The notion that an artwork by an artist cannot have a specific monetary value is far too often used against artists in many parts of the world. Conveniently, the idea that one cannot put a price tag on an artwork is employed to justify what cannot be termed as anything else but plain and blatantly shameless exploitation. The word ‘exploitation’ itself reflects an abuse of power but nonetheless concedes the return of some minor value, an unfair wage perhaps, or payment in the form of a meal and shelter for subsistence to keep the cycle of exploitation going until the exploited subject ceases from being. In the case of the exploitation of the artist who is asked to give their work for free, there is not even an implied exchange of value or a return of any kind. It is simply an artist making a work and handing it over to the one who demands it (for free). That said, in hyperbolic terms, this sort of exploitation of the artist is in fact worse than slavery in certain ways (and the distinction from slavery is that there is no punishment for not ‘acting accordingly’ or for revolting and refusing to labor as if one were a possession bought and sold in the market like a machine or a commodity).

What I mean to say is that even in slavery, the slave gets limited food and shelter so that they can continue being a slave to a master. In asking an artist to produce a work for free, there is not even that much ‘consideration’, nor is there an exchange of value, and if there is, it is a mere transference of value embodied by the object of art transferred from the artist to one who asks for a work without any sort of return to the artist except for appreciation. Note here that it is appreciation that is free, while the artwork and the labor of the artist are not.

In Kashmir particularly, many emerging artists in the contemporary art scene are often asked, if not downright pestered by people to make them a portrait, draw them a picture, give them a painting or paint them a mural, all for free! Sometimes, they are offered some sort of a ‘promotion’ by offering their labor for free, from making illustrations and playing at a concert to offering their photographic and filmographic works for free to be featured somewhere online or in print. This is not only insulting to the artist and their practice, but to the process of art-making as well. It reflects the ignorance of such people who ask for such things and in doing so undermine the labor, craft, dedication and training the artist has had to go through to produce such work.

[restrict …]

Before one even considers the implications of asking artists to work for free, a basic (and one of the many) interpretations of what an artwork is and can be, comes handy. An artwork is the intersection in time of various converging and diverging forces that collude in the experience of the artist and arise from their engagement with existence, the human condition, the self, the world and others, and any issues, themes and ideas that the artist decides to explore through their work. A piece of art (whether a contemporary artwork, a song, a piece of writing, a photograph or a film) as such is a disruption in time, a disturbance of ‘reality’ and a rupture from the mundane, all streaming from the artist’s mind, talent, experience and power to create. An artwork is thus an event as well as an object. An object of art is a product or result of the event of art-making (this definition does not take into consideration the other definitions of art as performance).

The event and object, of art, or the event of art-making that materializes in the form of an object of art, can take from a couple minutes to ages to make, but the experience, knowledge and practice that the artist employs to make such work is, in most cases, the result of years of hard work coupled with arduous and continuous labor for the sake of perfecting the craft. When you ask an artist for an artwork for free, you are negating and completely undermining their work, education, and dedication that they have put into producing art.

And considering not only what an artwork is but also what an artist is in the contemporary sense, it is a gross travesty to expect artists to indulge you by handing over their work for free, even if they simply draw a line on a napkin in their special artistic way that distinguishes it from other lines on other napkins drawn by other artists as a unique instance of art-making and artistic production. In the contemporary sense, an artist is not just an artist. An artist is a researcher, a scholar, a philosopher, an activist, a sadist, a curator, a critic, an author, a demagogue, a freedom fighter and liberator, an anthropologist, an engineer, a journalist, a scientist, and an artist occupies far many roles than one can imagine. We live in a time of interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary discourses, at the intersection of various fields of knowledge so that an artist occupies all sorts of roles in their engagement with art and art-making. One could even consider the idea that contemporary art defies traditions or innovates to build upon them, rescuing them from sedimentation, but that is altogether a different matter of discussion.

