Cultural Policy in Canada appears written in a vacuum.
In the last federal election, all three major political parties endorsed the development and adoption of a new policy on museums. Almost two years later, the most visible form of the Conservative’s as-yet-unstated museum’s policy is the adoption of American Idol as model to determine the future site of a National Portrait Museum.
In Ontario, the Liberals promised in their 2003 platform effective “Status of the Artist” legislation. Flash forward to spring of 2007, in the final days of the last session of their mandate, they delivered with a statute that delivered … celebrate the artist weekend the first weekend in June of every year (and not much else).
On the funding side, ‘key’ institutions are showered with money while everyone else is treated as latchkey kids — without being given the key to get in the door and settle down in the starchitect designed living-room.
If the arts were not, as economists say, an irrational pursuit, they would hardly be thriving these days. And yet, thriving they are. Embattled, impoverished, and improbable, but thriving nonetheless. If only there were some way for the development of cultural policies that would match.
We at the Art Gallery of York University wondered if, perhaps, the problem is the absence of solid primary research. Even the most basic of questions, so basic that should be the start of all policy decisions that affect the arts, has no answer: how many visual artists are in Canada? Call your local funding agency or Ministry of Culture and ask them.* If they give you an answer, ask them where it came from. Chances are, if they even have an answer, it will come from Census statistics — a number that is inherently flawed (see the following page for why this is so).
Looking to a comparable model, Australia has conducted a series of extensive surveys on the economic conditions of artists over the past twenty years (this even under the leadership of John Howard). New Zealand has done similarly. In Canada, we settle for analysis of Census data and anecdotal evidence. And a strong serving of the free-market rhetoric laden supply-side economics of Richard Florida.
Recognizing that this isn’t enough, we’ve decided that we need to conduct our own research. So, we’re polling the nation’s artists to get an accurate picture of where our artist’s are, economically and geographically speaking.
After much planning and developing, the survey has started (see methodology for information on the process). Over the next three to six months, we will continue data collection and then analyse our results. If you're reading this here, it's probably because we have contacted you to participate. Please do — the more respondants we get, the better our results.
Michael Maranda
Assistant Curator
Art Gallery of York University
* If you do call them, drop me a line and let me know what they say. I'm curious.
Background to the Survey:
Existing Studies and Research Problems
To date, Kelly Hill of Hill Strategies Research has done the best statistical analysis of artists in Canada. As you may know, Hill has extensively analyzed Census data over the past few years, work that we value and appreciate greatly. The strength of his data source is the comprehensiveness of the data … all residents in Canada, in theory, are counted. The limitations of Census data, however, are both internal and external. By allowing only one ‘main’ occupation, many artists are not listed in the data as artists (instead, they are enumerated as waiters or curators). This is particularly limiting for a field where many people hold multiple jobs. Further, there is some evidence that many artists just aren't counted in the Census — Census takers can (and do) overlook commercial and industrial zoned buildings with high concentrations of artists. In addition, Census data does not break down income at all: thus, income figures for artists as reported in HSR's reports are total net income from all sources, including non-arts-related employment. No consideration of expenses, much less the correlation between expenses and income, are reported.
In order to get more extensive data, then, requires undertaking a survey of artists directly with a survey-instrument designed specifically for the arts sector. By sampling the arts community directly, a much more comprehensive picture can be drawn. Alas, in order to take all artists into account, direct sampling of the sector isn't feasible (to sample artists who have applied for a Canada Council grant in the past three years, for instance, would skew results towards artists at later stages in their career who do work that is supportable by the Canada Council). Thus, the only way to get responses is by assuming that the target population (visual artists) is hidden. One of the only way to approach a hidden population is to utilize either location-based random sampling (identifying places where artist’s commonly gather, and sample people at these places) or through a referral process, using what is called snowball sampling — you tell two friends, and they tell two friends, et cetera (a second metaphor for conceptualizing snowball sampling is, of course, the chain letter).
Location-based sampling is not particularly effective in hidden-populations, especially those widely dispersed. In addition, samples would be skewed towards those artists who are more social and frequent the chosen sampling sites. To do this properly would require significant resources, making such a study economically untenable.
