On Value

Recently, I tried to show a video at an alternative space run by the city of Evanston. A video requires a device in order to view the work. I bought a television with a built in DVD and installed it. I filled out the form for the gallery to insure the piece and the print hanging next to it and went home feeling satisfied about the upcoming show. The next day I was contacted by the curator. She was informed by the Director of Cultural Affairs that the piece would not be covered by the city. I was told to remove the piece or show it at my own risk. This piece was not valued more than the other pieces in the show; in fact in some cases it was actually valued less. In a very short conversation I asked if the video inside the device was insured and I was told that it was not on the basis that it was digital and easily reproduced. It is important to note here that there is a digital print of mine hanging next to the video. It is covered by the city’s insurance policy.

The troubling observations brought about by this situation are:
1. It is perceived that a television is valued more by the audience than the artwork it makes visible.
2. Digital work runs the risk of not being insured because it is easily reproducible.
3. Digital work is not valued in the same way as other mediums that are easily reproduced such as printmaking and photography.
4. Traditionally produced and presented artwork is considered low risk in terms of theft.
5. The city supports the only the art that is low risk.
6. My role as a professional artist was not valued enough to negotiate with me as to the terms and conditions of showing the work.
7. A unilateral decision was made and I was informed. My professional status was ignored.
8. The continued infantilization of artists is in full force.
9. The city wanted a release in writing from legal responsibility immediately and I was given no time to seek legal advice.

Having said all of this, I do want to underscore that the key issue was that the space simply does not have the security in the building to satisfy the insurance company and that I recognize the representative of the city was just doing his job.

But the “unspoken” of this situation is that artists have given the powers stated above to the system. Artists are in part responsible for the situation because we have said nothing. I am saying something. The outcome I am hoping for is that other artists will think about the issues raised by these circumstances and be moved to break their own silence when this happens in their own career. I also hope that cultural/art representatives will also spend some time examining their own perception of the professional status of artists. I also hope that these representatives will begin to enter into equal business relationships with artists and allow for negotiations when the need arises.