Art & Money – Part 1: Artist Residencies – Housing or Hustle?

Art & Money – Part 1: Artist Residencies – Housing or Hustle?

Artist residencies have long been promoted as golden opportunities: a chance to travel, create, and connect with new communities. The promise sounds exciting — time and space to focus on your art, often in a beautiful setting, with other creative minds around you.

But here’s the truth: not all residencies are created equal. Some provide stipends, travel funds, and production budgets — true support that allows an artist to survive while they work. Others, however, only offer a place to stay and “exposure”, leaving artists scrambling to cover food, materials, and bills. In some cases, the organization gains prestige, programming, and media coverage while the artist is left with debt or unpaid labour.

The Dream vs. The Reality

• Dream: A stipend that covers living costs, travel expenses paid, and a production budget for materials.
• Reality: Many residencies only provide shared housing or studio space, no money, and sometimes even charge application or participation fees.

This raises a tough question: when an artist is invited to “reside,” but must personally fund their food, transportation, and materials, is that really support — or exploitation dressed up as opportunity?

Case Study: The Vancouver Biennale

The Vancouver Biennale’s International Artist Residency is a high-profile program bringing artists from around the world to British Columbia. While it provides accommodation, studio space, and community engagement, the program does not publicly list stipends or financial compensation. Without that clarity, it’s difficult to know whether artists are receiving fair support — or if they’re expected to self-fund their participation.

Why It Matters

Residencies shape careers, and many artists dream of the validation that comes with being “selected.” But without fair pay, only those with independent resources, grants, or savings can participate. That leaves out countless talented artists — especially locals in expensive cities like Vancouver — who simply can’t afford to work for free.

Exposure vs. Exploitation

“Exposure” doesn’t pay rent. It doesn’t buy groceries or stretch canvas. If residencies want to truly nurture art and culture, they must treat artists as professionals whose labour and creativity have value. Otherwise, the residency becomes less of a launchpad and more of a hustle.

Questions to Reflect On

• Have you or someone you know ever participated in a residency? Was it financially sustainable?
• Should public art organizations be required to publish how much they pay resident artists?
• Would you apply for a residency that doesn’t offer a stipend? Why or why not?

This post is the first in a series on Art & Money. In upcoming parts, we’ll look at executive salaries in arts organizations, the grant game, and how “exposure” often replaces fair pay. Stay tuned.