Visual arts

A small group of artists and their position in the market

With the growing need for data, the sector is trying to capture the value of culture in numbers. The study Value of image, image of value (Manshanden et al. 2023) shows that the financial-economic value of the image sector is developing positively. This is mainly due to the increase in the number of people employed in the sector. This is also visible within the visual arts. In the period 2010-2021, the number of visual artists grew by 8.4 thousand persons. In 2021, about 19,500 people were employed in the visual arts. The growth in the number of people employed within the visual arts, at 5.3 per cent between 2010 and 2021, is significantly higher than that in the national economy (0.8 per cent between 2010 and 2021). In 2019, visual arts had an added value of almost 470 million euros (Ibid.).
Data on independent visual artists are difficult to discern from this report, which causes discrepancies between various sources. Nevertheless, an important insight is that there is growth in the number of people employed in the visual arts. Similar figures from CBS show that 16,000 visual artists were employed in the Netherlands in 2022 (CBS 2022b).

Turning to data on income, however, visual artists appear to be an especially vulnerable occupational group within the already precarious cultural labour market (CBS 2022c). In 2021, alumni of a full-time HBO (Bachelor's) programme in 'autonomous' visual arts (autonome beeldende kunst) earned an average of about 1.583 euros per month (gross), a year and a half after graduation. For their colleagues who completed the full-time visual arts and design teacher course, this average was 2.843 euros per month. In comparison, the average for all full-time art courses at HBO is 1.796 euros, and that of all full-time HBO courses is 2.999 euros (ROA 2022). Moreover, visual arts graduates are less likely to find a job that matches this education. In the period between 2016 and 2021, an average of 43 per cent of bachelor students of 'autonomous' visual arts hold a job within their own or related field of study after eighteen months. Among bachelor students trained as teachers in this discipline, the figure is 76 per cent. Of all graduates of a higher education course, 90 per cent find a job in line with their course within eighteen months (Ibid.).

Of those who work as visual artists after training and fall within the definition of visual artist used by CBS (Statistics Netherlands), almost all are self-employed. This can be explained by the fact that self-employment is in the nature of the autonomous visual artist's profession: most of them have an independent working practice or studio. Visual artists rarely practise their profession as employees (Haeren et al. 2024).
For many of these self-employed artists, income did not increase much after the first 18 months. Indeed, the median annual income of the self-employed between 2017 and 2019, at 14,000 euros, is in line with the average monthly income a year and a half after graduation. This means that half of them earn more, and half earn less than 14,000 euros (CBS 2022c). Similar and more recent figures can be found in Haeren et al. (2024). This study additionally shows that men have on average (slightly) more income than women and that over 50 per cent of visual artists have an income of less than 2,000 euros per year.

Part of this income is received from institutions that present visual art and pay visual artists for the work they do specifically for these presentations. Presentation institutions therefore appear to be more closely connected to the daily practice of visual artists than museums (Wolters et al. 2019). It was not always obvious that it is logical to pay for such work and therefore it often did not happen. This situation led to the creation of the artist fees guideline in 2017. An evaluation of this guideline showed that in the period 2018-2020, presentation institutions applied for the most funds for this purpose and in terms of feasibility, also embraced the guideline more than museums (Berenschot 2021).
Based on this evaluation, the artist fees guideline has been refined, with more possibilities for differentiation, for example between presentation and production efforts. This revised guideline will apply from January 2025 (Goudriaan et al. 2023).

Fair Pay is an essential step to bring artists income closer to the Dutch average and is necessary to make the sector sustainable, agile and resilient. Several studies show that the visual arts sector is lagging far behind in this area. In 2023, the additional cost of Fair Pay in the cultural sector was mapped: 3,2 million euros was needed for the 'Visual arts and creative industry' category. 63 per cent of this (2,0 million euros) was needed for the visual arts. This high percentage is caused by the fact that the visual arts have many small and medium-sized organisations that receive only short-term or limited subsidies. Of the additional costs within the visual arts and creative sector, almost half (1,5 million euros) relate to additional costs of employed staff and slightly more than half (1,7 million euros) to self-employed workers (Geukema et al. 2023).

