[contextly_auto_sidebar id=”qdf9aqJ1GtDAb9pJMkPYYNu43BIF5aWQ”]
BY now, the movement urging artists, writers, musicians and other creatives to stop donating their labor has made some noise in the culture: It’s one of the key issue for today’s exploited creative class. But I’ve not seen the subject framed as well as this new Daily Beast story, with its subhead: “Remember when people volunteered to help the poor? Nowadays the poor volunteer to help the wealthy.”
As Ted Gioia (a longtime friend of CultureCrash) writes:
In recent weeks, the Ritz-Carlton hotel company, the NFL, and the Smithsonian Institution have all made news by asking people to do work for free. Such practices are hardly surprising in themselves—working for nothing seems to be a key building block of the new economy. But the fact that these requests come from such huge organizations with deep pockets raises troubling questions.
… These are not start-ups or struggling new media companies, but established businesses in old school industries. The trend is ominous. Web startups made it cool to build a business model on unpaid labor, but now cash rich companies with highly paid senior management want to play by the same rules.
Image courtesy Stop Working For Free
Part of what I like about this piece is the way Ted identifies the source as not just the recession or corporate greed (though those are factors) but as coming from the cultural of Silicon Valley. The musician David Lowery once described the ethos there as a cross between hippie and Ayn Rand: “What’s yours is mine, and what’s mine is mine.” Ted calls Google, which owns YouTube, “a company that has done more to impoverish musicians and other creative professionals than any entity on the face of the planet.”
In any case, Ted is a pragmatist, and the piece concludes with five suggestions for when creatives should work for free, starting with: “Only charities and non-profits should ask for unpaid workers to staff their operations or undertake time-consuming projects.” A great piece that I hope is read far and wide.
And the Facebook Stop Working For Free group — from which I have borrowed this logo — is here.
I understand what Mr. Gioia is saying, but I notice a confusing inconsistency in his argument. He chastises the Library of Congress for asking people to do work for free. He adds that only non-profits should do that. The Library of Congress is a non-profit. Perhaps he means only non-profits with clearly inadequate budgets. I’m also not sure the exploitative ethos he describes is mostly strongly centered in Silicon Valley, since the wide-spread exploitation of arts workers pre-dates the Valley by decades.
I think the problem is centered in the values of the US government – a social force vastly larger than the tech industry. Given our government’s values, it is only natural that Google – a company closely associated with the government—should also view arts workers as undeserving of payment for their labor.
I noticed that Ann Meier Baker was recently appointed Director of music and opera at the NEA – an agency Mr. Gioia once led. What does the NEA spend on classical music? Maybe $30 million per year. That comes to ten cents per American. Can you spare a dime, Ms. Baker? That is the message the largest and most influential organization on the planet is sending about the arts.
For the US government to fund the arts at levels long established in all other developed countries would require a change of revolutionary proportions. Until that happens, the arts in the USA will continue to be underfunded and artists will continue to be exploited. So how is this revolution to happen? Are we to reach for our rifles?
Why is centralized arts funding better than local arts funding?
Why not a tax credit for donations to local arts organizations? (A credit, not a deduction.)
I agree. In all larger developed countries, public arts funding is extensive and raised and administered at the local level.
I concur mightily with most of Mr. Osborne’s points and will try to weigh in more fully later,
For now I will point out that Ted Gioia is the younger brother of former NEA chair Dana Gioia. They have some views in common but are not the same person.
And “For the US government to fund the arts at levels long established in all other developed countries would require a change of revolutionary proportions” is an inarguable assertion. Alas.
Well, that makes sense. I was having trouble imagining Ted in this neighborhood…
I mean Dana.
Anyone who thinks the NEA or other arts funders in the US should spend more money needs to explain how to get funding for culture in a nation where one of the two major political parties is dominated by neo-Puritans who consider art a euphemism for idolatry,
Really, the fact that we have an arts and humanities endowment — however feeble — in the current climate is amazing. It may not last forever.
Where were all those neo-Puritans when the WPA was paying very large sums for arts and cultural workers across the country? The reactionary views we see today evolved after WWII and will likely be as much of a passing political phenomenon as any other.