Snowball sampling, on the other hand, has historically been considered suspect, at best. Those who are captured in snowball sampling tend to be highly connected and the referral chain considered biased towards the demographic profile of the initial ‘seeds’ from which the referral chains originate. Nevertheless, the six-degrees of separation phenomena suggests that referral chains of the sort used by snowball sampling could, in theory, reach an entire population in 6 waves. The question, of course, is that as a hidden population, there was no way to ensure statistical relevancy of any sample drawn from that population, as the demographics of the population are not independently ascertained (using HSR’s census profile as a benchmark with which to compare the results of a simple Snowball sample, for example, would only reinforce the legitimacy of the census-based studies, and not add anything significant to the mix).
Fortunately, the intravenous drug-using population has come to the rescue.
In 1997, Douglas Heckathorn of Cornell University began developing research strategies that could transcend issues of significance in studying hidden (but networked) populations. His main interest was studying the prevalence of HIV in intravenous drug users. The difficulties in studying such a truly hidden and stigmatized population are remarkably similar to the difficulties in studying visual artists, and indeed the techniques he developed are of great interest to cultural economists.
Through some very tightly controlled studies on what actually happens in referral chain sampling, Heckathorn was able to effectively demonstrate that, indeed, with six ‘waves’ of recruitment, the demographics of the selected sample achieves equilibrium. That is, after six recruitment waves, the ratio of any sort of variable within the sample (gender, ethnicity, et cetera) would stabilize so that further waves of recruitment would reflect the same ratio. This was a vital first step in establishing the statistical significance of such Respondent Driven Sampling (RDS).
This stabilization of the profile of the sample suggested that at the point of reaching equilibrium, RDS sampling did achieve a statistically relevant sample of a population. The question, of course, is: what population did this sample represent? Due to the tendency of referrals to occur mainly within homogenous groups, the equilibrium of the sample did not necessarily mean that the population frame was the intended group. Thus, the desired population frame might be, as in our case, visual artists, but the sample might represent a sub-population of visual artists as skewed by the original choice of ‘seeds’ (initial respondents) and by the proclivity of certain ‘seeds’ to produce highly responsive respondent chains.
How this chain of referrals becomes skewed is an interesting question (and, by inference, that the chain-referral system can seemingly self-select subpopulations), but, alas, without a proper population profile with which to compare the results of a study to one cannot infer how the sample differs from the larger population. The important lesson of how the referral chain, in essence, produces its own population frame is that while everyone in the intended population can be potentially chosen by the study, some are more likely to be chosen than others (e.g. highly networked individuals; individuals that are demographically similar to highly productive referral chains; et cetera).
If a profile of those individuals that are more likely to be chosen by the recruitment process can be developed, then those respondents who fit the that profile can be weighted less in the analysis of the results (alternately, those that don’t fit the profile are weighted more), and thus the influence of the factors that led to the sample being weighted towards that profile can be reduced significantly. At that point, the population frame is shifted towards the intended population and away from the self-selected population.
Again, however, the issue comes up that in actual studies of hidden populations the profile of the larger population is not necessarily known (or, if known, known with much reservation), one cannot determine from the demographic profile of the respondents whether an apparent over-sampling of a particular variable is a result of the RDS chain over-sampling for that variable, or whether that variable is indeed over-represented in the target population. In other words, one can know that one’s sample is biased, but one doesn’t know how.
Recall that this bias is introduced via two distinct mechanisms: highly networked individuals will always be more likely to be referred; individuals who are within a population demographic that is being selected for through the process of referral will also be more likely to be referred.
The second factor is dealt with, somewhat, through the extension of the referral chain as far as possible (preferably beyond 6 waves). The residual bias of the second factor is dealt with through a very complex analysis of the homophily of referral chains. For that reason, the chain of referrals must be kept (the researcher has to know who referred whom, and sub-samples of the resulting data are broken out and weighted differently in the analysis.)
The first factor is dealt with through a recording of self-reported network sizes of respondents (e.g., how many other artists in Canada do you know). Those respondents with a particularly large or particularly small network are likewise weighted in the analysis of the data.
Heckathorn has been able to conclusively demonstrate that, through these two weightings, RDS-based surveys can, and are, statistically relevant and thus one can draw significant, non-biased conclusions from data so-collected.
