Have your say here – Basic Income for Artists Online Consultation
It’s important we have our voices heard in this very important pilot. Deadline is Thursday 29th January.
We found this survey to be very inaccessible and difficult to fill out so here are the answers we gave as the Glass Society. Use them to assist you in filling out your answers.
Q1: What are your/your organisation’s views on the overall objectives as set out?
We believe however that the objectives set out for the trial could be more encompassing and positive. The main objective should be to acknowledge the important work of artists and lift them out of uncertain financial situations, allowing them the freedom to flourish, create and explore their practice without any extra expectation on them. Putting an emphasis on artistic creation and production should be removed from the objectives as the arts and creative sectors, of which there are many, already contribute hugely to Irish culture and society. The sector has always struggled not just during the pandemic, so this basic income should be in recognition of that, providing security to artists for the future. The artist’s well being should be at the centre of the scheme.
The objectives should be to empower artists. ‘Minimising the loss of skill and experience’ is not enough; it should be to grow and expand the skills of artists. This is particularly important in the area of the artists we represent, who use glass as a primary material for expression, where the skills required to practice are already on endangered skills lists in other countries.
‘Recognising the value of unpaid work’ is not adequate; it should be eliminating unpaid work and encouraging new artists to enter the sector with confidence in a stable career.
Q2: What are your/your organisation’s views on the streams as proposed?
A two tier system is not wide enough remit as a pilot. The glass society would like to see the inclusion of the following streams:
● Artists & creative arts workers with disabilities & significant health issues
● Artists & creative arts workers with dependents
● Emerging artists & creative arts workers, including late career entry
● Artists & creative arts workers working below the minimum wage
● Artists & creative arts workers in varied employments
● Artist & creative workers from multicultural backgrounds with specific needs
The primary objectives of the pilot should be to test the effects of the Basic Income scheme on artists’ living and working conditions and overall well being.
Q3: Are there any additional objectives that you believe should be included in the overall objectives or stream-specific objectives?
To improve the living and working conditions of artists and creative workers, in terms of
● Ability to realise artistic potential
● Financial security
● Work stability – allowing to plan for the future
● Health and wellbeing
● Family and social life
Q4: Are there any other considerations that you believe the pilot basic income for the arts scheme could impact on, which should therefore be included in the context objectives for monitoring and evaluation by the Department?
We have have an objection to measuring the success of an artist by their productive activities. In order to reach this productivity, the artist requires time and financial stability to evolve creative responses. Time to develop propose and pitch for projects make up a large portion of the work of artists which cannot be quantified under these terms. How are proposals for competitive pitches measured for example if only one proposal is accepted by a commissioner? How are the unsuccessful applicants judged in this proposed system of productivity?
For example how would research and development for new technologies, longer term work within communities and projects involved in long building schemes, be quantified as productive activity?
The scheme should be seen outside the parameters of the pandemic. The purpose of the scheme should be to trial a permanent basic income scheme and this should be explicitly stated.
Q5: Are there any additional professions, not currently outlined, which meet the definition of creative or interpretive expression in visual arts, theatre, literature, music, dance, opera, film, circus or architecture, that should be included on this list?
Craft and traditional arts, heritage craft, community art, public art, Installation art, relational art, media, performing art, and spectacle.
Q6: What is the most appropriate mechanism to provide evidence of eligibility, where an applicant is not a member of a recognised certifying organisation e.g. CV/references to demonstrate track record, proof of income earned from work in the arts, recent qualification?
We support an inclusive, rather than exclusive, list of acceptable criteria. For instance applicants could be deemed eligible for submitting two or more of the following items of evidence:
● Letter of reference from a recognised arts organisation including national representative organisations
● Contract of employment in the arts
● Formal or informal apprenticeship
● Tender of services in the arts
● Website or document showing a portfolio of practice
● Proof of membership of a professional arts organisation
● Accredited educational certificate in the arts
● Proof of artistic sales or income
● Proof of receipt of artist funding from a recognised funder
● Proof of work included in exhibition, performance, festivals etc
● Having work reviewed in a relevant publication or website
Q7: What are the pros and cons of the various potential mechanisms, including the use of references, proof of earned income, receipt of arts council funding, relevant qualifications, and curricula vitae?
It is not fully inclusive of people who have difficulty accessing written forms, language issues, computer literacy, or fall outside the criteria.
The full diversity of artistic work is unique to every individual. All criteria are exclusive to some artists, so the best way to circumnavigate these cons is to use an inclusive list of eligibility criteria.
Q8: Are there any potentially eligible artists or creative arts workers who may be excluded from the scheme through the use of such mechanisms?
It is not fully inclusive of people who have difficulty accessing written forms, language issues, computer literacy, or fall outside the criteria.
The full diversity of artistic work is unique to every individual. All criteria are exclusive to some artists, so the best way to circumnavigate these cons is to use an inclusive list of eligibility criteria.
Q9: How “creative or interpretive expression” is best defined?
Undefined is best, allowing for the expansion of this expression is essential to the creative process.
Q10: What is the most appropriate mechanism(s) for developing artists to provide evidence that they are a developing artist?
Allowing the artist to find the answer for this mechanism is the most inclusive approach. Emphasis on a written format can be a stumbling block to application and therefore qualification for entry.
Q11: What is the most appropriate mechanism(s) for developing artists to provide evidence that they are planning to work in the fields of visual arts, theatre, literature, music, dance, opera, film, circus or architecture?
Allowing the artist to find the answer for this mechanism is the most inclusive approach. Emphasis on a written format can be a stumbling block to application and therefore qualification for entry.
Q12: Are there other considerations that should be accounted for in the final scheme design?
To be inclusive rather than exclusive for the purpose of this pilot.
Q13: Do you have any views on the proposed selection process?
From the listed streams equal numbers of artists should be selected to ensure a fair distribution for testing. See below list for our recommended demographics and abilities.
● Artists & creative arts workers with disabilities & significant health issues
● Artists & creative arts workers with dependents
● Emerging artists & creative arts workers, including late career entry
● Artists & creative arts workers working below the minimum wage
● Artists & creative arts workers in varied employments
● Artist & creative workers from multicultural backgrounds with specific needs
Q14: Do you have any views on the appropriate level of payment or number of hours per week participants should be paid for?
The Basic Income scheme is not an employment income and should not be offered on the basis of ‘hours worked.’ Artist’s working hours do not follow standard conventions and as such measuring work per hours in an unsuitable system for measure. The BIA should reflect current standard wages per annum of other professions which provide for living costs, in order to ensure that its recipients can meet a minimum standard of living.
Q15: Do you have any views on the proposed responsibilities for scheme participants to engage in the Department’s research efforts?
For many artists keeping accurate financial records and uploading data is a serious difficulty, the pilot scheme would need to ensure that this demographic is catered for when collecting data.
Q16: Do you have any views on the most appropriate data collection mechanisms, or specific questions that should be considered in the Department’s research efforts?
Catering for illiteracy and computer illiteracy, access to information, use of language, accessibility, in person support and case workers to assist.
Q17: Thinking back to the scheme objectives, are there any specific questions that you feel should be included as part of the Department’s research efforts?
Opportunities to include further information outside of the remit of the scheme is important.
Q18: Do you have any views on the appropriate mechanisms by which participants could demonstrate meaningful engagement with their arts practice or creative arts work e.g. income earned from the arts?
Visual information, including photographs, video, sound, printed documents, their personal social media and website, press
Q19: What kinds of data would be useful to measure achievement of the schemes objective would be useful and practical for participants’ to provide?
Visual or written
Q20: What is an appropriate interval for the collection of such information?
6 month intervals