I remember seeing a Maplethorpe exhibition (starry anuses and all) during the 1980s in the lobby of Munich’s main concert hall. It was free and open to the public since it was in a lobby. Anyone could walk in, and concert goers couldn’t avoid seeing it. There were even numerous children running around (who seemed to consider those body parts the most natural thing in the world.) So I understand the view about the Puritanism of the English-speaking world, at least in our more formal forms of expression.
On the other hand, America is not an especially Puritanical country. Look at the movies we produce. Look at the ubiquitous sexual content of cable television that is consumed by the large majority of Americans. Look at the social mores in our urban areas. It is little wonder that AIDS first spread in the USA. During the 70s things were really wild and only settled down when people began fearing for their lives. So is saying we are puritanical really getting down to the problem? Or is Puritanism just a cover for something much deeper and more sinister and whose motives are essentially economic?
Public arts funding would represent a sea-change in America’s concept of government and lead us to forms of social democracy like all other developed countries have. This would inevitably lead to a society far different from the one we have where the wealthy have a higher proportion of the wealth than in any other developed country. Public arts funding is directly correlated with social trends that would end America’s unique privileging of the wealthy and our highly plutocratic form of government. That’s why we do not have public arts funding. Puritanism is just a façade and propaganda apparatus to that end.
I guess I disagree here. Sure, Hollywood movies and urban mores are not particularly puritanical. But I’m talking about Southern Baptists, who all but govern a political party that rules the Supreme Court and soon both houses on Congress. Arts funding has to be approved, effectively, by both parties. You tell me how we overcome the opposition of Southern Baptists and then we’ll talk about European-style arts funding. Until then, not sure what there is to talk about.
I grew up in a Southern Baptist dominated town in Southern NM. There was a saying about them that they wouldn’t dance, but if you got them into a back seat they would do anything. And ironically, they were the most musically cultured group in town because of the relatively high level of the music programs at their church. The school band, which was very good in my day, was kept alive by Southern Baptists.
Another irony is that Baylor University has one of the better music departments in the country. One of their brass ensembles recently won first prize in a prestigious national competition. One of its alumni, Steven Stucky, is emeritus Professor of composition at Cornell and won the 2005 Pulitzer.
The President whose administration most strongly supported the arts in recent memory was Jimmy Carter, a Southern Baptist. He also illustrates that we should not think of the denomination’s members as entirely immune to reform. He finally left the group after some of their more ridiculously sexist pronouncements. They can be led to different ways of thinking.
Texas might have the highest ratio of Southern Baptists in the country, but the state also has one of the highest rates of support for the arts in the country, including the Dallas and Houston Symphonies and the Houston Grand Opera. Even populous New York cannot boast of two orchestras of that stature. Texas also has the best public school music programs in the country.
Even these few examples illustrate possible strategies for progress. So let’s not through up our arms in despair and say there is nothing to talk about – a message the neo-cons would love to hear. And perhaps an excuse our goodie-two-shoes mainstream journalists use for their self-imposed censorship when it comes to public arts funding.
BTW, Dallas, home of some of the largest Baptist mega-churches in the country, recently spent $354-million on a new cultural center, including a 2,200 seat opera house.
That is an addenda to a larger comment awaiting moderation.
I personally don’t see the correlation between Baptist-bashing and arts funding. The economy tanked. Folks can’t pay the bills let alone foot $100 for an opera ticket or the $25 a month to get that neat mug from NPR. They need a job and money for rent. Why should they care about the arts? No one forced us to sign up for music instead of medicine. Many major arts organizations have pretty much catered only to the wealthiest demographics (I won’t even bring ethnicity into this). Kids don’t get to enjoy the arts in schools, so they don’t grow up with an appreciation of the arts. Technology has transformed the music industry (even the swollen mainstream music industry is suffering…more Miley anyone?). And yes, there is a MASSIVE corporate component to the value of entertainment in our culture. The world has changed.
