This is particularly relevant for me, because it's my birthday today. I
wonder how many more opportunities I'm no longer eligible for...
I strongly suspect it's is because, as an industry, the fine arts are a
complete basket-case.
Compare (for instance) the number of unpaid internships with the number
of of paid posts, and you'll realise that MOST arts workers are working
for free. I wonder whether these age restrictions are code for "Must be
naive enough to put up with this nonsense". I don't criticise
organisations that are recruiting these interns, either. They're simply
reflecting an economic reality - which is that a significant number of
arts workers are prepared to gamble their time against the promise of
mysterious, undefined "symbolic benefits" that may (or may not) manifest
some time later.
And there won't be an arts shortage, either. A side-effect of the
wringing out of arts resources outside of London (it's gone way beyond
"squeezing") is simply that artists from less well financed backgrounds
opt out and do something more economically chancey. So - fine art's
inherently the province of toffs - and critical art is perhaps the most
risky type of practice of the lot.
As creative people, we must stop accepting this.
My proposal is a new form of "art working" that considers the economic
transactions around a work, and the enterprise model of the artist that
creates it, as part of the meaning of the work. An artist that
subsidises time-consuming and expensive practice because, well, they can
afford to, must acknowledge that this is part of the meaning of their
practice. Do they have the same relationship to art as an addict has to
their habit? "Lucky I got this job, man... helps me pay for my regular
art fix."
What does that say about how positive art is as a cultural manifestation?
Does this suggest that decorative, crafty and salable arts are
potentially the most economically equitable and incrementally
self-financing, and therefore the location of the most interesting
practitioners? Should we be looking to etsy.com for the next wave of
radicalism? Is "depoliticised" the new "politicised"?
All the best,
James
=====
On 22/04/14 14:32, marc garrett wrote:
Question of age: ‘old’ artists need not apply.
Glasgow-based artist Ally Wallace asks: Why is ageism seen as an
acceptable form of discrimination by so many in the art world?
Looking through the jobs and opportunities on a-n.co.uk recently, I
spotted this listing for a residency in Luxembourg. It looked
interesting, but then I noticed this: ‘Applicants should not be older
than 40 years’. Why 40, I wondered? Why has someone sat down and
decided they don’t want any resident artists over the age of 40?
This age restriction thing always bugs me – especially when there
seems to be no reason for it. Usually the opportunity will specify
that applicants should be under the age of 35, or occasionally even
30. Sometimes, you read these listings and then you’ll have a look at
the organisation’s website, and it’s only when you get the full brief
– maybe at the very end – that it states you have to be under 35. It’s
happened to me so many times: an opportunity will look promising but
then you read on and realise you can’t apply because you’re too old.
When I mention this to people who aren’t involved in the art world
they can't quite believe it. If you apply for a job in any other
realm, it's common practice not to ask your age, sex or race –
positions are generally offered without any prejudice or bias. It
seems so strange that when it comes to art, age discrimination is
relatively widespread. If something is obviously sexist or racist,
we’re pretty much all in agreement that it's a bad thing, but it seems
like we haven’t yet decided if ageism is wrong. We’re all a bit vague
about it.
http://new.a-n.co.uk/news/single/question-of-age-old-artists-need-not-apply
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
