Home | Artist Contracts & Artist Rights | Gentrification & Public Art | Discussion 2 | Park Chaneung Interview | Woon-Gi Min Interview | Authors
 Art&Market   Artist Contracts & Artists Rights - The Discussion 

Art Contracts & Artist's Rights

We constantly, in this part of the world, complain that there is no [art]market. I think that's good because when it comes it won't be exactly what we have imagined.
Dan & Lia Perjovschi

Gentrification & Public Art

By the very structure of [museums] existence, it is a political institution. (…) The question of private or public funding of the institution does not affect this axiom. (…) In principle, the decisions of museum oficials, ideologically highly determined or receptive to the deviations of the norm, follow the boundaries set by their employers. These boundaries need not to be expressly stated in order to be operative.* Hans Hacke - All the art that's fit to show

Gentrification & Public Art Discussion

These projects have been around for several years and had motivated creation of new alternative spaces. Now there exist around twenty to twenty-five alternative spaces, and what we're seeing with this development is that these alternative spaces have blended in with the communities and with it's own localities, and have also contributed to the development of the culture of these communities.(Read...)

Park Chaneung Interview

But I don't want Seoksu to be a popular place. I don't want Seoksu to be gentrified. I want it to develop slowly, step by step, and mix the past and the future. I don't invite artists to make it more expensive. My dream is to convert the central space of the market into a place where the citizens can come and enjoy arts, and to make a harmonious relationship between citizens and artists. I thought that, if the government gives me the chance, I could make my dream come true.(Read...)

Woon-Gi Min Interview

I think artists' activities should be aimed toward these matters, like the New Town Plan, which are threatening people and their lives. But art is now mostly used to advertise the city's policy more than solving citizens' real problems.(Read...)


During the reading of the text Elvis Krstulović paraphrased the following line from the conversation with Mladen Stilinovič as a digression:
There are different grounds on which you are censored in a communist regime and that of a free - market. While in communism you are censored on ideological grounds, if your statement opposes the official ideology, the censorship present in capitalist regime is the economical one. If it doesn't sell it is just disregarded. And it is my belief that the later is more profound because in the end it works as a self-censorship as well.

Art Contracts & Artists Rights - The Discussion

Art practices of the 1960s and 1970s - Immaterial Practices and their contradictory impact on art theory and art market

