The arts don’t need saving but arts professionals do
It’s been a rather interesting week (month, year) for anyone working in the cultural and creative sectors in Malta. Amidst the relaxation of public health measures, the sectors were mostly left in the dark as to when they might be able to restart their operations. An awareness campaign was initiated by a group of artists, calling for the arts to be saved from their demise. Within that same context, the Minister for Arts didn’t seem to think twice when he told journalists that the arts are often a vocation, as opposed to a profession or business.
Without going into the merits of that statement, it feels somewhat important to clarify the arguments being made by those advocating for the arts.
The socio-emotional benefits of the arts in society are an undisputed matter. The confidence that the arts can instil in a child, the inspiration that they can pass on to an adult, the identity of a nation that they are able to portray (and sometimes also criticise) — all that is undisputed. This is why I have been somewhat concerned by the emphasis being placed (by artists themselves) on the need to ‘save the arts’. The arts have been around long before anyone acknowledged them as something other than a means of expression, and no pandemic or other global disaster will cause that expression and creative application of human skill and imagination to cease to exist.
What does need saving at this point in time is the economic activity surrounding the arts: artists and practitioners who have dedicated their time, efforts, and investments towards professionalising the creative application of their skill. It has been over a year since the first economic impacts of the coronavirus pandemic started being felt, and individuals in the cultural and creative sectors, much like in any other sector and industry, continue to struggle as they try to find ways to remain afloat.
By remaining afloat, I mean having enough economic means to be able to pay the bills and bring food to the table.
Remaining afloat does not mean going on with life and being able to do everything they could do before the pandemic. Any artist (or human being) who expects to do so has likely been living in an alternate universe. Which is why it is worrying to see collective effort being placed towards a message that says we need to ‘save the arts’.
The question of intrinsic and instrumental value is crucial to understand here. In failing to provide a clear exit strategy for operations within the cultural and creative sectors to resume, the authorities are not dismissing the intrinsic value of the arts. However, any form of continued silence means that economic operators within the cultural and creative sectors (including artists) cannot plan ahead to ensure at least their basic income — and this is what comes across as a questioning of the actual instrumental value of the arts.
The confusion between the two is not new to anyone working in the cultural and creative sectors. Artists are often caught up in this struggle themselves. It is painful for the value of an artist to be questioned in the same way that any other economic provider’s fee for any other economic activity might be questioned. It is painful because that questioning can be interpreted as a questioning of the artist’s very skill. Yet, this argument is not about skill — it is about people’s livelihood — and it is essential that the argument also recognises that artists do what they do in order to bring food on the table, to pay bills, and pay taxes — making them no different from any other economic operator in this regard.
This storm has hit everyone, and the present moment is not the time to be making emotionally-driven statements about saving the arts — it is about saving families and livelihoods. Any other line of thought will risk creating a sense of detachment.
Living in our own bubble is not going to change things. Theatre performances, art exhibitions, music concerts — their cancellation does not only impact the artist and the audience. It impacts the administrator, the lights provider, the printer, the carpenter, the tailor, the marketer, the content creator, the educator, the ticket system operator, the list goes on. If we want to consider getting a little bit more creative, the cancellation of arts activities also impacts the bar/restaurant the audience goes to after their interaction with the artistic work.
The cultural and creative sectors contribute towards the economy, and any mention of that notion is not a dismissal of the sectors’ other valid impacts mentioned earlier on (such as contributions towards wellbeing and the passing on of life skills). We are not alone in this and one of the best things we can do to portray that is to reach out to stakeholders being faced with the same economic challenges.
Getting frustrated at the questioning of our intrinsic value isn’t going to be helpful in this context. Pointing towards the facts might. The contributions of the sectors towards the economy are relevant and need to be highlighted. Authorities need to be reminded that their own investments towards the sectors in recent years cannot go to waste.
It is time we look at what other economic sectors are doing, and consider taking a page from their book. The argument right now is not about whether artists are economic or societal contributors. There is no denying that there is an economic contribution being made by the cultural and creative sectors, and that contribution should be highlighted.
Business model innovations, exploration of new forms of economic activities to offer temporary support, cross-sectoral collaborations, diversification of economic activities: these are the kind of solutions being explored by other economically-recognised bodies. This is also required for the arts.
The form of economic activity as we know it in the cultural and creative sectors might need to diversify (as it already has, albeit in minimal ways). We need to create ways to hang on to the lifebuoy (revenue streams), until it is safe to get back on shore (return to the core economic activity).
If artists decide to reject any alternative methods of operating suggested to them by the authorities, other than those they are used to, then their argument will be reduced to nothing more than a child’s foot-stomping approach. Until this becomes clear, we cannot expect to be treated like others in the same storm, who have also had to sacrifice a lot.
This shift in mindset is no easy task. The nature of these sectors and the way they have operated in their majority is fragmented and often informal. It is why the distinction between artist and manager is needed now more than ever. A member of the kitchen staff in a restaurant is not the one making the case for the hospitality and catering industry, even though their recovery affects them directly. The one making the case is the manager paying that staff member’s salary.
The establishment of an association that is voicing the economic needs of artists is a positive sign. The need for economically-driven voices to come forward and make their case for the arts could be of an even greater benefit.