We need to do something about it and come up with creative solutions not bigotry. Maybe it was fun and PC to ostracize an entire group of people and lump them in a group in the 1950s, but this is 2014 and the problems with the arts is so multifaceted that stereotyping does the cause more of a disservice than anything by ostracizing a group that does actively fund the arts, outside of the government but on the local level.
Let’s turn the conversation from a blame game into ways to actively make a difference in the arts. How about those programs that are reaching out to children and teens and the public in innovative successful ways? How are they helping the arts? Where are the positive changes in the arts, things that are working? The Buffalo Symphony Orchestra, our local organization, has excellent educational programs that reach out to the community. The arts as a whole seemed to ignore at least my generation and my parents’ generation when they actively pursued those with the biggest pocketbooks and fell wholeheartedly into the silly eliteness that inaccurately makes the term “classical music” seem stodgy at best. But look on the Internet, and there is amazing, absolutely amazing, music being done, and yes, for free. The government is not going to save the arts, just like it can’t save anything else in our society (it’s woefully broken regardless of which jokers are running it). But I have faith that musicians today can make it without a handout, and maybe even using the technology that right now is reshaping the industry.
Any thoughts/ideas?
Southern Baptists may be wonderful people — and I think Jimmy Carter’s admin was not bad for arts funding — but I know from friends who’ve worked in Washington on arts funding and outreach that their politicians are fatal to the effort. Most of this is coming from a church-going Republican. Puritanism was dangerous to the arts, and the creative class, the first time around and neo-Puritanism poses a similar threat.
I’m all for solutions, believe me, but we cannot come up with or apply them until we understand the contours of the problem, and on that we’ve got a long way to go.
Sabrina, it’s true that artists can work independently and with limited resources (that’s what I do and I use a lot to technology to those ends,) but as with just about everything in our society, culture is stunted without adequate funding. In the larger picture, money does make a difference.
I don’t think Tim was bashing Baptists. It was only after the Carter administration that American plutocracy co-opted the religious vote. In reality, most plutocrats are libertarians and don’t really share many values with the so-called religious right. Progressives need to think of ways to regain the trust and support of people like the Southern Baptists – that sort of Jimmy Carter type of Southern Baptist. The relationship once existed, and it’s not an impossible task to recreate it.
Today the New York Times published yet another article pronouncing the death of Europe’s system of public arts funding and claiming that Europe is moving toward the American system. These articles appear in the Times on a regular basis and are pure neo-con propaganda that reveal the Times’ corporate foundations. The numbers clearly show that public funding in Europe remains stable and there is actually no movement away from their comprehensive public funding systems. The only exceptions out of about 40 European countries are Holland and Italy. The Times would mention this, but it does not fit with their lies.
The Times is following the well-known propagandistic principle of falsely claiming events as true so that people will not resist efforts to make them true in the assumption the events have already happened. The article is here and is a picture perfect example of corporate media lying to serve the interests of plutocracy. Until this stops, journalists will continue to suffer less than stellar reputations. There are many good journalists, but their profession is deeply tarnished by propaganda like this in our country’s so-called paper or record:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/europe/a-capital-of-the-arts-is-forced-to-evolve.html?_r=0
Sadly, most Americans will not know that article is propaganda.
Also, re Mr. Osborne’s quote above, I concur with the sentiment of it: Plutocracy and the expansion of Southern evangelical power are both cancers on our nation. They may reinforce some things in tandem — both may hold back public arts funding, for instance — but they have separate causes. And neither are going away any time soon — they are now central facts of American life.
There’s no question that Texas has both a heavy Southern Baptist culture and some very strong arts institutions in its cities. I know a handful of evangelicals who are serious arts people.
But Jimmy Carter came from a different era — the “Moral Majority” operates very differently now. He’s hardly typical.
And if we are talking about national arts funding — state or local is a different story — you have to deal with a Baptist-led GOP. (I know people who’ve tried.) There is not, from what I can tell, any parallel to their might in Europe.
Please stop insulting journalists — arts journalists have lost their jobs at an astounding rate in the last few years, and the few that are left are constantly working to justify their positions to news organizations run by people who don’t care about culture. None of us would do this if we weren’t substantially committed to the arts but we take orders from people who aren’t. Do we scribes have to get beheaded to get any respect?