Application of RDS sampling to the Waging Culture survey: Theoretical musings
The challenge of doing RDS surveys is not like traditional surveys, where the initial sampling and direct collection of the data take most of the resources. Rather, as Jeffri pointed out quite directly in my consultation with her, ‘it’s a hell of a lot of administrative overhead.’ Namely, the tracking of chains of referral requires the use of a coupon system that floats freely within the respondent chains. In addition, utilizing this system for a geographically dispersed population (such as visual artists in Canada) is particularly challenging.
Some recent research by Heckathorn has looked into the potential for implementing RDS online, and the perspective offered in that study has suggested some variations on the method that we will be implementing in our study.
In particular, the question of network size is particularly vexing for our population frame. Drug-users have fairly small and easily identifiable personal networks, and thus the network size estimate poses a fairly small problem. Artists have very large social networks, however, and we believe that asking such a direct question would not result in usable data for the purposes of weighting results. Informal polling of my own network suggested that different individuals interpret the question radically differently, and many could not estimate the size of their network. In Heckathorn’s web-based study, he asked students for their ‘Instant Messaging buddy list’ size as a method for estimating network size, which worked well for his purposes. Alas, there is no equivalent mechanism for measuring an artist’s network independently. Tied to this concern is the implementation of the coupon system, which does increases the administrative burden of the sampling process to, from our standpoint, an untenable level.
Instead, we will not be asking our respondents to directly contact their referrals on our behalf. Rather, we will ask that they send directly to us ten referrals (with a certain percentage being outside of their immediate geographic region, to encourage the attainment of geographic equilibrium). From these ten referrals, we will first select only those of the ten who have not yet been asked to participate in the survey. From the remaining referrals, we will then randomly choose three potential respondents and approach them directly with a request to participate.
As a result, in the process of constructing our sample, we will also be constructing an indicator of the likelihood of any particular respondent being referred to us. This should provide us with a large pool of potential recruits, which directly infers the network size of those potential recruits. In other words, the more times an individual is referred, the larger is their inferred network size, and thus our weighting of responses will be tied not to a self-reported social network but rather to a direct indicator of the number of times referred to us.
There are two drawbacks to the design of our survey. First, we are dependent upon our respondents having access to and comfort with the internet (which seems less of an issue for a population which has such a high acceptance of the internet). Second, this does bring us into direct contact with our respondents in the recruitment phase, thus potentially biasing the response rate. In the case of intravenous drug-users, a stigmatized population, this would seriously challenge the validity of the study. As we are art-world insiders, however, we don’t foresee this being as great a challenge. Both caveats must be kept in mind over the course of the survey.
Application of RDS sampling to the Waging Culture survey: Practical musings
The survey process will be broken into two distinct phases. The referral process will be integrated into the first half of the survey, which primarily collects demographic information on our respondents. As already mentioned, we will be working from direct referrals from our initial seeds, which will establish referral chains through successive waves of responses. The initial seeds will be selected from contacts across the country at various career stages. These seeds will more than likely have some sort of connection with the gallery, or with individuals associated with the gallery. This should increase initial responses, although we have no control over subsequent referrals, and must rely upon our status as art-world insiders to encourage participation.
In this first half, we have included a section on career benchmarks with which we will be modeling the average artist’s career development. Utilizing a series of identifiable benchmarks, instead of asking the respondents where they are in their career, will eliminate the vagueness of the standard ‘emerging, mid-, and senior artist’ categories. As we cannot completely capture all significant career benchmarks in our initial list (although we have consulted widely with artists on what they feel are important benchmarks), we have left room for three additional self-defined benchmarks.
Sometime after the initial half of the survey has been undertaken (which will take several months as referrals are being generated at the completion of each survey), the second half of the survey will be sent which captures essential financial information of the sample. In this second half, we will integrate those self-defined bench-marks that have a wide-appeal across the sample, thus completing the picture of an artist’s career as defined by the sample-population itself. The financial information collected is modeled on business tax returns, which many artists will already be familiar with and most likely will have already filled out for the 2007 fiscal year.
The numbers:
Looking at the drawbacks of census-based studies, as pointed out much earlier, is that there is no clear idea of what the population size of professional artists in Canada is. [One of the clear benefits of the Waging Culture survey is that we will be able to get an accurate projection of what that population is, utilizing a very basic capture/re-capture formula.]