Coming back to the artist as someone who deserves to be paid, I will refer to the story of Pablo Picasso that is shared the world over when talking about art, its value, and how the artist should not fall into the fallacy of considering art as something that can be given for free without any exchange of value just because somebody asks for it, be they a friend, an acquaintance, a relative or even a stranger. People often assume that artists are magicians that let out artworks from their brain as easily as breathing. Such people are sadly mistaken, as they undermine the artist’s experience and training altogether. As a result, their display of appreciation for the artist is fake and based on self-serving interests, if not outright greed.

As for Pablo Picasso, there is a story with various narrations, that as far as I know is not confirmed as true nor false, but nevertheless circulates around circles of artists when they talk about how their art should be valued and how it should have a monetary value such that if it is exchanged as a commodity, it should benefit the artist in economic terms as it becomes an object for sale and procurement. So, the story (in one of its variations, this one being mine) goes as follows:

Pablo Picasso is sitting in a café in Paris with a friend discussing the intricacies of cubism when all of a sudden he finds that he does not have any paper to provide examples for his explanation of the innovation he has brought to the field of cubism. As many artists are visual thinkers, and they prefer to explain via images rather than words, Pablo Picasso solves his dilemma of being an artist in a paper-less situation revolving around art-making by using a napkin on the table where he is sitting in the café. He is fortunate enough to find a pen and so he, within the span of a few minutes, makes a signature Pablo Picasso sketch on the napkin as he explains to his friend what his idea of cubism is.

At the next table, a woman is watching attentively how Pablo Picasso delivers a brief lecture on cubism as he draws away. When the artist is done illustrating on his napkin, she comes up to him and asks him if she can have the napkin with his autograph on it. Picasso without thinking for a second or without need for thought or evaluation of the request, looks her dead in the eye, and tells her “most certainly, but it will cost you.” The woman asks for the price of the sketch on the napkin and Pablo Picasso says “it will be 40,000 Francs for this work” (roughly Rs. 26,46,619). The flabbergasted woman is about to ask if “this is a joke of some kind” but then upon seeing the firm uncompromising gaze on Picasso’s face, complains instead “but Mr. Picasso, it is a sketch on a napkin that you are selling!” And Picasso with an unwavering look on his face replies, “yes, a sketch on a napkin that took me 40 years of training, learning, practice and innovation to produce.”

Picasso without need for further explanation makes it clear to the woman in the Parisian café that his sketch on a napkin as an artwork is worth all the time he has taken to practice, to educate himself, to learn, to gain experience and to innovate in his art practice, and as such the monetary value he has placed on the sketch on a napkin along with his autograph is not unreasonable by any stretch of the imagination. As a result, this story illustrates the type of firm belief that an artist has in their craft and the value they ascribe to it, be it monetary or otherwise. At times I feel this ability to directly stand up to one’s belief in one’s craft is lacking in certain emerging artists because our society denies their efforts under the idea that art is for free and cannot be quantified in terms of dollars and cents and that it is an effortless pursuit for the artist as they are naturally “talented” and must “share their gift” (for free of course).

With that said, I write this in defense of the many artists in Kashmir, from contemporary art-makers, photographers, filmmakers to illustrators, cartoonists, designers, musicians and other types of designers and creative people, who have to face such an ignorant onslaught of people coming up to them and asking them to draw this and that, paint this and the other, photograph and film this or that, sing this or that, all for free! But I especially write this for those who have indulged in such requests to such artists, because to me they are essentially begging artists for works when they should be providing some monetary incentive or some other form of exchange that creates an equal transference of value. So all of you who read this and know artists in your community and have asked them or will ask them for works for free, know that in the facial expression of the said artists, even if they don’t say it outright, there is a sign that reads: “Do Not Come Begging to Kashmiri Artists.” Now it is up to you to learn how to read that sign.

A version of this article originally appeared in Kashmir Dispatch.

[/restrict]

To help us strengthen the tradition of quality reading and writing, we need allies like YOU. Subscribe to us.