Sarah Hromack / Writing / Sign on the Dotted Line

Sign on the Dotted Line

An op-ed in support of W.A.G.E. (Working Artists and the Greater Economy)'s efforts at New York's New Museum

On 16 May, an open letter was posted to the internet and circulated throughout social media. The missive is a call-to-action addressed to New Museum, which recently announced it had raised $43 million towards an $80 million plan to expand its Bowery location. It was authored by W.A.G.E. (Working Artists and the Greater Economy), an independently led, grassroots organization dedicated to the core tenet of labour unions the world over: People should be paid for their work. It’s an assertion that eludes certain sectors of the art world. The New Museum has a chance to change that, and it should.

Addressing the New Museum’s administration in a commendably calm, straightforward tone, the W.A.G.E. letter asks that the museum voluntarily adhere to the guidelines for paying artists set forth in W.A.G.E.’s certification program, thereby publicly declaring its commitment to pay all of the artists and collaborators who provide its programming. With some back-of-the-napkin math, the letter states: ‘If you had been W.A.G.E. Certified in fiscal year 2014 (July 1, 2013 – June 30, 2014) and had paid minimum fees according to W.A.G.E. standards, you would have spent a total of about $301,000.’ This number represents 0.7% of the US$43 million the museum has raised in support of its expansion.

The implication here is that US$301,000 is chump change when considered as part of a relatively vast capital campaign. And though $301,000 is an enormous sum of money to me – and perhaps to you, too? – it is indeed small when considered within the context of this particular project. $301,000 is a tidy if, in this case, theoretical number – we don’t know if the New Museum did, in fact, pay the artists it worked with in 2014, or how much. Yet this sum of money is symbolically complicated as artists, it turns out, are not often reliably or transparently compensated by museums (or anyone, for that matter).

The inner logics and workings of museums are opaque. The Internal Revenue Service 990 tax documents which non-profit institutions are required to make public, for instance, might offer broad suggestions about the institution’s fiscal health. They don’t, however, tell us anything about the delicate institutional alchemy that determines how budgets are formed and allocated. Though the decision to become W.A.G.E. certified won’t be made lightly, it is nevertheless just that: an institutional decision point. Once that decision is made, what follows is a series of operational procedures. The bureaucratic machinations required to turn a decision point into institutional policy aren’t simple processes to negotiate, but museum administrators (as well as the development professionals tasked with raising the funds in question here) know precisely how to do so. Artists can be paid as simply as any other person who provides labour to an institution.

There are few opportunities for museums to make truly relevant, impactful political statements in New York City, in 2016. This is one of them. Making a public promise to pay all artists fairly would set an institutional precedent that could be a critical first step in destroying the many barriers to entry – race, class, ability, access – that artists face when engaging with institutions. A step towards closing the ideological gap between how museums see themselves and how they actually function in the world and for artists.

New York remains the commercial epicentre of the global art market, yet life is hard for artists struggling to meet the city’s ever-rising basic cost of living. This has been well-documented; most recently in screeds written by artist-celebrities whose cohort once fuelled the downtown scene in which the New Museum first took hold, in 1977, as the brainchild of Marcia Tucker. As an itinerant, non-collecting museum that occupied a series of locations below 14th Street in Manhattan before opening its current building in 2007, the New Museum has reliably engaged with the city’s social fabric over the course of the past nearly-30 years – much more so than its local peers. Ongoing programmes such as Museum as Hub, Ideas City, Rhizome, and NewINC, to name a few, all rely on the collective labour of many, as well as the willing participation of the public. (In fact, my own creative trajectory was inspired by, a participatory exhibition of media artists and youth collectives that I took part in as a teenager, in 1996, at the New Museum’s former Broadway location.)

As for W.A.G.E., it has worked to establish a ‘floor’ for artists’ fees, a number below which payments to artists shouldn’t fall, by collaborating with a number of advisors involved in artistic production and labour organization. Though the table, visualized on the organization’s website as a ‘fee calculator,’ isn’t built on precise financial modelling (‘We sought to strike a balance between what was fair and what was possible’ says Lise Soskolne, W.A.G.E.’s primary organizer) it establishes a baseline, a minimum wage for the arts. This concept differentiates the labour of producing ‘content’ from the market-driven value of the artwork itself, one of the artist’s few hopes of recouping the value of her work, from not just the commercial art worlds of New York, London, and beyond, but all of the half-baked ideologies which contribute to the still-dearly, if unfortunately held misconception that artists can simply choose to exist on a material plane far above and beyond the reaches of corporate interest, therefore justifying the donation of one’s artistic or intellectual labour in the name of solidarity with a cause whose value many struggle to quantify. We shouldn’t need Marx and Engels to point out the error in this way of thinking. Giving away one’s labour for free is perhaps the greatest mark of privilege one can bear, in 2016.