Chaneung Park: You mentioned different kinds of censorship within two contexts; within communism and the free - market? Can you elaborate more on this difference and why do you think the censorship that is present now is more profound than the one of the communist times?
Iva Kovač: First I must say that we were talking about the communism of Yugoslavia which was a moderate form of that kind of regime. Yugoslavia was semi - open towards the West and was not part of the East block but of the Non - aligned and it didn't practice this regime in the same manner as countries like, for instance, USSR or North Korea. It is not true that it was like that for each and every artist. The point is, however, that while you are not included in the market you are not censored, same as you were not censored in communism as long you were not within the scope of the Party's attention. So when you reach the position where somebody is actually paying attention at what you are doing, when I say somebody I mean somebody in the position of power, be that the government or the capital, then there is a danger of being censored.
Elvis Krstulović: I would also like to add something; in the statement by the artist I mentioned before, Mladen Stilinović,* I believe that he made a comparison of Yugoslavian communist regime with free - market in general and not with the transitory local version currently present in Croatia. His experience is that of an internationally active artist so I believe that he is talking from that perspective.
There is one important thing to add in regard to Yugoslavian regime and that is the condition of art. The art in Yugoslavian communist era is not the kind of art you might imagine in a communist state social realism and such. I mean there were public sculptures done in this way, especially until 1948, but later, even the sculptures that were commissioned by the state, were done in a modernist, abstract or semi - abstract manner.
In any case, the discussion is essentially about the difference between private and public funding. While private funding in most cases openly works in the interest of the subject that provides the money, the public funds, like public spaces are, at least declaratively, still in the interest of the wider public. These spaces are still open for discussion … I mean it depends but that was maybe what the artist had in mind when he talked about economic censorship.
Choy Ko Eun: As a scenario writer I feel, after looking trough the contents of the Art Contracts & Artists Rights, that clauses included in the contracts do not actually protect the artists but define the rules, construct the framework within which artists must create their work. In a way that limits their creativity.
Many times, as a scenario writer I apply to companies, but they deny the application saying it doesn't follow the specific guidelines of the contract. So when I ask them how that could be fixed they say that no matter how many times I hand them my work, as long as it doesn't follow the guidelines, they will not look at it.
So the question is weather these contracts actually protect the artist's rights or hinder them from their personal creative process? And another question is; whether it is possible to see the progress in which these contracts actually protect the artist instead of just defining or making guidelines for artists to follow?
Iva Kovač: I am not sure I understood the question. When you had to fill in the form, when applying for the job, you did not fill it in correctly so you were not accepted?
Choy Ko Eun: The contents of the work did not follow the guidelines of the contracts. So the question is whether these contracts protect the artist right's or whether artists actually often don't produce as much because of so many constraints and limitations present in the contracts.
Iva Kovač: The contracts we were talking about were drafted by artists or by an art dealer that was very interested in the artists benefit, financial in this case, but they were really drafted for the sake of artists. So I don't think there is the same issue at stake. They were drafted because the system is not regulated, or if it is regulated than it is regulated by the other party, like the companies you mentioned, which tried to regulate it in their own interest.
Elvis Krstulović: Not to idealize these contracts; they mostly work for those artists who are already successful when they want to protect their rights. Not to suggest you are not successful or anything [smiles], but when Daniel Buren drafted this it was at the beginning of his career and he did not manage to use it for a number of years until he started to sell his work. It addresses problems of artists who are already functioning decently within the market, whose work is already circulating. If you are not in the position to say no, then this contract obviously cannot help you.
Iva Kovač: Usually the galleries have their contracts already drafted and in many cases these are not beneficial for the artists. Not to name anyone, but number of galleries in Croatia work with contracts under which you have to give at least 50 % of the money you get for the artwork. Even if you sell the work on your own, trough acquaintances or whatever, with no help from the gallery whatsoever, you have to give the percentage to them, but according to the contract they don't actually have the obligation to sell any amount of your works. So basically you have obliged yourself to them but they have not done the same to you.
And because these galleries are not always successful it often happens they don't sell much, or anything. So there is no risk for them thanks to their contracts. But if you have your own contract it might be a good thing - of course if you are in a position in which they might actually sign it. And talking about the movie industry, it is a different field, so I cannot really speak about that.
Jeff Rogers: As a photographer speaking in terms of photography - these days, it is kind of funny having this conversation because there has been so much of letting go, so much you have to accept having to put your art online. It is going to go out there and you have to sort of take your hands off, not so much for the commodity of money, as much as for exposure. There is some value in that and I was just wondering what you think of that?
Elvis Krstulović: There is more then one different strategy/approach to the matters regarding digital content in general. Like free software initiatives, GNU licenses, file sharing communities etc, and what these people are saying, not to confuse file sharing with GNU licenses, could be understood as Death of the Author notion. Regarding the author not as a self sufficient creative individual, but culture beeing the author. What they are saying is that if we, in fact, inherit so much from the culture, why then not give it back to the culture by not closing or concealing your work - be it a software source code or photography and video. But nevertheless, the question remains how to maintain your material needs if you follow this logic. There is undoubtedly a lot of romanticism present in the definition of the culture as a practice of sharing but this doesn't solve some basic needs of the professional content creators. Many authors embrace the practice of protecting their work by technically limiting further use; making available online only the low resolution/low quality of images/videos so if someone wants full quality of a certain image/video they have to buy it. But in response you may also say that you would easily give high resolution in exchange for free access to information. For me it is also interesting that the generation of artists that was ready to discard the notion of artistic genius and authorship on theoretical level did not engage in establishing different models of making income as artists and were so proprietary in regard to the authorship.

Home | Artist Contracts & Artist Rights | Gentrification & Public Art | Discussion 2 | Park Chaneung Interview | Woon-Gi Min Interview | Authors