Richmond’s Street Banner Contest

 

Carefree 20 "× 24 "
Artist: Tina Winterlik

Dear City of Richmond,

I am writing about Richmond’s Street Banner Contest and, more broadly, about how artists are valued and compensated for the work they contribute to our communities.

I will not be entering this contest.

I have been an artist for many years, and I learned early on that artists need to be very careful when organizations ask us to provide our creative work for competitions, exposure, promotional opportunities or small honorariums.

Many years ago, when I attended the Alliance for Arts and Culture, I remember being warned about exactly this problem: artists are often approached with opportunities that can ultimately result in our work, ideas and creativity being obtained for little or nothing because we are expected to be grateful simply for being given an opportunity.

I believe that needs to change.

I have experienced this kind of situation myself.

In 2012, I donated an original oil painting, “Carefree,” 20 × 24 inches, to a Gateway Theatre fundraising event in Richmond. The event featured 100 pieces of adjudicated artwork donated by local artists. Tickets were $350 per couple and included an original artwork valued at $300 or more, along with dinner and other amenities.

I was happy to support the arts and contribute my artwork to a fundraiser. But the experience also made me think about how easily artists' work becomes part of the value of an event without the artist necessarily receiving meaningful compensation.

The painting was displayed for only a night or two, and afterward I was never told what happened to it or where it went.

[I will include an image of my original painting, “Carefree,” with this letter.]

That experience stayed with me.

Now I see the City asking artists to submit designs for the Street Banner Contest, with ten artists receiving a $300 honorarium and their designs being reproduced on 1,000 street banners throughout Richmond.

I have to ask:

Is $300 really an appropriate value for an artist’s creative work when that work is going to be reproduced 1,000 times and displayed throughout an entire city?

And perhaps even more importantly:

What rights are artists being asked to give up when they submit their work?

Artists should not have to wonder whether entering a contest means surrendering copyright, reproduction rights, licensing rights or other rights. Those terms should be completely transparent before an artist submits anything.

This isn't about artists being unwilling to participate in their communities. Quite the opposite.

Artists contribute enormously to our communities. We create the paintings, photographs, sculptures, illustrations, designs, music, writing and public art that help give a city its identity and character.

But creativity is labour.

A painting doesn't appear out of nowhere. It takes years of learning, practice, materials, time, imagination and skill. The same is true of every creative discipline.

Artists have rent to pay. We buy our own materials and equipment. We spend countless unpaid hours developing our skills and creating our work.

We cannot pay our bills with exposure.

We cannot buy art supplies with publicity.

And a swag bag of brushes is not equivalent to fairly compensating an artist for their creative work.

A city cannot celebrate its arts and culture while simultaneously creating a culture where the people producing that culture are expected to accept minimal compensation.

If Richmond wants artwork for its public spaces, I believe artists should be commissioned and compensated fairly according to the scope of the project, the time and skill involved, the public exposure, reproduction and licensing of the work, and the rights being requested from the artist.

There is also something uncomfortable about asking hundreds of artists to compete against one another for a limited number of small honorariums.

It normalizes the idea that artists should be grateful for whatever opportunity comes along.

I don't believe that anymore.

Artists are valuable.

Our work is valuable.

Our time is valuable.

Our intellectual property is valuable.

And the City of Richmond should treat it that way.

I hope Richmond will rethink this contest model and consider creating public-art opportunities based on fair compensation, transparency and genuine respect for artists and their rights.

Please don't just ask artists to compete for the opportunity to have their work used.

Commission us.
Pay us.
Respect our work.

Sincerely,

Tina Winterlik
Artist

---

#ArtistsAreValuable #PayArtists #ArtistsRights #FairPayForArtists #SupportArtists #PublicArt #ArtAndCulture #ArtistRights

Reflective Questions

1. If a city can afford to reproduce an artist's work 1,000 times, why can't it afford to properly compensate the artist who created it?

2. When does an “opportunity” for an artist become a way of obtaining valuable creative work for far less than its true value?

3. Would we ask a lawyer, architect, engineer or accountant to compete against hundreds of professionals for a small honorarium and call it a fair opportunity? Why is creative labour treated differently?

4. Who benefits when artists are repeatedly told that exposure, publicity or a small token of appreciation should be enough compensation for professional creative work?

5. What would our cities look like if we stopped asking artists to prove their worth and started treating their creativity as the professional labour it actually is?