With its bold graphic identity, W.A.G.E. has made a distinctive visual mark – both online and through its printed poster ephemera – that allows it to assume the guise of labour organization, art project or collective. A 2015 fundraising campaign elicited contributions from gads of emerging and established artists, administrators and other supporters in New York and beyond. The resulting list of supporters, visible on the organization’s website is a diagram of the social habitus that surrounds and supports this project. One might imagine a future for this organization wherein its visual identity becomes a true part of its political strategy over the course of time – much in the same way legendary Lower East Side collaborative Group Material strategically employed graphic design as a strategic means of subverting institutional bureaucracies, a history now documented in New York University’s Fales Library and Special Collections.

Museums, as institutions, are as intellectually relevant as the artists they associate with. If it takes institutional alignment with a well-loved political organization, and agreeing to pay artists along the way, as a means of buying street cred, then so be it for the moment. In order to attain the top-down buy-in necessary to implement museum policy then W.A.G.E. may have to assume the guise of the museum itself, whether actually or symbolically, and don a dapper suit for a meeting or write a letter or two on posh stationery, as it were. Strategy is strategy, no matter what guise it assumes.

If there is a single New York museum historically and ideologically positioned to make this particular statement, it is the New Museum. New York City Council is currently endeavouring to create its first comprehensive cultural plan for New York, due to be submitted in July 2017. New construction is an opportunity for institutional renewal. Now is the time.

Updated on June 02, 2018

As a critic, I have written for publications including Frieze, Artforum, Art in America, Red Hook Journal (Bard College), Mousse, Print, Paper Monument, and Rhizome, amongst other websites, blogs, and print publications. While my interests are manifold, much of my published writing has considered the social mediation of art institutions and publications through digital media.

First launched as an art school thesis project and now long offline, my blog, Forward Retreat (2000-2008), was part of the early cohort of American art blogs that bore initial influence on then-emerging digital publishing practices in the arts. My work has been supported by a Creative Capital|Andy Warhol Foundation Arts Writers Grant.

Since giving birth in 2017, I have been writing about more personal and honestly, more pleasurable subjects including (but not limited to) motherhood — material that I haven't yet decided to publish and may never do.

Some Essays

An Idea for Interview

2018 Frieze
A memorial op-ed on Interview Magazine (1969-2018), "an enduring symbol of downtown cool, even as downtown became Disney"

Narcissism in the Digital Age

2017 Frieze
A review of Kristen Dombek's "The Selfishness of Others: An Essay on the Fear of Narcissism"

Sign on the Dotted Line

2016 Frieze
An op-ed in support of W.A.G.E. (Working Artists and the Greater Economy)'s efforts at New York's New Museum

It’s Complicated: The Institution as Publisher

2016 Superscript Reader, Walker Art Center
An op-ed on the politics that govern institutional publishing, written by invitation on the occasion of "Superscript: Arts Journalism and Criticism in a Digital Age" at the Walker Art Center

What is Metahaven?

2015 Frieze
A feature on the Dutch design studio Metahaven

Another ‘C’ Word: On Content and the (Techno) Curatorial

2015 Red Hook Journal, Bard College
An essay on digital, linguistic, and curatorial intersectionality that begins with Raymond Williams's "Keywords" and ends at the NSA's XKEYSCORE

The Real Power of Open Innovation

2014 Mousse
A conversation with New York-based artists João Enxuto & Erica Love about the critical intersection of technology and institutions

The Museum Interface

2014 Art in America
A conversation with Rob Giampetro, Creative Lead, Google

Safety in Numbers

2014 Frieze
I and others including Laura Poitras, Trevor Paglan, Jordan Ellenberg, Martha Rosler, Mercedes Bunz, and Shoshana Zuboff responded to a question posed by editor Jörg Heiser: “Algorithms, Big Data and surveillance: what’s the response, and responsibility, of art?”

Douglas Davis (1933–2014)

2014 Artforum
In kind memory of artist Douglas Davis (1933-2014)

Beyond the Scene and Herd Effect

2013 Artpapers
A consideration of the social web's impact on art magazines' websites and editorial strategies over the course of time

Off the Page

2011 Frieze
A profile of Paul Chan’s new publishing venture, Badlands Unlimited

A Thing Remade: A Conversation with Paul Chan

2011 Rhizome
A conversation with artist Paul Chan

I Was Here

2010 Paper Monument | N+1
An investigation into the social role of gallery sign-in books as physical relics of experience in the digital age

Collective Collections

2010 Print Magazine
A homage to art collective Group Material’s seminal work from the 1980s and 1990s; in collaboration with Project Projects

What It Is: A Conversation with Jeremy Deller

2009 Art in America
An interview with British artist Jeremy Deller on the occasion of his solo exhibition at the New Museum, "It Is What It Is: Conversations About Iraq"

A Theater of Absurdity: Parody, Power, and the Politics of Display at the 4th Berlin Biennial for Contemporary Art

2007 California College of the Arts
Graduate Thesis in the MA Visual and Critical Studies program at the California College of the Arts, San Francisco, CA (essay version)