Harold and Nerida Gallasch

Harold & Neriba Gallasch
Directors
Tineriba Fine Arts

Comments on the draft ‘Australian Indigenous Art Commercial Code of Conduct’

This draft is much more readable than previous drafts … devised in an attempt ‘to address unethical behaviour’, so called.

The whole essence of the document is taking a broad ‘swipe’ at ‘dealers’; dealers must do this, this, and this; they must not do this or this or that. It seems to overlook the fact that without all those dealers there would absolutely not be an ‘Indigenous Art Industry.’ To have fostered this industry over the past 38years and grown it, basically without Government help, and at times in spite of Government, to it’s current state where it is putting maybe 100 million dollars into the hands of Aboriginal artists or their communities; these ‘dealers’ must have been doing something right.

We all need ‘fair trade and practice’. We all know some people will push the boundaries. Will this Code limit them? There are already legal penalties.

Herewith my comments on certain sections in the Draft Code.

Section 8 Before entering into artworks agreement,

All art agreements.

‘….a dealer must explain………’

(‘a dealer is defined as a person who purchases artworks.’)

There follows a significant list of items a)……h) most of which may be hypothetical.

Following are several ‘real life’ scenarios

1) The artist has a painting to sell : artist asks $5000 : interested dealer offers $3000, both then agree on $4000 for the artwork - $4000 cash paid, end of story. Three days later cash is spent, artist comes back with another painting and there is a repeat of the above.

2) Artist is given canvas and money to do a painting. After some time artist needs more money for a variety of reasons. This is paid by the dealer in anticipation of speeding up the art work. Later there is another demand for money, with maybe the threat of taking the artwork to another dealer. Dealer complies and pays. There are three outcomes when the painting is finally finished.
a) dealer is unhappy about the cost he has paid of a sub-standard work.
b) Artist accepts an ‘on the spot’ offer from another dealer and the original sponsor ends up with nothing.
c) The dealer finally gets the completed artwork and ponders how fortunate he’s been that it didn’t go the way of a) or b).

Whether indigenous or non-indigenous artists are involved, the protocols listed in the proposed agreement are rarely appropriate – except perhaps for mass produced paintings, which are hardly artwork. One painting may take an artist a day, another one or two months.

Regarding payment terms. Very few indigenous artists, part with their paintings unless they have their tax free money in their hand. (the exception being to some community art centres).

Some dealers may buy everything produced by their artist ‘ the good the bad and the ugly ‘ and of necessity pay less for the artworks than another dealer who is rigorous in his selection criteria.

Additional requirements - art galleries requirements.

3) Where a dealer is an art gallery ………………a) b) c) etc.

By this Code’s definition of a dealer b) ‘a person or organisation who purchases artwork……..’

If the gallery has already purchased the artworks, than much of the rhetoric of (3) is irrelevant. (3) is only appropriate in part if the exhibition is consignment artworks, more particularly, of works on consignment by an artist. This would indeed be the exception to what usually happens. Almost invariably the curator of an exhibition obtains artwork from a variety of different sources, rarely the artist.

Galleries do of course obtain ‘Exhibitions’, either ‘group’, ’single’ or ‘several artists’ from community organisations or community art centres.

Often there is little contract between the exhibiting gallery in a major city and the artist exhibited. The contact, negotiations and any agreement is between the ‘dealer’ or gallery and the community art centre, often represented by professionals who dictate their terms.

While 8 (3) may represent some guidelines for organisation providing an exhibition to a gallery the situation does not usually arise in regard to indigenous artists, themselves supplying art, which is what 8(3) alludes to.

This would, of course, be appropriate for non-indigenous Australian artists, where the artist still remains the owner of his artwork exhibited.

Another complication with 8(3) is that many galleries stage group exhibitions. Is it inferred that the ‘dealers’ or ‘gallery’ must negotiate and have an agreement with each and every artist exhibited?

9 Cooling – off period

Throughout our lives we (Australians) have been indoctrinated, It’s a part of our culture that our lives revolve around agreements. Aboriginal culture is different, but no less valid. For 9 (1) (a) (b) we should be reading ‘An indigenous artist, may terminate an artwork agreement when so ever the artist pleases’.

This is the reality which has to be accepted.

While the presumed aim of this Code is to ‘protect’ the indigenous artist and the integrity of the ‘art business’, the Code as a consequence may be limiting an artist’s freedom.

An agreement cannot be enforced – even if an attempt was made the resulting artwork could be of little value,

9 (3) About the return to the dealer of money prepaid to the artist.