In order to ensure that we reach enough respondents for a significant study, however, we needed a working population size. Taking Throsby’s Don’t Give Up Your Dayjob study of Australian artists as a guide, we can estimate that the census misses about 50% of the population. Thus, with Hill Strategy Research numbers indicating 15,250 census visual artists, we can estimate that our target population is in the vicinity of 32,000. At population sizes this large, the number of responses needed for a confidence interval of +/- 5% is 384. (This size sample is valid at the same confidence interval for populations of one million plus as well). Heckathorn suggests that an RDS sample should be double a standard random sample threshold, so we are aiming at getting at least 768 respondents.
Even though we are asking for ten referrals per respondent, we are only selecting three of their references to complete the survey. We cannot expect 100% compliance with the survey, so we have to take into account a lower response rate, which drops off the further the chains progress. A simple calculation of one potential scenario, where we start with 50 seeds, is shown in the graph below.
wave |
recruits contacted |
projected response |
actual responses |
total respondants |
referrals |
running total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 50 |
90% |
45 |
45 |
450 |
450 |
| 2 | 135 |
50% |
68 |
113 |
680 |
1,130 |
| 3 | 204 |
50% |
102 |
215 |
1,020 |
2,150 |
| 4 | 306 |
50% |
153 |
368 |
1,530 |
3,680 |
| 5 | 459 |
40% |
184 |
552 |
1,840 |
5,520 |
| 6 | 552 |
40% |
221 |
773 |
2,210 |
7,730 |
| 7 | 663 |
30% |
199 |
972 |
1,990 |
9,720 |
| 8 | 597 |
20% |
119 |
1,091 |
1,190 |
10,910 |
| 9 | 357 |
10% |
36 |
1,127 |
360 |
11,270 |
| 10 | 108 |
10% |
11 |
1,138 |
110 |
11,380 |
If our assumptions hold true, we will reach our target sample by the sixth wave. Of course, the more we receive the better, so even if we reach our target by the 6th wave we will continue on until at least the 8th. If, on the other hand, we are significantly below our target of respondents at the 8th wave, we can introduce addition wave 1 seeds as needed and proceed from there, building on the existing base. This does not pose methodological issues, as the survey instrument is not time-sensitive for the core data being collected.
Timeframe and Expected Results
Some of the key descriptive information that the survey will address include:
In addition, the resulting analysis of the data will enable me to translate career benchmarks into quantifiable career stages. With this I will be able to develop correlations between education history, geographic location, citizenship status, and 'visible minority' status to income level and career stage (amongst other factors). Extensive correlations between career stage, grant history and income and expense levels will also be undertaken.
The time frame for this survey is fairly short. We have just released stage one of the survey, and will be continuing to poll artists over the summer months. This phase will continue until we have reached at least out target numbers of respondants. At that point, we will be able begin analysing demographic information, including population size estimates.
Before proceeding to the second half of the survey, we will process the career-stage analysis, with particular attention paid to the open ended additional career benchmarks. This information is necessary to finalise the second phase of the survey. Once this section has been completed, we will release the second half of the survey to all respondants simultaneously. Follow-up requests will be made for about a months time, at which point the survey will be closed and analysis of the financial information will begin.
Periodic reports on findings will be released as analysis proceeds, ending with a final report published in book form.
Who are we?
On this page are the actual questions for the first phase of the Waging Culture survey. This page is primarily here for reference for those who have been invited to fill out the survey, which will also explain the phrasing of the comments (in red) that follow some of the sections. This first half of the survey concerns primarily demographic information as well as the recruitment information for extending the survey sample. This page is not the survey itself, which is being administered through a third-party survey website.
Please note: Participating in the actual survey is by invitation only. This is required by the method we are using to create our sample. The technique we are using is a revised version of Respondent Driven Sampling. Please see the following website for information on how this system works: http://www.respondentdrivensampling.org/
To aid in navigating through this rather long page, we have included a series of links which can be used to auto-scroll to the relevant sections.
Table of Contents
Great. We really appreciate your willingness to take part in this survey.
In the 2006 Canadian census, did you identify yourself as an artist?
___ Yes
___ No, I identified as something else
___ No, I didn’t participate
___ I don’t remember
In this section, we would like to get some basic demographic information about you. This information will be used to fine-tune the composite results we receive. While you are not required to answer any of these questions, the more information that we collect, the more useful the results of this survey will be.