Two thoughts, the first that we shouldn’t discount working with today’s Moral Majority, which is possible even as evidenced by Texas. With must begin with the situation at hand and not lose hope. And second, arts journalists unwilling to accept criticism (which they themselves pass out freely) are probably in the wrong field. When the Internet came along, it became a two way street…
Well, again, the combination of power and money that it takes to support something like Houston Grand Opera or the museum in Fort Worth is very different than getting GOP Congressmen to endorse increases i arts funding.
Re journalists: Scribes took criticism well before the Internet. And if you dislike Alex Ross, say, because he is not Edmund Wilson, just you wait til what the next generation will bring. Publications will continue to axe these people and it will be pure consumerism. Just watch.
I think the key is to not think in terms of members of congress, but to focus on public arts funding on the state and municipal levels — as is common in most developed countries. Let the Baptists have whatever culture they want. They key is that they at least try to be cultured. Even if in their own way, artistic exploration inevitably leads to growth.
I very much like Alex Ross’s work, and especially the vestiges of his early devotion to Adorno and others that informs his work. I agree that worse times are coming for journalism (and the arts.) Would that be all the more reason to be self-critical and closely examine weaknesses and vulnerabilities?
This discussion has set me to thinking about extreme partisanship, the political gridlock it creates, and what relationship this might have to culture crash. Rightly or wrongly, we have become quick to assume we can’t talk to our opponents. It has always been the tension, play, and symbiosis of ideas that creates culture. When we fall into silence, or when we only talk to own circle, culture weakens and dies. Culture is a kind of entropy that resolves conflict. As culture evolves, old world orders are broken down into new worldviews. Cultural entropy is a measure of artistic growth and the expansion of consciousness. We must talk to the Baptists. And they must talk to weirdos like us.
As usual I concur with most of what Mr. Osborne says… And while I like the idea of speaking to the other side – and think it’s dangerous for culture to get caught in political or religious cross-fires — the person I know most frustrated about finding cultural consensus with southern Baptist politicians is a Republican, and a moderately religious one. (That is, not a lefty agnostic like me.)
Re local/regional arts funding: Yes the subjects this conversation brings up does suggest that may be a way out. Does it tell us anything though that one of the most culture-loving and left-leaning states in the US (my own California) has generally had an abysmal arts budget per capita close to Mississippi’s?
The Orange County/Ronald Reagan side of CA is winning. Why? I think arts writers have lacked sufficient force, courage, and social and political conviction –a theme I’ve been trying to address that is related to the phenomenon of culture crash. We thus abandoned the field to less enlightened ideologies.
Another problem has been the postwar weakening of arts education for the presumed improvement of scientific training. One result is Silicon Valley which has the highest concentration of billionaires in the world, but who have the lowest support for the arts in the history of wealth in America. They were taught tons of science and so that’s what they do. They were not taught much about the arts, so they don’t support it. Where were our arts writers while all of this was happening?
This fits entirely with my point of view, and I get into some of it in my book.
I’ll just add that I suspect that some of the low support for the arts in CA — a state, by the way, with a GOP that is barely breathing — come not from conservatives, but from those who look at Hollywood and other market-driven culture and say, “Why do our taxes need to pay for art when capitalism works just fine?”
Some of these people are limousine liberals and philistine faux-progressives.
As a former podcaster and now TV sales rep/Vj…. I’ve been screaming about this issue for 2 years now.
Anytime something is offered for FREE, it no longer has any value… Even if you turn around and try to sell it after it was offered for free…. You’ve already de-valued that product.
FREE kills any market, I don’t care what the product is.
Give me a truck load of oranges, and I can kill the orange sales at any flea market in about 15 minutes…
Musicians, bands, artist’s, composers, authors need to STOP GIVING THEIR PRODUCTS AWAY FOR FREE!!!
It’s really that simple. That’s the key to a turn around, or revolution, however you want to describe it.
A revolt is when masses do an about face, or turn around.
