that is was interesting that they ran the pilot scheme for artists. Why i asked? Because it doesnt matter if artists turn up for work or not. Whereas if they ran a basic income pilot scheme for refuse collectors…
Now i do think it matters that art is made but it is also true what she is saying…
The basic income pilot over the last 3 years was very successful in my opinion. It showed clearly that artists with some financial security could be more ambitious with their work - even if that was simply investing in a bigger canvas. This is quite literally true because if you only have a few quid you cannot really justify 200 on a large canvas. Artists i know who recieved the basic income in the pilot, quite literally painted bigger and bolder. I could actually see the change in their work. And they began to put decent prices on their work and actually sell.
Meanwhile As a fairly established artist many people assume i have no financial worries but actually it is a very precarious existence. I applied for the basic income along with 8000 others. Only 2000 were chosen by lottery.
I applied because i during the pandemic i got the pandemic payment and i can tell you i really enjoyed the few months where there was money coming in every week regardless. This was the first time for this in twenty years (except during recession).
I am a freelancer basically in my late 50s. And so are many people. But quite a lot of freelance jobs are necessities- plumbing, electricians etc. but art is effectively a luxury item - so sometimes there is no demand. If the phone doesnt ring or there are no sales i can quite literally be down to my last few hundred in the bank. I still shudder when i think of 2009-10. No sales for two years. I had to sign on. That was the other time i had regular money coming in. But it was degrading. I was assesed and asked would i retrain. I am and was one of the best portrait painters and painters in ireland- i had had 15 solo shows by 2008, several in museums. Is a country seriously going to let that kind of talent be retrained to be a joiner? At 40? Itd be like asking a concert pianist to learn how to type. All for a lousy 40 grand a year. (Basic income is about half that btw).
And this is what a basic income for artists would do - it would stop artists and people in music and theatre and literature signing on. Which every artist did as a matter of routine in the 80s and 90s and well beyond. So this in fact led to an assumption within the arts that you were signing on so you might be asked to help out painting sets for a theatre company or playing a gig in an arts frstival but offered 50 quid for the week. This has in turn led to a sort of “free” arts economy so that even the arts council has instituted a “pay the artist” policy. Because the amounts even from the arts council grants are not really realistic incomes. A long way off the esri average annual wage.
So the 325 a week would go a long way to giving some security and underlying strength to our arts sector without the indignity of signing on and pretending to seek work. It would actually be better for the books - it would be an honest accounting.
And i believe the basic income scheme for artists should be universal. So that the criteria for recieving it have a fairly low bar to allow the very young to avail of it. Or maybe there could be a bias towards early career artists. Not age, because a lot of women rejoin the art world later in life. so i think a simple track record in the arts sector you are in should be enough to secure it for 5 years and it could be renewed ad infinitum. The only reason it would stop is if you switch career. To something secure like plumbing or undertaking... ha
My daughter did her thesis on universal basic income for all. She remarked disparagingly that is was interesting that they ran the pilot scheme for artists. Why i asked? Because it doesnt matter if artists turn up for work or not. Whereas if they ran a basic income pilot scheme for refuse collectors…
Now i do think it matters that art is made but it is also true what she is saying…