What is your year of birth: __________________
Your (biological) sex is:
___ male
___ female
___ other
If other, please specify:
__________________
Your relationship status is:
___ Single
___ Common-law
___ Married
___ Divorced/Separated
___ Other
If other, please specify:
__________________
How many dependents do you have: __________________
The first language that you acquired is:
___ English
___ French
___ Neither
If neither, please specify: __________________
Your Canadian Citizenship status is:
___ Canadian citizen by birth
___ Canadian citizen by naturalization
___ Permanent resident
___ Temporary resident
___ Other
If other, please specify:
__________________
You identify as:
___ Aboriginal (Status and Non-Status, Metis and Inuit people)
___ Visible minority (persons, other than Aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian)
___ Caucasian
___ It's more complicated than any of the above
If complicated, please elaborate:
__________________
Your primary Canadian residence is:
___ a Co-op
___ Owned
___ Rented
First half of postal Code for residence is [e.g., K1A]: ____
Your primary studio space is located:
___ At primary residence
___ elsewhere (owned)
___ elsewhere (rented)
___ don’t have one
Select the primary medium in which you work.
If the medium doesn't fit into an of the existing descriptions, please describe it in the 'other' field.
___ Community artist
___ Film/Video
___ Installation/Sculpture
___ New Media
___ Painting/drawing
___ Performance/Public intervention
___ Photography/Print-based
___ Other (specify:____________)
Select a secondary medium in which you work, if applicable.
If the medium doesn't fit into an of the existing descriptions, please describe it in the 'other' field.
___ Community artist
___ Film/Video
___ Installation/Sculpture
___ New Media
___ Painting/drawing
___ Performance/Public intervention
___ Photography/Print-based
___ Other (specify:____________)
What levels of education have you accomplished in the following categories. (Include all educational experience, not just those programs specific to your primary practice.)
Primary/secondary school:
__ Did not attend __ Attending now __ Attended in past
____ Degrees granted
CEGEP and/or Community College or equivalent:
__ Did not attend __ Attending now __ Attended in past
____ Degrees granted
Art College (non-degree granting):
__ Did not attend __ Attending now __ Attended in past
____ Degrees granted
Bachelor degree:
__ Did not attend __ Attending now __ Attended in past
____ Degrees granted
Masters degree:
__ Did not attend __ Attending now __ Attended in past
____ Degrees granted
PhD:
__ Did not attend __ Attending now __ Attended in past
____ Degrees granted
How many full-time equivalent years of post-secondary education have you completed? _____
Please comment on any other training you have received, formal or informal, that is not captured in the above chart:
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
In 2005, 2006, and 2007 combined, how many grants have you applied for from the following list:
Canada Council for the Arts:
___ Applied for ___ Received
Provincial Arts Council:
___ Applied for ___ Received
City Arts Council:
___ Applied for ___ Received
Other Canadian funding agency:
___ Applied for ___ Received
International foundation or agency:
___ Applied for ___ Received
With the following set of questions, we would like to get some idea of what sort of benchmarks you have reached in your career as a professional artist. This information will be used to compare various career stages of artists, and the impact that achievements have on the financial status of artists.
In order to determine the relationship between these benchmarks and an artist's career, we need to know when you became a professional artist. While it might be difficult to pin-point exactly when you became a professional artist, we're asking you to do so.
A reminder: We are using the Canada Council definition of professional artist, which is as follows:
In what year did you become a professional visual artist? ______
In this list, when we refer to galleries or institutions, we are referring to institutions or organisations whose primary purpose is the presentation of art. As well, do not include exhibitions for which you paid the gallery or organiser a fee or rent of any sort.
