Recession Impacts Commissioned Artwork

With corporations pinching their pockets in the wake of the economic recession of 2009, it stands to reason that commissioning expensive works of art would be the furthest thing from corporate minds. But the demand for highly specialized, one-of-a-kind commissioned artwork has actually increased, and experts think they know why.

According to an article by Christopher Michaud, a unique work of art can serve as a brand-building technique for an organization, used to set itself apart from competitors. Previously seen as a charitable act and a civic duty, the commissioning of unique artwork is now seen as a marketing strategy and a way for a corporation to build its public image.

According to Amy Cappellazzo, Christie's' international co-head of post-war and contemporary art, businesses like hotels and restaurants are particularly interested in the commercial gain associated with commissioned art. For example, the hotel chain Sage Hospitality is filling its guest rooms with the work of local artists in an effort to “tie [art] into their style and interior designs.”

Corporations are also starting to pay closer attention to the payoff of commissioned works, which can be significant. Two years ago, the New York Public Art fund commissioned a project called “Waterfalls,” a $15 million project in which man-made waterfalls were installed in the East River for four months. At the conclusion of the project, experts estimated that it had brought $70 million to the local economy— more than four times its original cost.

However, despite the new interest from corporations in highly specialized works, there may be hard times to come for artists who rely on these commissions.

As Michaud writes, “A more far-reaching impact of the recession is likely to be felt on U.S. art commissions in the years ahead, experts note, because a commissioned piece can take years to complete after money is allocated. A lack of funding now may mean less art later.”

For the rest of this article, click here.

Opinion Piece: Cotter Doesn't Coddle!

Holland Cotter, a Pulitzer Prize-winning staff art critic for the New York Times, writes about which exhibitions pique his interest in the coming year, which artists to watch, and how museums will pull themselves out of the muck. His article adopts a serious, castigatory tone, but maybe he’s right.
Yes, he may sound ornery, but Cotter’s impertinence is necessary in a time when the Rose Museum scandal is not an uncommon occurrence. He irately refers to another similar incident at UCLA that has perpetuated the sucking-your-university-museum/library-dry-to-stay-afloat trend. Granted, we are working against an inexorable economic tempest forcing museums, one of the first recession targets, to economize in a number of ways. Sometimes, drastic measures must be taken, but if museums in dire straits meditate on his suggestions, they may not have to perform artistic seppuku.
Cotter implores and pleads with museums to reconsider shutting down or selling heirloom pieces and to instead consider downsizing flashy, costly “supersizer” exhibitions, playing up their permanent collections, and even looking to university museums (of which the Georgia Museum of Art is one) for ideas. As university museums have always had to manage small budgets, bigger enterprises can learn how to be effective with little money. He adds that university museums are interesting management models because they are typically staffed with a young, enterprising and creative direction, an especially valuable treasure when the fiscal climate is changing quickly.
Cotter also mentions a fairly new trend, which places artists in the role of the curator. Why could that possibly be helpful? He says that “what we need is someone detached from the old buddy system of curators and critics who can give the moribund biennial concept life”. Perhaps we just need to weigh drastically different options rather than admitting defeat.

In the News

Another blog you should bookmark, especially if you're interested in all kinds of art and culture, not just visual arts, is the New York Times' ArtsBeat, which updates multiple times a day on art, film, gossip, music and much more. About a month ago, they asked how the poor economy was affecting artists and got hundreds of responses in the comments, which produced some surprising overall trends, summarized in this article. Freed from the constraints that come with fiscal arrangements, art is flowering in some places, and many of the responses were optimistic. The Times also put together a slideshow of some of the respondents with excerpts from their statements.

We also enjoyed this article a few days ago about how acquisitions work at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art during its Collectors Committee weekend. Curators lobby for works, and then patrons vote on what to buy with their pooled funds. It's hard to say whether this is more democratic or oligarchic, but it's an interestingly open way to go about accessions.

The financial benefit of arts and cultural institutions

The American Association of Museums' (AAM) Washington Newswire is a great way to keep up with current museum issues. A recent issue discussed the House Education and Labor Committee hearing held March 26, 2009, on the impact of the economic downturn on the arts and music industries. Committee Chairman George Miller (D-CA) had some inspiring (and concrete!) remarks on the financial benefit to the U.S. economy of these institutions, which are archived here as a pdf. Miller said:

The non-profit arts and culture industries inject over $166 billion into our economy each year, according to a recent study by the Americans for the Arts. These sectors support 5.7 million jobs and over $104 billion in household income.

In many places, like my home state of California, for example, the arts and music industries are vital engines for local economies – making up a large share of revenue and providing many employment opportunities.

Spending by nonprofit arts and culture organizations provide work for more than just artists, curators, and musicians - they also directly support builders, plumbers, accountants, printers, and an array of other occupations.

Workers in these fields are bearing a disproportionate brunt of this economic tsunami. According to research conducted by the National Endowment for the Arts, unemployment in the arts rose at a higher rate than the overall workforce in 2008.

In fact, the unemployment rate for artists is double that of other professional workers. In the last quarter of 2008, the unemployment rate for artists grew by 64 percent – for a total of 129,000 displaced workers.

. . .

Without the contributions and influence of the arts, our economy suffers greatly. Families suffer from layoffs, lost income and purchasing power.

When we talk about arts and music, we’re not just talking about artists and musicians. We’re also talking about museums and galleries, symphonies and orchestras, community theatres and other non profits that shape our neighborhoods, towns and cities.

This industry helps attract audiences, spurs local business development and stimulates
learning in classrooms. Research shows that when students are exposed to arts and music, they perform better in other subjects.