For years, the associative movements of contemporary artists in Spain have been working to improve the situation of artists. In 1977, the Trade Union Association of Visual Artists was already meeting with the Ministry of Culture to demand their statute (Ballester, J.M., Diario16, 15/11/1977). From that time until today, progress has been minimal, although the political world has found in the artist’s statute an easy tool to garner headlines. This has demanded an enormous effort from associations, which are exhausted from participating in endless meetings only to achieve a few minor, insufficient measures. The limited and often unresolved actions highlight the sclerosis of public administration in addressing the historical and structural needs of the cultural world.

The number of artists and cultural workers in Spain is enormous and of unquestionable quality. However, the market and economic activity surrounding art in Spain are limited and, under current conditions, insufficient to sustain the livelihoods of all these artists who need dignified economic recognition for their work. There are countless extraordinary composers and performers, writers, contemporary artists… but only a minority can live solely from these practices. Luis García Montero, director of the Cervantes Institute, stated in an interview with Mario Bravo: “Living off poetry is not possible; one must seek another profession to make a living.” This is a reality for most art professionals, not just poets. Ignoring this reality when formulating policies to support culture is a significant mistake and fails to reflect the realities of the art world in Spain. Former Minister of Culture and Sports, Miquel Iceta, stated repeatedly that his goal was for “people in Spain to live from cultural work,” yet we see that this remains unchanged, demonstrating a lack of understanding of the sector’s reality. While some can and will be able to live off their work, the reality is far more complex.

Why are the measures being taken in the artist’s statute so piecemeal?

It must be clarified that what is referred to as the artist’s statute is an impossible concept. The statute is not solely for the artist but encompasses artists, performers, and cultural workers across all artistic manifestations—from dance to literature, film to circus. When one considers the breadth and complexity of situations, contexts, and labor specificities, it becomes evident that it is impossible to legislate or find common fiscal solutions for such diversity. As understood, the artist’s statute is an unsolvable global problem, which is why the only feasible strategy involves specific measures to address particular situations. Consequently, disciplines like visual arts have not found specific measures.

Why do the current measures fail to benefit visual artists?

Specifically, only about 2.7% of visual artists manage to earn sufficient income from their art to contribute as self-employed workers and qualify for a contributory pension. This means that 97.3% of visual artists in Spain (and some studies suggest even lower percentages) fall outside the social protection system, living in significant precariousness. Their income fluctuates throughout their careers, making current fiscal systems ill-suited to their realities. This situation is similarly reflected in other artistic manifestations.

To date, the agenda from the first report on the Artist’s Statute has not included any measures that directly benefit visual artists. The only implemented changes have had minimal impact in this field, such as the compatibility of receiving a pension with collecting royalties after retirement. However, for visual artists, these royalties are usually negligible compared to those generated in music or literature, which have benefited from this measure. Moreover, the report did not consider allowing visual artists to generate income from the sale of their works post-retirement, a critical aspect for continuing their creative processes. While activities like conferences or book presentations are mentioned, the possibility of commercializing artistic works created after retirement is not specified.

Since last year, a 2% to 7% retention rate has been applied to low-income artists working as freelancers or under special labor relations, provided their annual income does not exceed €15,000. However, this measure impacts only a small number of artists, as most must juggle multiple occupations to survive—including work in museums, education, agriculture, hospitality, design, crafts, publishing, production, or family businesses—constantly adapting to find livelihood solutions.

For the 2.7% of visual artists who live solely from income derived from their artistic activity, the situation requires registering as self-employed. This involves the immense difficulty of paying monthly self-employment fees despite highly irregular and fluctuating income. This reality is common for most cultural workers, as any creator faces periods without income—not only due to the unpredictability of the cultural market but also because they need time for creation/research to develop their work, whether it’s a book, a musical composition, an artistic project, or a film. This situation necessarily demands a specific change in the self-employment contribution system to consider creation/research periods as active, even if no income is earned during those times.

An example of the misguided measures being implemented within the artist’s statute is the provision for freelancers earning less than €3,000 annually. For 2023, a reduced monthly contribution base was set at €526.14 (equating to a monthly fee of €161), payable quarterly instead of monthly. While reducing the self-employment fee may initially seem positive, the math reveals its absurdity, as nearly all income would go toward paying the fee. All this effort ultimately benefits very few artists. What happens to the vast majority of artists juggling multiple jobs with great effort and sacrifice? These individuals end up being the true patrons of culture in Spain, along with their families and friends who support their activities financially or in other ways.

The measures addressed within the artist’s statute have primarily been designed for contractual relationships, which are non-existent in the world of contemporary art. These measures have been developed mainly for the performing arts sector—for performers and technicians—including provisions such as fixed-term artistic employment contracts, adaptation, and expansion of the definition of public performances to include technical and auxiliary personnel, and the development of unemployment benefits tailored to the intermittent nature of artistic work. As evident, these measures are not designed for creators who are never contracted but either work as self-employed if their income suffices or take on myriad other occupations to sustain themselves.

There are fundamental issues that are not being taken into account, such as the fact that the costs incurred by the artist to maintain a studio and/or a storage place are tax deductible. On the contrary, in many cases this fact becomes a sanction because it does not allow to receive retirement for the fact of having more than one property, when what happens is that such property is an indissoluble part of the continuity of their creative activity and is personally paying for the protection of the artistic heritage that should be assumed by some public body; what less that it would never be punishable and it would be tax-deductible. The same happens with all the investment in the production of works that can only be made by those who have a sufficient fiscal situation and maintained over time. As we can see, this is the exception.