Besides the strong relationship that visual art has with museums and especially presentation institutions, the domain has long been strongly linked to local policy. This is evident when, among other things, the income mix of visual art museums is compared with that of other museums. It reveals that visual art museums depend on municipal and provincial subsidies for a larger part of their income. Showing visual art also seems to be of growing importance to municipalities. In funding visual arts, municipalities that receive money from the Decentralisation Allowance for Visual Arts and Design (Decentralisatie-Uitkering Beeldende Kunst en Vormgeving) have, for years, spent the largest share of this budget on museums (Vinkenburg et al. 2018). The share of presentation institutions is also rising, but at 8 per cent it is nowhere near the 63 per cent that museums receive for visual arts (Ibid.). A local context and the associated cooperation is also important for self-employed people within the visual arts.

Visible recovery and continued attention to inequality

There is no denying it: recent years have been dominated by the effects of the Covid crisis. Now that visitor numbers are on the rise and the corona support schemes have ended, the sector is firmly re-establishing itself and putting the effects of the pandemic behind it. Recovery is clearly visible in almost all areas. Compared to 2021, museum attendance almost doubled in 2022 with a 93 per cent increase. In 2022, museums' own income was 501 million euros. That is an increase of 191 million euros compared to the previous year, but still 35 million euros lower than in 2019. Museums' own income rose from 30 per cent of total revenue in 2021 to 43 per cent in 2022 (Museumvereniging 2023).
Visitor numbers are also rising: in 2022, there were 23.5 million museum visits, of which 5.6 million (24 per cent of the total) came from abroad (Museumvereniging 2022). This is almost a doubling compared to 2021, when there were only 11.8 million museum visits. With this, the number of visitors is on its way back to pre-Covid trends - there were a total of 32.6 million visits in 2019. 80 per cent of museum visits are adults (Ibid). Expectations for 2023 are also positive: preliminary figures on the increase in museum members visits for 2023 show that interest and support for museums is high (Museumvereniging 2024).

Globally, the recovery of the art market continues its upward trend of 2021. In 2022, the value of the international art market ('global art sales'), at $67.8 billion, is higher than its pre-pandemic level in 2019 ($64.4 billion). Yet growth is lower than expected, partly because of political and economic instability worldwide (McAndrew 2023).
'Online-only' sales declined again internationally compared to 2021 but are still 85 per cent higher than in 2019. Online sales comprise 16 per cent of total international art market sales in 2022 (Ibid.).

Altogether, the recovery in the global art market continues. In doing so, hopes that the pandemic would level the playing field seem unfounded; still a decreasing proportion of companies and artists account for an increasing share of sales (McAndrew 2022).

Diversity, equity and inclusion

There appears to be no shortage of initiatives to tackle inequality and promote diversity, equity and inclusion within the visual arts. Some focus primarily on engaging audiences, such as making exhibitions accessible to visitors with disabilities. Other institutions are mainly concerned with the content of their exhibitions, by taking a critical look at the permanent collection or including gender diversity in their acquisition policy. This trend seems to be continuing. Much reflection is also taking place around the use of language in exhibitions. Various insights regarding inclusive exhibition texts have been summarised in the Guide on Values For A New Language by Code Diversity & Inclusion (Samuel 2022) and Words Matter (Woorden doen ertoe) (Modest 2018).

There is increasing openness towards the topic. One example is the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, which had their transformation towards more diversity and inclusion in the museum captured in the documentary White Balls on Walls. This has given impetus to the present discussion within the Visual Arts domain, which is increasingly reflecting on the inequalities within the domain - and society. Yet it is questionable whether reflection always translates into actual equal opportunity, both in terms of income and influence. Not all demographic groups are equally represented in all segments of the sector (staff, audiences, programming and partners).

It is also questionable whether the position of women in the domain has improved sufficiently in recent years. While women seem to be reasonably represented in the staff of visual art institutions, according to the Amsterdam Fund for the Arts (AFK), in recent years they have been lacking in managerial positions and as artists in the collections of major institutions, according to a survey by NOS (Nieuwsuur 2021). In visual arts programmes, the vast majority of alumni are women (71 per cent), but ultimately only 54 per cent of active visual artists in the labour market are women (Haeren et al. 2024). Existing studies on the representation of women in museums clearly identify gender inequality and the fact that women are severely underrepresented within various parts of the art world. It is important to note here that figures on the representation of women artists in museums are still widely lacking.

Finally, not enough is yet known about the representation of women artists at fairs and in galleries in the Netherlands, although available figures show that the proportion of women artists at international fairs has increased in recent years (Haeren et al. 2024).
The current distribution is not without consequences. Inequality appears to play into the hands of undesirable behaviour at various levels, which has also been the subject of many recent reports at Dutch art academies and within visual arts organisations (Leden 2022).

