No, it doesn't. I was only being half ferocious!!!
I was just making the point that value is only based on perceived worth. Who
really is paid what they are worth?
For instance the movie industry is making a considerable amount of fuss
about the loss of profits that it makes from films being displaced by
illegal downloading. This happened in the music industry a couple of years
ago. Within a digital economy, the value of those films is only based the
price the audience chooses to pay, and not the price set by the media
companies.
The same goes for the value of art, within a commercial gallery system. New
media art doesn't deal with the concept of the 'original', that other forms
of art use. Like 70s conceptual art, its value is cultural and not
financial, like for instance a Van Gough painting.
I suppose that this is the perceived value of curating this sector of art,
(or working within any other sector of the digital economy). I.E the new
media crash; the relationship between actual companies worth as opposed to
its share value.
I would say that it would be more profitable to WRITE about new media art
than curate it, (unless you write a blog). I would image that is why Sarah
and Beryl are writing a hardcopy book, as opposed to an ebook.
In the gold rush in America, the only people who made a profit were the bars
selling whisky and not the people panning for gold.
:-)
Can I recommend the book by Hans Abbing - 'Why are artists poor? - The
exceptional economy of the arts'. Its fantastic.
On 25/1/07 18:04, "Bureaud" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Do you mean that being a new media curator is the same as
> trying to sell stuff by phones that usually people don't
> need or put a "nice" box around a bad piece of food ? This
> is interesting, I had never seen new media art curator's job
> that way, I need to think about it and think about what it
> means regarding the art those people are curating.
>
> But I think it is interesting to immediately compare income
> and work of new media art curators to what is considered be
> some of the lowest jobs. It says a lot ...
>
> Annick
>
>
>
> Sam Ayres wrote:
>> Yeah, I just thought I'd let you know that I weep about how much New Media
>> Curators are paid compared to people working in call centres or MacDonalds.
>> It really is a disgrace...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 25/1/07 16:44, "Sarah Cook" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hi CRUMB list readers,
>>>
>>> apologies for a quiet month of mostly announcements - Beryl and I are
>>> in the grim end days of writing a book that gathers together much of
>>> the new knowledge brought forward by CRUMB these last years... and
>>> preparing for the future with plans for new research posts at our
>>> humble offices in Sunderland. Woohoo!
>>>
>>> But this process has brought a question to the fore, also prompted by a
>>> conversation I had with another CRUMB list lurker: how much is what you
>>> do worth?
>>>
>>> We've seen new media curators downsized by their institutions/museums
>>> in the name of financial cut-backs, and over tea at the Crisis Centre
>>> at ISEA I heard many a lament from curators whose responsibility it is
>>> to not only fundraise for their programme of media art, but for their
>>> own salaries too. Recent job ads for new media curators have made
>>> apparent that, for instance, in the words of said list-lurker,
>>>
>>> "The Human Resource Manager will get paid more than the Curator
>>> despite the requirement for the curator to be an equally highly skilled
>>> individual, who will additionally be expected to have immense knowledge
>>> and experience, and to bring his or her own wealth of personal
>>> connections, networks and contacts."
>>> The lurker continues,
>>>
>>> "This perpetuates the expectation and acceptance of low wages which has
>>> become standard for professionals working in the not-for-profit arts
>>> sector. In comparison to national job listings, in similar regions
>>> (outside the centres like London) one would be paid more as a personal
>>> assistant, a computing systems assistant, an admin officer; essentially
>>> a whole swathe of jobs for which one is given much less responsibility,
>>> and expected to be much less experienced, and will likely not have to
>>> work every hour god sends to ensure projects happen at a high standard,
>>> purely for the love of it. And thatıs the real sticking point. Itıs
>>> poorly paid because people really want to see these things happen, and
>>> to see them done well, and so is accepted as standard within a sector
>>> which has traditionally been poorly funded. The economy has changed
>>> dramatically in the last 8 years, and the Arts are now recognized as a
>>> financially important sector [certainly in the UK where the arts are
>>> tied to cultural and economic regeneration schemes, tourism and the
>>> like]."
>>>
>>> So, do the wages offered reflect the work involved? I suspect the
>>> answer is no, but why?
>>>
>>> I graduated from a masters programme in curatorial studies 8 years ago
>>> and was recently asked for my earnings history so that the current MA
>>> programme administrators could work out appropriate levels of financial
>>> aid so students didn't graduate with unmanageable student debts (like
>>> mine!). I am aware that working for a university and being able to
>>> curate projects from that base, with incredibly grateful thanks for our
>>> academic funding, I earn probably slightly more than the curator at the
>>> artist-run gallery down the street. Yet I also know in the UK a number
>>> of fellow researchers within the university sector who run programs for
>>> digital media artists (outreach projects, not necessarily students),
>>> and who are however, still in a position of having to get grants to
>>> cover their salaries as well as funding for their programme. As more MA
>>> programs for curators are accredited, how can we ensure the salaries
>>> these curators might earn are in keeping with similarly skilled
>>> graduates in other fields? The Tate (obvious example, sorry) has
>>> traditionally offered very low salaries for entry-level curatorial
>>> positions with the reason that the prestige and experience will balance
>>> the risk out. But when curators are also expected to have technical
>>> knowledge (as is the case with the, for instance, webcasting /
>>> educational / media arts curators), and are getting paid far less that
>>> the museum's systems administrator (who might know less about
>>> technology than they do, or spend their days fixing the office printer
>>> and firewall), is that really fair?
>>>
>>> Your thoughts, rants, suggestions are most welcome, as we all file our
>>> year end financial accounts ;-)
>>>
>>> and again, apologies that this is slightly left field...
>>> Sarah
>>
>>
>> !DSPAM:45b8edcc219171804284693!
>>
>>
>>
|