That’s what has to happen here… the masses have to take down their free streaming, their Youtube, their free downloads… etc.
Only then will we see a change…. it’s the only move we have left to make….
You won’t find any of my songs free streaming anywhere (unless they were pirated)
I agree with “stop working for free” because no one else does it but suckers! Even in volunteer efforts somebody is always getting paid, be it a supervisor or leader, or whatever! So why should the labor of artists be free? Go to the Dentist and get free work done, or go get free surgery if you need it -if you can! The whole of an economy is established by exchange of desirable goods and/or services. The key word to me is “VALUE!”
Somewhere in the scheme of things, the work of artists’ has been devalued by billionaire ideas’. This is unfair, but they won’t give us their money. As you climb up into the cash, you may be able to change the game, but from the sidelines – you can to nothing! if only you had something that they “Must Have”!
The problem with the argument that artistic labor should never be given away for free is that some of the most important artistic works have no market value. Putting such works on the web for free at least allows for it to have some exposure and might even increase the value of the artist’s creations.
We (Utah Pioneer Heritage Arts) are a nonprofit that does not ask musicians to work for free except under exceptional conditions. We pay advances against royalties for compositions we commission, royalties when royalties from sales exceed the advances, prevailing studio rates for recording sessions, and performance fees according to what the market will bear.
About a year ago I was advised to not give my artwork away for free. The suggestion (and ensuing discussion) struck me -deeply. Although I know I am socially conditioned to not want to disappoint others, saying “no” is still very difficult for me. Even as I write this post, I suffer the pain of having given a recent work away. I literally lament its absence; Examining the digital photo of it does not bring me solace, but further confirms my pining and frustration.
In the past, giving my work away was simply normative behavior (and requests for my work is something I’ve always encountered) and I am struggling to figure out how to comfortably navigate/negotiate these requests. I need a quick, easy, guilt* and shame* – free response. (*I don’t want to feel guilty saying “no” and I don’t want others to feel shamed for asking). While “Would you expect _____(insert any non-arts professional) to _____ for free?” was useful for shifting my own paradigm, it’s not an effective route for navigation in the context of saying “no” to others. Help?
Audrey I do totally understand how hard it is to say no. However, standing up for your right to be suitably rewarded for your hard work does not need to be impolite.
My standard response to such requests is simple: “‘Thank-you for your offer, however I do not find that giving my work away for free leads to paid work in the future.” Adapt as you see fit.
Next time someone tries to offer you exposure in lieu of money ask that person how they found you and your work in the first place. If they could happen upon it online then chances are your organic internet exposure is working reasonably well. If it was word of mouth then celebrate the fact that people are saying good things about you. Don’t undermine your reputation by giving your talent away for nothing.
No problem in you using our Stop Working For Free logo, but a link back to our Facebook group would have been appreciated.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/263804607094399/
Done!
Ironic. 🙂 Using the Stop Working for Free logo for free…This is why media industries in general are in disarray. When does copyright apply? And if Youtube or Spotify lets you use music for micropennies, then how does the user know that what they are doing hurts the artist? As far as they know, the artists are making big dough for the 3122 hits on their “Cute Dancing Kitty” video. And if a graphic is available online, then clearly it is public domain…Kudos for correcting the problem.
Not everything available online is in the public domain, but this is.
The group — of which I’m a member — asked me to link back to their page, which I did.
Maybe it’s just the medium, but I find it a little sad that virtually every topic is immediately hijacked and dragged kicking and screaming into some poorly constructed political debate. There’s a very clear subject to be discussed and yet you have to wade through the usual Republican/Democrat mess to get to anything approaching an interesting response.
This is not about your political affiliation. It happens with corporates, it happens outside the US, it happens everywhere.
I’m a journalist myself, in the UK, and wow do I get this a lot. I get it in the UK, I get it in Germany, I get it in Japan.
It would be awesome if we could have a discussion about, well, anything, without the whole thing getting drowned out in pseudo-political BS.
That is all.
Part of me is sympathetic to Mr. Hall’s point here; certainly, neither of our major political parties have a solution to this problem.