Precisely because of persistent inequalities, several institutions have been trying in recent years to increase pressure and transform the greater attention to inclusion and diversity into structural, concrete change. For example, De Zaak Nu and Kunsten '92 presented the Fair care: code of conduct and protocol. Based on clear guidelines, this addition to the Fair Practice Code could be an important step towards safer, inclusive working environments. Several funds and institutions are stepping up their efforts to comply with the Fair Practice Code by offering more guidance for this purpose. The Mondriaan Fund, for instance, now sets the 'Gallery Fair Practice Code' as a fixed condition for galleries wanting to offer their services. This code specifies the art-aquisition (KunstKoop) conditions of the Fair Practice Code for the context of galleries. The aim is to ensure that the principles in the Fair Practice Code are also standard practice in the gallery sector (Mondriaan Fund s.a.).

While some institutions are already making great strides towards more inclusive and diverse programming, staff, audiences and partners, other institutions do not always know where to start, and see moving towards diversity, equity and inclusion as a large and complex task (Borg 2020). What do diversity and inclusion mean at the institutional level? How can different institutions best interpret these concepts? Do existing collections need to be fundamentally adjusted, or is a new, 'critical' lens sufficient? The theme page Diversity, Equity and Inclusion demonstrates that a sector-wide approach to monitoring and collecting data on these themes is currently lacking. Is it even possible to measure the impact of different approaches in an orderly way, or can diversity and inclusion not be captured quantitatively? These questions will prompt many different responses in the coming years - but a thorough discussion around inequality, diversity and inclusion has now reached the visual arts.

A growing audience and loyal buyers

Visitor numbers recovered in 2022 and preliminary figures show that this recovery continues in 2023 (VTO 2020; Museumvereniging 2024; Leeuwen 2021). In 2022, museums had a turnover of 1,2 billion euros, most of which was own income (43 per cent) and government subsidies (52 per cent). Turnover was thus 9 per cent higher than in 2019 (Museum Association 2023). However, it is difficult to give a complete picture of the public that is interested in the visual arts. For instance, many smaller exhibitions - such as those in cafés, pop venues, or creative incubators - still take place under the radar. Moreover, it is almost impossible to gain insight into visitors to exhibitions without a box office (Boekmanstichting 2019).

Post-Covid, the divide that emerged between institutions that claimed emergency support and those that were repeatedly excluded is recovering but remains visible. Small museums are taking longer to recover; their own income fell by a total of 28 per cent between 2019 and 2022, while for large museums it was only 6 per cent. By comparison, in the period 2019-2021, this was still 57 per cent for small museums and 43 per cent for large museums (Museumvereniging 2023). Therefore, the fears expressed previously, that if the public did not find small institutions, it was questionable whether they could keep their heads above water for long, remain valid (Museumvereniging 2021). Small and medium-sized museums had relatively smaller declines in visitors than large museums, but the recovery in visitor numbers is also less substantial (Museumvereniging 2023).
Statistics do not indicate a major shift in the number of art buyers purchasing work through galleries or fairs. Many art buyers seem to have found their way back to galleries since 2020 - both through digital viewing rooms and in real life (NGA 2022).

Digitalisation is gaining momentum - but also requires creator protection

Digitalisation has a profound impact on the visual arts. Increasingly, hybrid art forms and digital artworks are being created. At the same time, the advantages that digitalisation can bring, for instance in increasing reach and access, do not yet contribute to better economic positioning of creators. The online environment is all about 'sharing', which is why collecting reasonable compensation for 'content' is no easy matter. For the many ways in which images can be used online, appropriate compensation is not yet always available for visual artists - although the copyright organisation Pictoright is committed to compensation for visual creators. Additionally, the efficiency that digitalisation can offer needs to be put into context. While digitalisation can lead to reductions in the costs of distribution and exploitation, it generally does not reduce the costs of creation and production as much (Manshanden 2023).

Several indications suggest that there are limits to reaching audiences through digital engagement. For instance, even during the Covid pandemic, an art buyer's first interaction with a work of art often took place on location (NGA 2022). Nevertheless, digitalisation has also taken hold in the visual arts sector. By 2022, 68 per cent of the collection was accessible to the public online. In 2015, it was only 23 per cent of the permanent collection. Large museums (with a turnover of 3,2 million euros or more) are ahead of small and medium-sized museums in this respect. Compared to previous (Covid) years, however, a slight decrease is evident. In 2022, the number of museums offering online activities decreased especially among small and medium-sized museums (over 30 per cent). Among larger museums, this decline is less pronounced (Museumvereniging 2023).