These are circumstances that we cannot ignore. The statute of the artist will turn its back on the reality of art in Spain and, despite implying some positive changes, it may even harm the sector by generating a greater gap between those who have access to a certain level of professionalization and those who do not. There are already situations in certain sectors in which we see artists who have reached a certain market status that monopolize the spaces, making the flow of renewal scarce, normalizing the typology of creative proposals and preventing other alternatives from developing. Basically, we are talking about an indirect censorship that prevents freedom of expression through the normalization of reductionist market strategies.

To all this we must add a fundamental factor that directly affects artistic careers and that is systematic longevity. As the Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-Moon, explains when speaking about aging in the 21st century, “The social and economic repercussions of this phenomenon are profound and go far beyond the immediate sphere of the elderly person and his or her family, since it involves society in general in an unprecedented way…”. Experience and knowledge are not inherited genetically and today we have the opportunity to enjoy the creativity of people who in other times would have passed away. But at present they cannot develop their creative activity, incompatible with their pension, and only if we know how to include them legally and fiscally we will be able to receive the gift that is their artistic work. And the disadvantages go beyond that because, as the Legacy project being carried out by the Gabeiras Foundation shows, there is the great problem of artists in advanced age not finding solutions so that their legacy can be preserved. And in this case it is a private initiative that is rightly looking for solutions.

What is the solution for creators?

At this point, when it is clear that the measures that are being addressed on the status of the artist obviate the creators and the vast majority of them, what can be the solution?

First of all, we have to assume that no matter how much legislative and fiscal engineering is developed, if they are not designed for the vast majority of creators, we would not be providing a solution to the problems of the sector. And secondly, it has to be considered from the reality that creators have to combine their artistic activity with other jobs in order to maintain a lasting career that goes beyond retirement in Spain. As much as we might like and declare that all artists in Spain live exclusively from their work, those of us who have studied the sector know that it is impossible. But that does not mean that we should stop trying to improve the conditions of the sector and at the same time we have to develop proposals that allow artistic careers to have continuity and for this the solution is to develop a law of cultural conciliation as one of the main measures of the artist’s statute.

Cultural Conciliation aims to allow all creators to continue their activity. Its implementation would have a very positive impact on the creative processes themselves, and could generate an alternative to the accelerated and profitable processes demanded by the rules of the market. The administration has a great responsibility in the defense of culture, it is not responsible for the survival of the great census of artists, but it must facilitate the continuation of creation by generating the necessary measures so that there is a conciliation that allows to continue with the activities derived from artistic creation without labor, legal and fiscal barriers.

Facilitating this conciliation involves encouraging the hiring of artists in jobs linked to the cultural/artistic field and allowing the participation of the artist in their significant activities so that we generate the possibility of a sustainable professional development.

Conciliation avoids centralization, as creators can continue to live in their places of work without having to migrate to cities where there is a larger market. It enhances freedom of creation and expression by not being totally dependent on market structures or subsidies governed by intermittent policies. Conciliation will also allow professional sustainability by allowing long professional careers, without the need for haste, as opposed to the construction of ephemeral successful careers. For Spanish art to position itself internationally, it needs these professional careers built solidly over time.

For all these reasons, it is essential to generate clarity in order to specify an ideology and a conceptual framework that will allow for a realistic and effective legislation to solve this problem. When I intervened in the subcommittee of the Statute of the Artist in Congress, I began my intervention by stating: Artists want to pay taxes, be autonomous and contribute to the collective construction of the welfare society, but we also need the legislation to reflect our reality. To achieve this, we need “Cultural Conciliation”, which makes it possible to reconcile any work situation, whether intermittent or stable, including retirement, with artistic activity. This implies guaranteeing the possibility of always invoicing, regardless of the work situation, applying significant reductions in invoicing. It is also crucial to allow the deduction of expenses derived from research, production and dissemination of artistic creation at a high percentage. In addition, other types of conciliation should be considered to allow the artist’s attendance at essential moments, such as staging, openings, conferences or workshops, where his or her presence is indispensable to the creative process.

When Minister Ernest Urtasun calls us to the world of culture with the intention of once again promoting the development of the Statute of the Artist, there is a risk of continuing in this inertia of “crumbs”, instead of having a global vision that truly improves the ecosystem of art in Spain, which will necessarily involve developing Cultural Conciliation. A concept that I have developed and presented to the Ministry repeatedly and have defended as a representative of the Federation of Contemporary Artists of Spain, but from the AC Union we see how it continues to be ignored.

It is worth mentioning other fundamental aspects that we cannot forget such as: the adequacy of public contracting in relation to artistic works, the international projection of Spanish artists, the professional regularization of artistic activities promoted by the different ministries, the creation of an arbitration structure that allows the defense of good practices, the application of the 2% cultural in contemporary art, the extension to other aspects of the patronage law, the relationship with galleries, museums, dealers, insurance… Furthermore, we can mention the need to avoid political interference in decision-making related to contemporary art.

At this point we can say that legislating on the idea of ​​a professional artist who has enough income to live off of art and pay contributions to be able to access a retirement pension would be legislating for a tiny minority, which is a big mistake. The reality of the majority of artists (we are talking about painters, sculptors, video creators, writers, poets, composers,…) in Spain is to make their activity as artists compatible with other activities that allow them to survive. This is our context, and the solution must start from here, and the solution lies in Cultural Conciliation.

[Featured Imagen: Isidro López-Aparicio (iLA), FREE Paths Maker, the device that explodes mines powered by the Saharawi women’s clothing and draws a path with the word FREE. Centro POMPIDOU, Málaga]