But then I ask, What is more inherently political than issues of work, money, and corporate power? They may not all follow traditional left/right divides, but they seem to me deeply political issues and to be shaped by our current politics and by a neoliberalism that the US and UK generally share.
Germany has 133 full time orchestras. The USA with four times the population has 17. Germany has 83 year-round opera houses. The USA has ZERO. Even the Met only has a 7 month season. And we only have about 6 genuinely functional opera houses.
London has 5 full time symphony orchestras. NYC has one. New York has one 7 month opera house, London has 2 year-round houses. The big difference is public funding.
All of the institutions in Germany I mention are owned and operated by the government which gives about 9000 classical music full time jobs with full benefits. They are similar to civil service jobs. The US government does not give a single classical musician a job. In short, there are political issues to be discussed.
And none of this changes the fact that the problem with music on the Internet presents a two-pronged issue. One is commercially viable music that is essentially pirated. The second is that the net offers valuable possibilities for musicians who work outside the market and who can expect no income from it to present their work. These complex issues will not be solved with simplistic, absolutist thinking.
Another comparison. The British Arts Council gives the English National Opera and the Royal Opera House together about $70 million per year. The two houses thus receive an amount that is more than half of than half of the entire budget of the NEA. To belabor the point, since it seems necessary, that’s called paying musicians for their work.
And yet we should also remember that the UK has one of the lowest per capita ratios of public arts funding in Europe.
As usual Mr. Osborne makes good points. To respond in brief:
Re the difference between European and US arts funding, esp for traditional arts more deeply grounded in European history: I don’t see this changing for the better any time soon. Maybe incrementally, but the cultural differences between us and the Germans or French are stark.
Re the “two-pronged” nature of the Internet: Well said. In part because of this, I don’t take an absolutist line on the stop-working-for-free issue, and if you read the Ted Gioia article I link to, you’ll see that neither does the author.
We are left to untangle a very difficult knot. To what degree does America neglect the arts because it is part of the New World, and to what extent is the neglect due to a dysfunctional funding system that leaves the arts impoverished? We might make a highly tenuous (almost ridiculous) argument that we have some sort of American exceptionalism and thus removed from Western cultural traditions, but we don’t fund our own indigenous culture either. From about 1960 to 2000, for example, jazz was largely kept alive by Europeans. One example is the plethora of videos of European broadcasts of American jazz greats, while almost nothing comparable was created by Americans who gave the genre very little support. We can only experience the legacy of one of our greatest art forms through European eyes. Another example is the many big bands owned and operated by European state radios while the USA does not have a single full time big band. We see that the problem leans strongly toward a dysfunctional funding system.
William, let’s face it: the arts are not important in American politics, corporate interests or defense spending (though I hear that the Army, Marine and Air Force bands are quite a plush job to land, especially in terms of benefits and early retirement).
So long as one more F-35 is more important than providing arts education in schools or – as in Europe – at very low cost in government subsidized extracurricular music schools, the arts are doomed to continuing decline in this country unless someone figures out how to fly drones using pianos, string instruments or classically trained voices.
That’s not likely to happen, so it’s best to have a good stereo system and a large collection of music rather than depend on a quality arts experience unless you live in a large city with more than 3-4 million inhabitants.
C’est la vie artistique du jour.
Based on interviews with the military, the Washington Post puts the number spent on military bands at $500,000,000. Half a billion dollars. That’s about 16 times what the NEA spends on music of all sorts which is probably about 30 million. The Army notes that it employs 5000 musicians, and is the largest employer of musicians in the country. Based on the military’s pay and benefits, that many musicians could supply 50 full time, year-round orchestras with 100 members each with full benefits.
For more details see:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/06/AR2010090603018.html?sid=ST2010090603042
But I’m not willing to give up and surrender the political stage to reactionary forces. Fifty years ago people would have laughed in your face if you told them we’d one day have a black President. America is capable of change, as long as it has people with the backbone for long struggles.
BTW, there are orchestral internships in Germany. The Internships pay better than most regional orchestras in the USA. And college education is free. There is no such thing as tuition. Private universities are forbidden since they are seen as perpetuating harmful social class divisions. The years spent in college are credited toward work years in pension benefits.
