nobody in the art world

Droit! de Suite!

That’s right, people. It’s a droit de suite.

I’ll be honest, my limited knowledge of la langue du francais means that I’m not entirely sure how to speak this phrase. But let me assure you: it is very enjoyable to say inside my head.

Before your urgent impatience gets the better of you and you get a-googling, let me explain to you what exactly I’m talking about.

‘Droit de suite’ (say it with me now!) refers to a right, granted to artists, to receive a fee on the resale of artistic works. It is a right that exists in over fifty countries around the world, including the entirety of the European Union.

Australia’s very own droit de suite, known as the Artists Resale Royalty Scheme (try abbreviating that one) got underway on the 9 June 2010, and just like apparently everything the current Australian government does, the Artists Resale Royal Scheme has been met with a bit of controversy.

So, what’s the deal?

Under the scheme, commercial resales of artworks must be reported, and a 5% royalty rate paid on sales valued at greater than $1000.  The money goes to the artist, or, in cases where the artist is deceased, to the artist’s estate. This continues for every resale of the work for the life of the artist, plus 70 years, and applies to the resales of existing works, as well as new ones.

Prior to the commencement of the scheme, when an artist sold his or her work to a dealer or gallery, they did not receive any further commission from the work, despite future escalation in value.

Let’s take Ben Quilty, for example. I’ve talked about Quilty’s works before. Today his works would go for tens of thousands of dollars. However, when he was starting out, they went for significantly less than this; let’s say $500. These very same early works, that the artist himself sold for $500, may now be being sold on for tens of thousands due to the escalation in Quilty’s recognition as an eminent contemporary Australian artist. Prior to the scheme, Quilty would receive nothing from the tens of thousands of dollars now being paid for his early works that he sold for $500. Under the scheme, he receives a 5% cut per resale.

Make sense?

I think so.

The advantages

This is how the argument FOR the scheme goes:

Since the artists are the ones producing the work, oughtn’t they be receiving some portion of their future sales? Prior to the scheme, plenty of people were making plenty of money out of artists who, often, didn’t receive much themselves. This isn’t really fair, because without the work, the dealers and the galleries wouldn’t be making any money. They rely on the artists. The artists should get a cut.

The disdvantages 

This is how the argument AGAINST the scheme goes:

Without the dealers, the artists may end up going nowhere. The artists rely on the dealers to find a market for their work. Furthermore, dealers take the risk, using their knowledge of art and the art world to invest in unknown artists. Therefore, it is they who should be making the profit, not the artist. A resale royalty scheme, and the possibility of paying the fee in the future, discourages risky investment in art, discourages the free movement of art work through many hands, and causes the market to stagnate.

What do I think?

Nobody in the Art World has come under fire recently for not having enough of an opinion on the tough issues.

So watch out, here comes an opinion:

Dude, really? It’s 5% — not that much. It will only make a difference where the work sells for a huge amount, and in that case, don’t you think the artist is entitled to a cut? If we want to encourage the arts, we need a scheme that provides for the future of our artists. It’s not as though they have superannuation.

It shouldn’t be the dealers who are making the big money, at the expense of the artist. This is particularly the case where the artist doesn’t receive recognition (and big prices) until they’re well-matured or indeed deceased. 

Some dealers have been up in arms about the fact that the scheme requires them to record all sales. Er, you have to do that for tax purposes anyway. And if it’s privates sales we’re talking about, these are exempt from the scheme.

What’s the biggie? I don’t really get it.

As far as possible flaws in the scheme go, I would be slightly concerned that the private sales exemption would result in more ‘private’ sales. Know what I’m saying?

On the whole, however, I think the scheme is a great thing, and, indeed, has been a long time coming.

What do you think?