Art in Late-Stage Capitalism

by Karla Kurtoić

It is no secret that our society today is overwhelmingly concerned with profit. We are used to thinking about profit as something that is produced by companies or, increasingly so, by large corporations that elude our cognitive grasp. But this mode of operation has in fact bled into all pores of society; it is what Mark Fisher, in his book Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative, has called a "business ontology", and it seems to also be affecting the artistic production. 

A certain class has embraced that the primary source of income for them can be the interest rate they get from selling somebody else's work. This is a way of operating that uncannily resembles the behaviour that causes rental market instability. Those who own wish to accumulate wealth at the expense of those who work. These predatory capitalist practices are completely normalised in our time, and can frictionlessly spread.

The conditions in which independent, emerging or young artists work today are becoming less and less beneficial. Needless to say, art or writing was never extremely lucrative for the average professional in those fields, especially for independent artists. However, I will examine how this intrusion of the managerial class into the production of art has had a detrimental effect on artists and their financial stability. Are companies hoarding money when they could be paying artists a fair salary?

This problem is, of course, not limited to the art or publishing industries. As Mark Fisher also noted, it is "clear that a certain amount of stability is necessary for cultural vibrancy,"1 and therefore, if we want artists to put out exciting work, they cannot be constantly overcome with fear, existential anxiety and cynicism. This leads to reactionary art, which is not really art, but a finished product for the ensured consumer. By making profit the goal of all art, we are in fact ensuring its sterility – not tapping into new potential, and saying only what is presentable in the mainstream.

Does art have monetary value? As consumers within capitalism, we are used to thinking about everything as having a price, but what exactly should we put a price on in art? Arguably, this should be the artist's time, not just their final product. It is true, however, that we, in our postmodernist society, perhaps lack a structure of art critique that does not rely on the capacity of art to sell and create profit. This has been exploited by capitalists, who offer a nihilistic idea of art as something that should not be compensated for in money.

For this article, I have spoken with several independent artists that are active in different artistic fields, from cinematography, through music, all the way to writing and literary translation. 

There are two common threads within their responses  – that being an independent artist is becoming increasingly more difficult, and that they wish not to give many details of their experiences if their names will also be mentioned. I have therefore decided to keep them anonymous and summarise what they told me, focusing on the overlaps in their stories.

All of them mentioned that exploitation is ever-present, but is not only limited to larger players in the industry. People expect artists to work for free, or only for experience, and this is evidently a problem within our culture that has deeper roots. It is a problem of what we perceive as work – people perceive artists as inspired individuals whom it is unnecessary to pay, as they are doing what they love. 

Does something have to be torturous and rarely enjoyable to be perceived as work? Interviewees have mentioned that artists’ contracts should be better regulated in order to make the pay fairer and in accordance with at least the minimum wage. However, the state, according to them, usually has no interest in supporting the independent arts.

Another issue that was frequently mentioned was that it is difficult to make money from art, specifically music and literature, that isn’t produced in a widely spoken language such as English, French, or Spanish. Those who create for a smaller audience, such as the Croatian audience, can’t count on making enough money to survive just by creating art. This can lead to further homogenisation of culture on a global level and neglecting the cultural heritage of smaller languages or dialects. Without culture to build their identity, languages and dialects can die out, which im

poverishes not only the linguistic, but also the cultural landscape.

In my research I have also come across Industria, an organisation that spreads awareness  and fights against exploitation in the arts. Through their projects Artist Leaks and Structurally F–cked, they highlight stories of artists who worked on publicly funded projects that expose unfair practices. They also talk about meritocracy, homogenisation, undervaluation of labour, and the deterioration of conditions for artists in the UK. 

In the end, the question Mark Fisher poses is "how long can a culture persist without the new?" We should protect our new and independent artists and encourage them to be active because they are the ones who can give fresh perspectives and celebrate the diversity of this world. This, ultimately, makes us better informed, tolerant, and most importantly, happier.

[Read this piece and others in our Annual Edition 2023: Tax the Rich!]

1 Fisher, Mark. Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? Zer0 Books, 2022.

Karla has a Master's degree in English and French and currently works as a translator. She is a member of the Sustainable Development Forum Green Window and is particularly interested in feminist topics and inclusivity. She deeply believes that art and literature help us connect and exchange knowledge.