In which year did you first: [estimate if necessary]
_____ Present work publicly in a group exhibition at or sponsored by a smaller gallery, institution, or festival (public or commercial)
_____ Present work publicly in a group exhibition at or sponsored by a major gallery, institution, or festival (public or commercial)
_____ Present work publicly in a solo exhibition at or sponsored by a smaller gallery, institution, or festival (public or commercial)
_____ Present work publicly in a solo exhibition at or sponsored by a major gallery, institution, or festival (public or commercial)
_____ Present work in an international gallery or festival (public or commercial)
_____ Present work at an international Biennial (e.g., Sao Paulo, Venice)
In which year did you first: [estimate if necessary]
_____ Obtain commercial gallery representation
_____ Obtain commercial non-Canadian gallery representation
_____ Sell your work to a client outside of your friends, teachers, or family circle
_____ Donate own work that qualified as a cultural properties donation for Revenue Canada
_____ Receive a commission from or make a sale to a major gallery or institution
In which year did you first: [estimate if necessary]
_____ Apply for a grant from a public agency or private foundation for the production or dissemination of your work (not including funding for educational training)
_____ Receive a grant from a public agency or private foundation for the production or dissemination of your work (not including funding for educational training)
_____ Be nominated for a prize or award in which you did not nominate yourself
_____ Be a juror for a grants organization or for a public gallery
In which year did you first: [estimate if necessary]
_____ Be a visiting artist at a post-secondary institution where you were paid a fee
_____ Give an artist talk at a public gallery
_____ Have original work published in any journal or magazine (not including images that accompany a review or advertisement)
_____ Have critical attention paid to your work in a major newspaper or art magazine in the form of a review (not including paid advertising, exhibition announcements, or promotional material published by a gallery with which you are affiliated)
_____ Have critical attention paid to your work in a major newspaper, art magazine, or journal in the form of a feature article (not including paid advertising, exhibition announcements, or promotional material published by a gallery with which you are affiliated)
_____ Have critical attention paid to your work in a published exhibition catalogue (not including newsletters or promotional materials)
_____ Have critical attention paid to your work in a published book that was not an exhibition catalogue
Career Benchmarks :: We missed what???
The previous list of benchmarks is not, of course, comprehensive.
If there is other career benchmarks that you have achieved which you feel are particularly pertinent, add them below:
1. ______________________________________
2. ______________________________________
3. ______________________________________
This is the final page of part 1 of our survey. As mentioned in our emails, we will be requesting that you complete part 2 of the survey some time in the near future. There is one more very important step ... In order to continue the survey, we are asking you to provide us with referrals to 10 of your colleagues who are part of our target audience: professional visual artists at all career levels currently resident in Canada. We ask that at least a third of your referrals not be resident in the same geographic region as yourself. As when we contacted you, we will let the potential respondant know who referred them to us. A promise to you: We will not use the contact information that you provide for any purpose other than the implementation of this survey. We will not add any of this contact information to any other database or email list that we have.
Referral 1:
First Name:
___________________
Last Name:
___________________
City:
________________________
Email:
_______________________
Referral 2:
First Name:
___________________
Last Name:
___________________
... (et cetera)
This is the end of part one of the survey.
... and how are we doing?
On this page are the actual questions for the second phase of the Waging Culture survey, along with some additional notes that expand on the questions that may be helpful in understanding the scope of the questions. This second phase concerns primarily socio-economic information.
To aid in navigating through this rather long page, we have included a series of links which can be used to auto-scroll to the relevant sections.
Table of Contents
If you will remember, we asked for career benchmarks in part 1 of this survey. In addition to a set of benchmarks we provided, we had asked that you provide additional benchmarks that were not included in our list.
After going through the suggestions, we came up with XXX additional benchmarks. In order to be able to include these additional benchmarks in our analysis, we have added them into this section of the survey. Please answer even if you already included one (or more) of these benchmarks in your original survey.
In which year did you first: [estimate if necessary]
_____ additional benchmarks to come
_____ additional benchmarks to come
_____ additional benchmarks to come
2007 Socio-economic Status :: Time commitments
Please estimate the average number of hours that you spent, per week, on the following activities in 2007:
_____ On your artistic practice (all aspects of your practice, including research, production, circulation, and promotion)
_____ On art related employment (such as working for a gallery in any capacity, teaching, graphic design, studio technician, et cetera. Include paid and unpaid hours)
_____ On non-art-related employment (include paid and unpaid hours)
Would you prefer to have spent more or less time on the following:
On your artistic practice ___ less ____ same ___ more
On art related employment ___ less ____ same ___ more
On non-art-related employment ___ less ____ same ___ more
If your preferred time allocation is not the same as actual, please comment on the circumstances that affected this:
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
2007 Socio-economic Status :: other employment and gallery representation
If applicable, please indicate what types of work constitute your art-related and non-art-related employment:
art related employment ________________________________________
non-art-related employment ________________________________________
Do you currently have commercial representation?
__ Yes __ No
2007 Socio-economic status :: familial support and retirement plans
This question is directed to artists who are currently in a 'serious' relationship with another person (a ’spouse‘).
