Why I don't participate in art competitions seeking free student work.
Many art contests are exploitive opportunities to get free art by organizations that could be paying an artist a living wage, but instead get free submissions from children. Once in a long while I get “voluntold” to participate in an art contest by administration, but for the most part, I ignore contest emails especially when the prize is laughably small or nonexistent.
For example, I got an email from our local Red Cross for a mural competition. Within the email it said, “The selected mural will serve as a visual representation of our commitment to humanity, compassion, and community service. We believe that art has the power to inspire, unite, and uplift, and what better way to harness this power than by inviting budding artists to create a masterpiece that embodies the spirit of the American Red Cross?”
All well and good but the prize, “The winning artist will have the opportunity to paint their mural at the American Red Cross (building) during the summer months. The mural will be showcased during a community open-house event at the completion of the project. In addition, the art teacher of the winning student will serve as the advisor throughout the painting process, providing guidance and support.”
Translation, free child labor and the teacher must supervise the free labor with unpaid time to paint a 16 ft by 9 ft. mural, but thankfully “paint will be provided.” Golly gee, doesn’t that sound great?
Exposure is not a prize it's exploitation. Students need scholarships, and teachers need pay for their time. Here are some articles in support of this idea.
https://messyeverafter.com/self-employed-journey/dont-work-for-the-promise-of-exposure/
https://charlestoncitypaper.com/2017/04/26/the-exposure-myth/
https://fineartviews.com/blog/30582/exposure-the-ugly-myth
https://wthspatriot.com/5210/opinion/paying-artists-in-exposure-is-not-okay/
There are several reasons why artists may choose to decline offers that promise exposure in exchange for their work:
1. Exploitation: Some individuals or organizations may try to take advantage of artists by offering exposure instead of fair compensation for their work. This can devalue the artist's labor and talent, making it difficult for them to sustain themselves financially.
2. Sustainability: Exposure alone does not pay the bills. Artists need to earn a living from their work to support themselves and continue creating. While exposure can help artists gain visibility, it may not always translate into tangible benefits such as sales, commissions, or future opportunities.
3. Professionalism: Accepting offers based solely on exposure can undermine an artist's professionalism and the value of their work. It's essential for artists to establish themselves as professionals who deserve to be compensated for their skills and creativity.
4. Quality of Exposure: Not all exposure is equal. Artists should carefully evaluate the reach, target audience, and reputation of the platform offering exposure to determine if it aligns with their goals and values. Exposure that does not reach the right audience or is not presented in a professional manner may not yield significant benefits.
5. Opportunity Cost: Accepting exposure offers may prevent artists from pursuing paid opportunities that could provide more substantial benefits. Artists must weigh the potential gains from exposure against the time and resources they invest in a project.
My email reply to the “recruitment specialist” was this...
We never participate in nor promote exploitive "opportunities." Please remove me from your list.
For example, I got an email from our local Red Cross for a mural competition. Within the email it said, “The selected mural will serve as a visual representation of our commitment to humanity, compassion, and community service. We believe that art has the power to inspire, unite, and uplift, and what better way to harness this power than by inviting budding artists to create a masterpiece that embodies the spirit of the American Red Cross?”
All well and good but the prize, “The winning artist will have the opportunity to paint their mural at the American Red Cross (building) during the summer months. The mural will be showcased during a community open-house event at the completion of the project. In addition, the art teacher of the winning student will serve as the advisor throughout the painting process, providing guidance and support.”
Translation, free child labor and the teacher must supervise the free labor with unpaid time to paint a 16 ft by 9 ft. mural, but thankfully “paint will be provided.” Golly gee, doesn’t that sound great?
Exposure is not a prize it's exploitation. Students need scholarships, and teachers need pay for their time. Here are some articles in support of this idea.
https://messyeverafter.com/self-employed-journey/dont-work-for-the-promise-of-exposure/
https://charlestoncitypaper.com/2017/04/26/the-exposure-myth/
https://fineartviews.com/blog/30582/exposure-the-ugly-myth
https://wthspatriot.com/5210/opinion/paying-artists-in-exposure-is-not-okay/
There are several reasons why artists may choose to decline offers that promise exposure in exchange for their work:
1. Exploitation: Some individuals or organizations may try to take advantage of artists by offering exposure instead of fair compensation for their work. This can devalue the artist's labor and talent, making it difficult for them to sustain themselves financially.
2. Sustainability: Exposure alone does not pay the bills. Artists need to earn a living from their work to support themselves and continue creating. While exposure can help artists gain visibility, it may not always translate into tangible benefits such as sales, commissions, or future opportunities.
3. Professionalism: Accepting offers based solely on exposure can undermine an artist's professionalism and the value of their work. It's essential for artists to establish themselves as professionals who deserve to be compensated for their skills and creativity.
4. Quality of Exposure: Not all exposure is equal. Artists should carefully evaluate the reach, target audience, and reputation of the platform offering exposure to determine if it aligns with their goals and values. Exposure that does not reach the right audience or is not presented in a professional manner may not yield significant benefits.
5. Opportunity Cost: Accepting exposure offers may prevent artists from pursuing paid opportunities that could provide more substantial benefits. Artists must weigh the potential gains from exposure against the time and resources they invest in a project.
My email reply to the “recruitment specialist” was this...
We never participate in nor promote exploitive "opportunities." Please remove me from your list.
RSS Feed