Eda Yiğit
OBSERVATIONS FROM THE BACKSTAGE OF A RESEARCH
THE INVISIBLE SUBJECTS OF THE PRECARIAT: ARTISTS DURING THE PANDEMIC
In research, controversial texts or projects conducted in the field of art, content that is not visible or refrained from being shown may exist behind the visible part of each end-product. I assume that especially the communication between different actors in the background of production is as useful as the findings from produced content, in terms of finding answers to various questions. Making the backstage of research transparent can facilitate talking in a nuanced manner cognizant of multiple perspectives on various issues at hand. Therefore, five months after the publication of my book titled 'Invisible Subjects of the Precariat: Artists During the Pandemic', I felt the need to share previously undisclosed aspects of the research. The period following the publication of the book was enriched by discussions I had with other researchers, artists and various people working in the field of culture and arts.
On Emergency
Life puts us into situations where we have to deal with emergencies, sometimes personal ones, and other times due to external forces. The urgent actions required by these crises can postpone making sense of them to a post-crisis period. Act first, then make sense of it… From my perspective, it is dangerous to put crisis and opportunity in the same pot or to create a link between them, because this carries the risk of manipulating our perspective, political stance, and ethical principles.
Emergencies trigger fast reflexes. They lead us to put our so-called normal life on hold and postpone it until the sirens go silent. The struggle we lead for our vital, fundamental rights and demands are put on hold and rendered invisible. Rights become dressed up as charity, and that hurts some people’s dignity. On top of all, considering that artists, as a precarious group, need to feel as valuable as other groups in the society and deserve to make their demands heard not only when there is a state of emergency but constantly, without interruption, need to combine forces among themselves.
An incident like a pandemic can construct a barrier of emergencies to daily life. It may fast-track mental production and boost concentration, but it is evident that the demand for universal basic income is a constant issue of social struggle. Therefore, it is critical that even when emergencies are no longer there, the demand for the fulfillment of rights needs to continue.
Institutions Incapable of Filling the Gaps
A small number of researches conducted on precarity, inclusive of the flexible, short-term, project-based employment regimes entrenched in the field of arts -not necessarily related to the pandemic- that stem from neoliberalism, belong to independent researchers or groups. Why aren’t there studies on precarity that adopt qualitative and quantitative methodologies that reflect the value and importance of this concept? Why is there an absence of a climate to produce quality data, information and opinion on this issue that could contribute to its extensive discussion and possible solutions? Among reasons why such research is not undertaken by these types of institutions may be deliberate avoidance, since the outcomes of such research would definitely create a burden of ethically reframing institutional practices as they would constitute conditions for taking responsibility of the artists, who are the subjects of the precariat. In any case, it is certain that there is a weight tied to being able to utter the right words when addressing the public.
Another issue is the cost of final products that will at least keep the content of such work accessible… Despite the fact that me as an independent researcher and a group of volunteers granted our voluntary labor for this project, the need to find a source to fund the expenses of digital or print publication arose along the way. (The study was not published by a publishing house. Readers having free access to the book was a requirement, due to the nature of the insecurity issue at hand.) The cost of printing was covered not with the support of institutions, public or local administrations operating in the field of culture and arts, but by a source from a totally unrelated industry. During the quest for funds, it is not uncommon to come across processes in which researchers are involved personally through their own networks, instead of fair, equitable and transparent processes at an institutional scale. A production process shaped by personal efforts emerges with this method, while new solidarity practices are produced outside these institutions.
Why aren’t there platforms which would facilitate rapprochement of actors in academia and arts, other than the existing scarce resources and specific restrictive conditions to be met for financial support of interdisciplinary research and collective works in culture and arts? What are the reasons behind the fact that human resources budget lines (artist fees, author royalties, etc.) in these types of support are not considered a priority? It is striking that projects and spaces are primarily funded for sustainability while actors that make them possible have to make ends meet through other means. Structures can not be considered independent from the subjects involved. Supporting structures should mean supporting the actors that build and sustain them; therefore, priorities that lead to exploitation of labor should be avoided.
As a result, research on this crucial topic progresses based on the coincidences that come about from the support of voluntary labor reflecting the nature of precariat: uncertain, unpredictable, unclear as to where it is leading. If we were to examine this issue from another perspective, we could say that the role of an independent researcher may sometimes facilitate production. Given that in the current environment there is a minimum level of trust to institutions, the researcher as an independent actor in the field may be less restrained, quicker, and more welcomed by participants. Therefore, it will be beneficial for institutions to consider creative forms of support. It would be a valuable contribution to the field to create positions for independent researchers, through which they could expand their fields of research while retaining their authenticity and autonomy and delve into working as part of a collective. Considering the demoralizing findings of the research, which are already common knowledge, these recommendations can be taken into consideration to take action or to produce realistic solutions regarding the insecurity experienced by artists. Otherwise, the conditions best characterized as an echo chamber, out of touch with reality, stuck in the terminology of texts and producing practices that do not match the needs, will not allow for positive change. For example, there were no feedback, contributions, comments, or revisions received regarding the recommendations at the conclusion part of the research addressed at local authorities to find realistic and sustainable solutions. It should also be noted that the attempts to ensure their access to the research was mostly futile. No hope may flourish in an environment where even access to a medium for reaching authorities for demanding solutions is difficult.
Participant Interaction
Although the research focus, artists during the pandemic, was received positively, one of the recurring and critical participant feedbacks was that the scope should be expanded to include workers in the culture and arts sector. This legitimate demand could not be realized due to the restraints around the scope of research. It would be a valuable contribution for future studies to develop their framework around this expectation. It will be invaluable to organize research practices, address the disconnect between academia and arts by the collective labor of actors with varying qualifications in the culture-arts sector, and come up with creative tools for producing knowledge and solutions.
Another feedback worthy of note was around the astonishment felt by the artists filling out the survey. It was interesting to see that artists surveyed did not have a definition for the universe of insecurity that surrounded them, and that they started to identify themselves as precariat along the process of answering more questions. It is sad that such a vital reality has not been thoroughly thought about, accepted as it is and even normalized. Action may become more challenging with already existing difficulties of getting organized and lack of means.
With regards to the scope of the project, the question as to whom to call an artist and how to define an artist was raised. An academic in the field of business administration shared his concern around allowing participation based on self declaration of being an artist, as in the case of a retired teacher having to be considered an artist. Is having received training in arts the condition required to be considered an artist? How can we discuss the fact that being an artist is not something to be taught/learned, especially from a sociological perspective? Can we make a distinction between professional and amateur artists? How can we define professionalism when we consider that there are artists who are not involved in the market surrounding the arts and make a living with means other than their artistic production? Answers to these questions are all up for a debate. We could also find a link with the need to have courage to embark on research, as one art writer had put it. The field will be substantially enriched with deliberations around the definition and boundaries of an artist, the difficulties of treating arts as a profession, the effort required to define these boundaries academically and determining the scope of new research with different actors from the field.
Let me finish with a summary of my research findings: 43% of the participants are in the income group of 2000 TL and below, that is, they live below the hunger threshold. 31% do not have social security, 58% do not have any property and 64% need to receive economic support (from parents, grandparents, partners, other relatives, funds, scholarships, SSI). 80% has to work in another job, 13% has to work more than 45 hours a week. 36% do not have a workshop and 83% are not represented by a gallery / music company / publishing house. Now is the time we must find answers as to what is to be done on an individual, collective or institutional scale in order to change these results.