By: Lauraine Diggins

Lauraine Diggins — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 10:40:06 +0000

Dear Christine Milne, I would like to enter into dialogue with you in regard to the Greens policy pertaining to Resale Royalty. I have been an art dealer since 1974 and a collector prior to that. I have dealt for many of the most substantial names in Australian modern art including both Albert Tucker and Sidney Nolan whom I represented and was an executor of the Tucker estate. I also currently represent a group of indigenous artists from Utopia, NT as well having represneted over the past 30 plus years, many contemporary artists, both mid career and emerging. Accordingly, I believe I have both experience and knowledge of how the Australian art market works and importantly the needs of artists in all aspects of their careers. The suggestions you make about Resale Royalty are both uninformed and infact harmful to this industry. The Australian art market is small in comparison to the USA and European markets. The USA is strong without a royalty and the British struggling and wanting it removed. The royalty was initiated for the Indigenous market because of the rapid rise in value particularly up to the peak 3 years ago, which saw little return to those artists. That peak is well and truely gone and Indigenous art is losing its ready market. This simply means less people are buying. In most cases dealers such as myself and the art centres buy the artists work so that they are assured of immediate payment so supporting both themselves and the extended families. The minster for the arts ignored the advice from the major art centres Papunya and Yirrkala that it was not in the interest of the artists for the royalty to be implemented. It would appear that the best placed sources of knowledge are those Aboriginal owned entities. What will now occur, is that the work will not be bought from the artists, but taken on consignment and the artist will have to wait for the work to be sold either by the art centre or by the dealer. Who knows when that will be. The principal of art centre paying artist and gallery paying art centre and gallery carrying risk and selling to the general public will now cease. Art centres and dealers have the commercial risk removed and the artist is now worse off. Much indigenous art is sold into superfunds and accordingly should be expected that it is likely to be held in those funds for maybe ten years or so, depending upon the investment policy of the fund. In regard to your concept of supporting emerging artists, experience advises that the artists who need the support are mid career artists, those that have actually developed a career and are not “hope I will bes”. They require support in regard to taxation as many live hand to mouth, are faced with the difficulties of how to buy a house and support a young family, educate kids and generally pay their way. In many cases having to work at other jobs. If an artist enjoys a satisfactory sell out exhibition they are then in a situation whereby it is presumed by the ATO that this is the way things work and next year will be the same. Not so. Next year can be and often is a failure financially. Emerging artists need to keep emerging until they actually have something to say that the art world considers is warranted and then the market will support them. Just because there is a pretence of being an artist doesnot mean that there is any capacity to succeed. Please Christine, donot give hand outs in that way, support these mid career artists who will leave an artistic legacy for this country. Emerging artists are just part of the “now” generation. You also state that you believe in supporting our great public galleries and museums. Under the Cultural Gifts Program ( I sat on that committee for seven years), there will now be a RR on donations if acquired after the 8th June 2010. Why do you think donors are going to support this wonderful program if they have to give 5% of the valuation to the artist? Ask most artists what would they prefer, inclusion in the National Gallery of Australia collection or 5% of the gift. From my experience, if the artist is young or mid career, it is the inclusion in that significant collection that matters most…. acknowledgement and career making. It is probable that if the RR is not ammended to make it workable, that numerous galleries in all likelihood will close, as they will find it impossible to work with in this legislation. Finally, has it occurred to you that CAL is the receipient of the intellectual property of every professional in this country….a commercial operation obtaining all this data for nothing. Do the Greens believe that such privacy breaches are fair? What will make it workable….lift the bottom level to $5.000, place a ceiling on it of say $150,000 or maybe $200,000 unless you intend for the widows Whiteley, Williams, Tucker, Nolan and Boyd to continue to receive the bulk of the RR. Privacy, there is no need for art professionals to private the details of their business to CAL. Finally, come up with a policy that supports Indigenous artists and the industry rather than impeding it. Believe me, it needs all the help it can get at the moment.
I would be happy to discuss your arts policies further with you.
Lauraine Diggins

Comments on: Greens policy to support artists

By: Lauraine Diggins