KEY POINTS:
Five per cent royalty/resale tax/whatever, I thought. Is it worth the fuss?
If someone buys my work and makes a killing, those are the breaks. They could well have lost, and thanks for the support. So I've never complained about this before.
But now, when a measly 5 per cent on profit made by dealers and collectors has been suggested, they all go into overdrive.
If artists think that when their early works achieve cash value they deserve to reap some reward, they should give up. If they still find it hard to survive, find another job. In other words, stuff the artist.
I'm beginning to be interested in the argument, not that I'm really a player as my work seldom comes up for resale. But what ugly arguments. Why not support the artist? What is this about?
The Government is seeking feedback on a possible "resale royalty right" which would give visual artists a royalty payment when their original work is resold. This would put visual artists on a par with New Zealand writers and composers, who continue to receive royalties throughout their term of copyright, and on a par with visual artists in some 50 countries who receive some payment on the resale of their work.
The Artists' Resale Right is now reciprocal across Europe, and artists receive royalties whenever their works are resold there.
There is an issue here, and a very ordinary one. If it is accepted worldwide, that artists retain copyright over their work, why should they not be entitled to some payment for the commercial exchange of it?
And why, in asking for this discussion, has the Government been accused of acting as bureaucrats beamed down from some other planet?
Some respectable commentators warn that in general whenever a surcharge or tax is levied, the market price is likely to fall by as much as the amount of the levy.
Not so in art it seems. Despite much larger levies caused by the addition of buyer's premium (20 per cent in the major auction houses in Britain and the EC) and the even more widespread 17.5 per cent VAT rate on art sales, art markets adjusted quite quickly.
A further objection is that administration costs would take about half the royalty rate. I can't see why. The rate set by collecting agencies in Britain for processing resale royalties is 15 per cent. Why should it be different here?
Some international auction houses and commercial galleries fear loss of business and a shift of markets to countries not supporting the royalty.
Well, if those dealers are happy to pay for transport, insurance, art import sales taxes, larger GST/VAT taxes when carrying their purchase to other countries, rather than pay 5 per cent to the artist, go to it.
One collector and patron states that royalties make it hard to determine the true price of an artist's work. Is there such a thing as a "true price"? And why does a 5 per cent royalty mask it, when the auctioneer or dealer commission of 15 per cent to 40 per cent does not?
Concerns that the first purchaser may be unfairly penalised in paying the royalty on a work selling at a lower price than he paid can be managed by applying the entitlement only when the work is sold by the seller for more than he or she paid, as occurs under the Californian code.
How are prices determined? In setting the original "inflated" price, the artist was probably trying to cover the costs of his current works and make his living, like everyone else in the community. As in any business, there are essential costs in producing art.
In my field, sculpture, between 33 to 40 per cent goes to the dealer or agent.
Direct costs of materials, casting or other outwork; studio overheads, insurance, and GST probably take another 40 per cent for that work alone. The sculptor is likely to sell only a small number of the works in each exhibition; then, as for everyone, income tax applies.
As well, if the artist prices his work higher than his current personal market "value", it is unlikely to sell. To that extent, the market sets the price.
Some oppose the royalty, believing it will have an adverse effect on the great art auction houses. Well, thank goodness more than 50 countries consider the artists' situation is also important.
In any case, is this fear substantiated? After the first year of the Artists' Resale Right enactment in Britain, a Government review reports that it doesn't appear to have damaged the British art market. The number and price levels of modern and contemporary art resales by art market professionals appear to be impressive, with record resale prices being reported at auctions and in private sales.
Another claim is that it becomes more difficult to trace works for retrospective exhibitions and catalogues. But I believe that the establishment of a single agency or commission for royalty management, with the joint function of recording artist's exhibitions, could provide a good platform for artists, historians and curators in preparing for retrospective exhibitions and the like.
Why not just a voluntary agreement with major dealers? Well, that hasn't worked for visual artists.
New Zealand could have been choosing to follow the lead of the many countries already providing for resale royalties. I haven't seen any rush to do this voluntarily.
Our figures are probably similar to those in Australia, where 18 per cent of the income of writers and 22 per cent of that for composers is derived from income on resale, but only 2 per cent of the income of visual artists comes from voluntary royalties.
Curiously, some of these same commentators recommend that perhaps resales over $20,000 or $25,000 could return a percentage to the artist.
New Zealand art auction results showed that if this were applied, only about one in eight of the works sold last year would attract the royalty.
So this recommendation would deprive many artists. Why do this?
Some commentators seem scornful of the small sums involved, noting that last year's auction figures show that of the 801 artists who would have benefited from the 5 per cent royalty, 701 would have received less than $2500 and of these 701, less than $1250 before administration fees were deducted.
Obviously, we live in different worlds. I would be quite pleased to earn an extra few hundred or so. And the same commentators argue that the royalty would not help the younger artist who needs assistance.
True enough, at least in the short term. Any right under a copyright act rewards those who are most in demand. But while relatively few younger artists may benefit from a resale royalty, is this a just argument for denying it to all artists?
Are there not other ways of supporting younger artists? Awareness of a continuing earning right may also be seen by younger artists as an incentive for staying in the job - certainly writers can be excited by their first small royalty payment from the library system.
And hang on, who says older artists don't deserve a living? Or that the tiny few who become somewhat rich should not earn more? Is this a privilege only to be available to patrons, auctioneer firms, dealers, consultants? Is it required that artists be poor and live in a garret?
Art consultant Hamish Keith was vehement on Radio New Zealand that resale royalties should not be approved, delightedly supporting another objector's suggestion that artists who were still struggling into old age should try some other trade.
Mr Keith may be doing rather nicely as an art consultant. But I am pretty sure that a survey of "senior" artists would reveal that many are in the position of other elders, that is, not particularly wealthy. Since the median personal income, from all sources, for a visual artist in New Zealand in 2001 was $15,900 compared to $27,700 for the general population, clearly artists are not being greedy.
Further, unlike many workers, artists often continue their industry long after their additional salaried jobs end. For sculptors, in particular, it then becomes increasingly difficult to fund the work. Even the occasional royalty would help.
It seemed ironic that on the same day as Mr Keith was so positively negative about this issue, artists to be represented in his latest publication were asked for permission for reproduction of images of their work.
The publishers sought an assurance that reproduction fees would not be charged, on the basis that the book advanced NZ art and culture.
Many artists, often the elder ones, donate willingly and freely of their time and work to support community causes. But it is somewhat irksome to be asked to contribute to the promotion of the efforts of someone who will benefit commercially while scorning the efforts of others not necessarily so well rewarded.
I take this very personally. As an officially old artist, I certainly struggle to continue. It would seem that some of those who espouse love and support for New Zealand art do not extend that to the artists.
They want a free lunch. They want artists' work to provide their meal ticket. But the needy artist is an inconvenience.
What a pity that this public discussion has turned so sour. Wouldn't it be nice for the excitement to be over ideas on the best way to include this equitable practice in the variety of ways our community shows it values its art and artists?