Who ever suggested this needs a reality check. The chances of this are either zero or none.

10 Payment for artists

(1) (2) (3) encapsulates fair dealing with the artist. This is appropriate for all Australian Artists. Many indigenous artists expect up frount payments before handling over their art. This is one factor which induces an artist to produce good, even outstanding work – the guarantee of payment upon completion. This is one of the reasons why some of the very best Aboriginal art is produced for private dealers, rather than the art centre complex.

12 Inconsistency

The Code must be relevant to the situation. There are many different situations. The Code shows many deficiencies.

In a previous submission I noted that true art is produced in a select environment, usually when there is a special relationship between the artist and the dealer. Really great art is produced when the artist has that special freedom. All the agreements in the world, written or oral, do nothing to promote or produce good, outstanding art. It is this quality which stimulates and enthuses the whole industry.

Division 2.3. Dealings with artwork

13 (1) (2)

All points are very appropriate

14 Provenance

While good provenance is always to be applauded it is not always available.

Artists often don’t name those who have helped them on an artwork. Traditionally there was no necessity to include an artists name with his work.

History of ownership is often not recorded.

Good provenance is something which all dealers should aspire to for paintings they handle.

To mandate that provenance must be supplied and that it must identify a number of variables will often be difficult in ‘real life’.

I consider it more important that whatever information is supplied is accurate, even if not complete.

15 Respect

(1) (a)……………. Identify and adhere to applicable ….cultural practises?

If we are realistic we must admit that 95% of all current indigenous art is produced outside of it’s cultural context. The ‘Aboriginal Art Industry’ will contrive, as a selling point to tourists, to say it all has meaning and deep significance, and will point out various icons as symbolic. However, the majority of the artist’s paint, as quick as they can, to earn a ‘quick buck’ to satisfy a desire for booze, gambling and cars, and the other perceived advantages of ‘western civilisation’. While the indigenous artists themselves have converted to ‘dollar dreaming’, who are we to fool ourselves that we are doing some service by adhering to some perceived but long lost ‘cultural practice’.

Of course there is still that 5% of important cultural artists, producing significant work, which need to be appropriately considered.

(1)(c) Thousands of images of paintings are put up on the website on a daily basis – without a copyright licence. It is part and parcel of the consumer economy which drives the art industry, which purchases paintings from the artists. Curtail advertising, sales drop, artist’s income vanishes. Any Code is self defeating if it has a negative effect on both the artist and dealer.

(1)(d) Here again I believe there is the potential for artists to loose out. I believe there should be opportunity for limited reproduction of an artwork for the purposes of promoting the sale of that artwork, or for promoting the artist, or for promoting an exhibition in which that artist is represented. The healthy sale of artworks benefits the artists. There are significant logistical problems in contacting artists, particularly deceased ones; it’s not as if they all have a mobile.

It’s certainly a different situation if there is to be reproduction of an artwork with the intention of selling that reproduced image, in whatever form, for commercial gain. This should certainly require prior permission.

16 Care of Artworks

(6) …….culturally sensitive artwork …. (I presume this includes items under 15 (1) (f).

As this material very rarely comes on the market most art market dealers would not recognize it, nor would they know the relevant law or protocols.

Little of this material comes available from ‘current traditional owners’. Most of it comes available from old collections or estates, and the traditional owners are not known.

‘Culturally sensitive’, by definition, alludes to something being the knowledge or property of the appropriately initiated. In many areas there are no initiated custodians.

Summary

The Code talks about being ‘culturally sensitive’, but the whole Code is written from a purely ‘western’ viewpoint, with major input by bureaucrats.

There seems to be very little ‘grass-roots’ input, from dealers in the bush or, from the artists themselves. Dare I say it; the document reeks of 21st century paternalism.

‘Fair trade and practice’, is necessary and I believe most dealers comply in whatever way is most appropriate in each situation. Aboriginal artists, particularly, but not exclusively from the more remote areas, have a different ‘take’ on what is ‘fair’, call it a cultural difference of opinion.

Should an artist be found lacking in fairness with a dealer, will they be answerable to a Code Administration Committee and be subject to Sanctions?

I suspect not.

And if not, then the Code’s aim to promote ‘fair trade’ would fail.

In spite of my many reservations, some useful points are raised.

Yours sincerely

Harold, Neriba Gallasch
Directors of Tineriba Fine Arts - ‘grassroots dealers’ in Indigenous art for 40 years