It’s easier to understand and relate to a black president than a Mahler symphony or a Bach passion.
Skin color and partisanship completely aside; a Mahler symphony can’t lie. Politicians have no problem with lying. Orchestras occasionally break the boilerplate promise “to present classical music at the highest level” in their mission statements. Politicians break campaign promises more often than not, and it seems to be their mission to consistently disappoint the people who vote for them.
That’s why I’m not overly optimistic about the future of classical music presented formally in concert halls as we’re used to hearing it.
The ensembles that can create real audience excitement in live performance today are early music consorts and orchestras, like L’Arpeggiata, Le Poeme harmonique, Al Ayre Español, La Capella Reial de Catalunya, Capriccio Stravagante, Concerto Köln, I Fagiolini, Il Giardino Armonico, etc. etc. etc.
No shortage of exciting performances and thrilling programming there, unlike most “modern” symphony orchestras and opera companies today. Unfortunately, such ensembles only require some 6-15 musicians and not ~100.
If I were to decide on a career path as a singer or instrumentalist today, I’d definitely go with baroque and period performance practice.
I’m a composer who refused to even write for symphony orchestras. If they fell of the face of the earth that would be fine with me. All the same, the reason we have a black Prez is due to a long process of education over the last 60 years. The same process of education could lead people to appreciate classical music and to understand the necessity of publicly funding the arts.
The solution to this problem is obvious: a union.
Lets not forget Microsoft and all the other companies that refer you to “forums” if you need help with there software.
I completely agree that unpaid internships should be banned. In Europe, such internships are forbidden by law because unions rightly see them as undermining job creation and wages for their members. So if you want a kid from college to help out, you have to pay minimum wage plus applicable benefits as specified by the labor laws of the different countries.
The people who SHOULD donate their labor for free – on a limited basis of course – are those that make the most money in music biz. Think of what a difference it would make if Yo Yo Ma or Lang Lang donated 1 or 2 benefit concerts per year to regional orchestras which usually can’t afford them. If each world famous soloist and singer who regularly appears in the U.S. did that, the arts in America would get a much-needed shot in the arm and the good work of regional orchestras would be highlighted as it deserves to be. The soloists might even be able to use it for a tax deduction for donating services to a non-profit organization.
But that’s of course not something the American League of Orchestras would ever think of, since it only exists for the largest orchestras while sucking dues from medium to small orchestras for little in return.
Interesting discussion. Wanting to play Devil’s advocate, the reality is that the arts are not the only place where there are “free” internships. You will find this in almost any professional field – sports, entertainment, medical, law, non-profit, business. The internship experience helps a newcomer gain valuable insight into their field, make connections, and often leads to paid work. And much of graduate work in the university is unpaid. Any business is better off hiring someone that has experience (even unpaid) over someone fresh out of school without experience. I was fortunate enough to intern (unpaid) with composer Pauline Oliveros at the Deep Listening Institute. The experience I gained was invaluable and enriched my life. And being a responsible adult, I worked hard the year before so I could afford the experience. Perhaps I could have taken the paid internship getting coffee for the local record mogul like others I knew or just worked at the Radio Shack instead, but I would never have gained the hands-on experience.
Regarding unions, I am very grateful that as a composer I am not required to be a part of a union, and many projects today specifically ask for non-union players. The big exception, of course, is the big budget projects (ex. films) that can afford the union musicians and should pay them accordingly. But I (I’m a percussionist), and others that I have known, have often wondered what the point of a union is for an ensemble that is not a full-time ensemble. Why pay dues that each up a large percentage of the profits? And I still remember watching an entire orchestra literally walk out in the middle of a piece because the clock had run out and it was time to go. What does that say to the audience about what the audience is worth to them, or the composer, whose work was butchered and unfinished? And there is not even a guarantee that the union is there for the musicians’ best interest.
correction “eat up a large percentage of the profits?”…
Composers in Europe aren’t required to be a part of any union either unless they want to be.
