Artists Need Space: London’s Creative Economy Discourages the Arts
A couple of weeks ago, I attended a lecture by cultural Theorist Angela McRobbie called “Fashion as Creative Economy”. What is the creative economy? Simply put, it’s the sum of economical factors surrounding the state of creative industries- things like what artists are paid, how they find their work, how they afford to live, how much it costs them to produce their work, and more . The professor’s work compared three cities- Berlin, Milan and London, and what it was like to live and work as a fashion designer in those places. She looked at these places for many different factors- including cost of living, community spaces, how artists made their living, and how policy shaped these aspects of the creative economy.
Although this particular lecture was focused on fashion, I left thinking about the difficult time all artists are currently living through- soaring rent prices, inflation, and high tuition costs at major institutions. I left with a sad realisation: The creative economy of 2023 does not encourage the arts.
Finding places to live and work
Let me first state the obvious- artists need to live somewhere. Ideally, artists need to live around other artists and creatives. During the early 1900s, modernists like Picasso, Poiret and Derain lived in Montmartre, which at the time was not yet part of Paris. In Montmartre, rent was cheap, cafes were busy, and nightlife thrived. This environment meant that artists could live off very little money while they made their art using the nearby Moulin Rouge dancers as models. Where is the Montmartre of today? In the UK, much of the art scene is still centred around London where the cost of living and especially the cost of rent is soaring. Even if working part-time covered your rent and living expenses, you’re unlikely to be able to prove to letting agencies that you can make rent unless you make 3x the amount of rent. As such, wannabe artists have to either work close to full-time to afford to live in London, or rely on a family relative as a guarantor. If you happen to find yourself a cheap spare room, you’re unlikely to have the freedom you need to have your own space to live in community with likeminded people around you.
An artist needs more than a bed, though. An artist needs studio space. This too, is outrageously expensive to have in London. According to tagvenues.com, it typically costs between £15 and £150 an hour to rent studio space. Even if you’re able to find something at the minimum price and you only need it for two days a week, you’re looking at an additional £1080 a month on top of your rent and other living costs. There simply isn’t time enough to work to make the amount of money you need to create! Many artists must face a choice- spend more money living near other artists and galleries, or live somewhere with more room- but little access to the spaces of a thriving art scene.
Indiviudal artists may turn out fine in making this choice. But to support a thriving arts scene and great art movements, you can’t simply rely on the individual exception to the rule. We need to foster spaces where artists can thrive.
Affording to live and work
In terms of making stable income, the financial stability of artists rely on their constant success with very little room for failure. There are two basic ways artists receive funding beyond selling their art (which tends to be unreliable). First, there’s the merit-based award model. In places like London, artists who show promise or are in the top of their practice receive money as award for their good work. These programmes can be really helpful for artists, but relying on them means that artists have to constantly fight the battle to stay on the top and stay relevant. There’s a precarious nature to living like this, and its not always sustainable.
So what’s the alternative? Things like EU Social Funds promote the creative industries not based on the output of their work, but on the social good they create in their communities. Companies, organisations and individuals can apply for grants based on their work contributing to things for the social good- “social innovation, health services, ageing and long-term care, access to prevention, innovative treatments and e-health options, inclusion and accessibility, and cultural and creative activities with a social goal.” What does this mean? Well, in theory, it means creatives can have access to funds that are more long term and less reliant on their short-term output. But of course, artists in the UK no longer have access to these kinds of programmes.
What’s the solution?
I wish I had a great answer. If I had a lot of money, I would probably start a philanthropic effort to create inexpensive studio space for emerging artists, but even that would only be a start. A lower cost of living, protections for renters, better community structures, and access to well structured funds will all go miles in creating a better space for artists to create. You’ll notice that most of these are majorly intertwined with political decisions made by government bodies and politicians.
Art is not separate from politics because artists live in a world governed by these politics. A society that values art must design a society in which art can be made.
Artists need time to create and room to fail. Great art has been created in spaces where artists could rely on relatively small incomes to pay their rent and spend their time observing, experimenting, and producing art most of which will not sell. It takes a long time to become a world-changing artist. Give them some space.