What is the importance of your spouse's economic contribution to the following expenses:
- “basic” living expenses (food, housing): __ n/a __ negligible __ useful __ necessary
- “enhanced” living expenses (entertainment, luxuries) : __ n/a __ negligible __ useful __ necessary
- your art practice: __ n/a __ negligible __ useful __ necessary
If desired, please elaborate:
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
Do you have (check all that apply):
Health benefits funded by:
__ self-financed
__ arts-related employment
__ non-arts related employment
__ spouse
__ family trust
__ none
Pension, RRSP, or other retirement fund funded by:
__ self-financed
__ arts-related employment
__ non-arts related employment
__ spouse
__ family trust
__ none
Do/will these benefits meet your needs:
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
This is the core page of the survey. In this section, we are asking you to report on your income and expenses over the 2007. Most of this information can be found on your 2007 tax return, particularly if you file a business or professional tax return.
It is important to underscore that in no way will the information that you provide here be traced back to you. Our primary purpose in undertaking this survey is to provide a useful and accurate portrait of the economic conditions of the visual arts community. Our hope is that this information will prove useful in framing policy discussions on topics of concern to the visual art producer.
Additionally, you may feel that 2007 was an unusual year for you for some reason ... you sold a lot of work, or you received two large grants, or you didn't make any money at all ... and this may lead you to want to adjust your expenses and income reflect a more 'normal' year for you. However, doing so will affect the results of this survey significantly, making it less accurate as a gauge of the visual art community as a whole. Trust that the law of averages apply — if you had a particularly good year, someone else probably had a particularly bad year (not that we're implying there is a causal relationship between your good year and their bad year).
For these reasons, we encourage you to be as forthright and accurate as you can be. If you do not have exact numbers, please estimate to the best of your ability.
Income derived directly from your artistic practice:
_____ Sales (not including commissions paid to agents or dealers)
_____ Artist fees (including exhibition, speaking, reproduction, and writing fees
_____ Grants, prizes, fellowships, and per diems from public institutions
_____ Grants, prizes, fellowships, per diems, and patronage from private sources
Income derived from arts-related activities, such as teaching, administration or other gallery work, studio assistant, et cetera:
_____ Contracts, casual, and temporary employment (total amount for all sources)
_____ Permanent employment amounts (permanent employment, full or part time)
Other income:
_____ Net income from non-arts-related employment or contracts
_____ New income from investments, trusts, support payments, or other non-work sources
Expenses related to your artistic practice (not only those which are tax deductable):
_____ Total expenses related to your artistic prctice (including total business use of home expenses, applicable childcare expenses, research, et cetera)
_____ Expenses related to arts-related employment income (include. Childcare if applicable)
While this survey is primarily concerned with the 2007, we'd also like the opportunity to see if there are any significant differences between 2007 and 2006.
Thus, if you are able to complete the financial questions for 2006 as well, we would be very grateful. If you don't have this information near at hand, however, feel free to continue without filling in this page.
If you could now comment on what you see as significant factors affecting the socio-economic situation of visual artists in Canada. How satisfied are you with the current situation, and what areas in particular could be improved?
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
If we were to redo this survey, are there any areas we did not touch on or questions that we did not ask that you feel would make a better survey and/or garner a clearer picture of the current visual arts field?
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
Literature review
[this information to come]
Thanks muchly to:
The Waging Culture survey is being undertaken with limited resources. As the AGYU is primarily an art gallery, not a research centre, the infrastructure for conducting such primary research (including professional researchers, staff for implementing the survey, et cetera) does not exist. Neither do we have the financial resources to outsource the survey.
What we do have is access to incredibly supportive and helpful international researchers who recognize what we are attempting to achieve, and they have been vital in developing the framework for this survey. Invaluable advice on the structure of the survey instrument and sampling model has been offered by:
Additional help in the design and implementation of the survey have come from a wide array of people, including Keith Kelly, Jessica Wyman, Clive Robertson, RAAV, Marina Polosa, Catherine Murray, James Missen, as well as supportive and enthusiastic members of the Art Gallery of York University team, Philip Monk, Emelie Chhangur, Allyson Adley, and Karen Pellegrino. We'd also like to thank the various artists who helped in test-running the survey and for their comments and advice.