I full well realize that the US economy depends on underpaid, illegal or free workers to keep up corporate profits or to save cash-strapped non-profits money. That still doesn’t make it right. Musicians who play in a chamber ensemble are not required to be union members in most of Europe, though they have the option of becoming members of the soloists’ union. In fact, no musician has to be a member of any union where I came from. The only downside to that being that if you got fired or faced a period of unemployment as a free-lancer, you wouldn’t get full wage compensation for X amount of years if you weren’t a member of a union (it’s sort of the same system as Social Security here in the US).
Bear in mind that the vast majority of arts organizations in the US are medium to small, which means they couldn’t even afford an intern if they wanted one. Furthermore, such non-profits usually don’t have the cachet to attract unpaid interns unless they’re of inferior quality or happen to be madly in love with a particular arts organization.
I should know, since I have a MA in arts management from a New York university. I was “lucky” enough to land an internship with a bank foundation, which actually provided me with not only great work experience, but also a scholarship which paid my tuition for the semester I interned with them. That was a very ethical approach, especially considering that most of my fellow graduate students interned for free at the Met and elsewhere in NYC often at arts organizations that did have the money to pay them something.
But I agree that unions don’t always represent the best interests of musicians, whether it be here in the US or elsewhere. However, being able to compare between the US and Europe, I’d say – gasp!!! – that US musicians’ unions do more for their members on average than European ones do for theirs. It all depends on how corrupt the given union is, which is – unfortunately – one of the downsides of unionization. But nowhere are musicians’ unions as bad as the Teamster’s or other mega-sized unions for the simple reason that the money involved isn’t big enough to attract big time corruption.
Finally, a graduate diploma is something you pay for yourself (except partially in situations as I described regarding myself, viz. above). Only PhD studies may provide a salary or scholarship that’ll cover most of one’s expenses (if you’re able to sell yourself).
There’s no such thing as a paid-for lunch, especially in the arts.
Great comment and perspective Tony. As a clarification, at least in the US, it is entirely possible to have the university pay for your entire graduate studies (without student loans) . I was able to earn my graduate degree for free, and use the “extra” money earned at work for my internship. It was a combo of teaching/workstudy/grants/scholarship, but I also made sure that I was the best candidate for the program and had a stellar portfolio that merited so much support from the university. My undergraduate degree was almost free (except I took that extra year, which did result in a small student loan). However, I also made sure that I was a national merit scholar (SAT scores were very high) and one of the best percussionist in the tri-state region as a high schooler. So it is possible to have your schooling entirely paid for, but it comes with great sacrifice and dedication, and not everyone has the opportunities or the drive to accomplish this, for a variety of reasons that may or may not be their fault. (I was fortunate that my public school had one of the best music programs in the state, and this was pre-testing-frenzy in the US public school system).
I do think that the discussion is not entirely limited to the arts. There are similar laments in business, service industries, agriculture, etc. I only have an American perspective, of course, but as a first generation American who had hardworking immigrant parents and grandparents that learned how to educate themselves and work hard to make a better world for their children, I can at least attest that it is possible to succeed in our country, even though the economy has tanked globally. The fact that I am in the arts and not business/medicine or another “lucrative” career makes it more difficult, but I think that would be true of any field that is not a “necessity” when the economy is bad. My husband is in sports, and while it may seem that the sports industry is doing great in comparison to the arts, the reality is that there are just as many crazy upheavals happening there in the industry, as well (mostly because, while fun to watch, sports are not a “necessity” like healthcare, food, and shelter). Right now, healthcare may be the only safe bet, but we are artists, and that by definition means that we chose the path less traveled.
I recently helped to republish a CD that I was a key member of. I hold the copyrights to many of the works on this CD. Here is an essay on what it is like to try to protect your intellectual property in 2015 in the land of music. . It is surprising that there is not more journalism about how this is really screwed up for the creative people who produce culturally significant content.
BREAKING NEWS! AFTER OVER 8 YEARS, GOOGLE’S CONTENT ID SYSTEM IS STILL IN BETA!
http://www.pelicancafe.net/blog/breaking-news-after-over-8-years-googles-content-id-system-is-still-in-beta/