Artists are told to treat their practice like a business, so why do we penalize those that do?
by Liz Publika
Consider this: there are more artists working today than at any other point in history. Most of them are seeking media coverage to grow their visibility, because that is what the art world recommends they do. But that advice ignores the fact that the publishing industry has changed, which is what makes it overly idealistic. From underpaid writers to dwindling number of platforms, there are numerous issues with the old model.
Let’s start with the fact that salaried arts journalism has shrunk dramatically from its 1980s peak. “Just a few decades ago, in fact, American critics were seen as an elite corps of taste-makers, culture shapers, and standard bearers, writing in the most arts-centric cities in the country for the most powerful publications in the world,” writes Bob Ableman in Artfuse. “But, over the past few decades, things have changed. Reviewers have become an endangered species in the arts ecosystem.”
When cultural commentary struggles to monetize via standard digital ads, it is highly vulnerable to elimination. “Many publications had reduced or eliminated dedicated arts sections, leading to fewer staff positions and freelance opportunities for arts journalists,” writes Robert Swetlic in Culture Source. “These factors don’t necessarily indicate a complete collapse of arts reporting, but they do reflect a need for arts journalism to adapt in order to survive in the digital-first landscape.”
Furthermore, a large share of legacy art media has consolidated under corporate ownership. Penske Media Corporation, for example, now controls a massive share of the institutional market, owning Artforum, Art in America, and ARTnews simultaneously. Although Artforum's leadership said at the time of the acquisition that the title would remain editorially independent of other Penske Media brands, including existing titles ARTnews and Art in America, terms of the transaction were not actually disclosed.
Critics of consolidation argue this produces a "homogenization of content, where independent voices get muffled or sidelined and the emphasis shifts to market-friendly stories that appease advertisers." In other words, both systems have pressures that affect objectivity. More importantly, under the table transactions are still taking place. Studies from the Native Advertising Institute (NAI) show that roughly one in ten magazine publishers admit their publications hadn’t labeled online native advertising.
The real issue has to do with transparency. Artists who negotiate coverage behind closed doors, through strategic relationships or undisclosed payments, get the appearance of organic recognition, while artists who'd rather pay for a placement openly, or can't access the back channel at all, get treated as suspect for the same underlying transaction. If the industry's actual objection is to coverage being bought, the backchannel deal is the more serious violation of that principle.
Penalizing the artist who says "I paid for this feature" while giving a pass to arrangements nobody ever has to explain isn't protecting objectivity — it's protecting the appearance of objectivity, which is a different thing. Simply put, the art world has a problem with paid coverage that isn't hidden, not paid coverage itself. The lack of transparency in the art world is a credibility issue, one that originates with the gatekeepers and extends to the artists themselves.
Fact is, galleries run paid marketing campaigns. Agents place their clients through paid strategy. Nobody demands a gallery caveat its Instagram ad with a disclaimer about editorial independence, because everyone understands it's an ad. Artists who pay for a feature and say so openly are doing the same thing with more transparency than most of the industry manages, so why does that get treated as a bigger problem than the quieter version of the exact same practice? The logic doesn’t hold up.
Circle Foundation for the Arts, which sells curated exhibitions and paid promotional placements to artists, makes a similar case: "It's not always easy to separate real value from empty offers. But paying for visibility, when done with the right partners, isn't about vanity," the organization argues. "It's about putting your work into meaningful contexts: respected publications, well-curated exhibitions, and platforms that honor the time, thought, and labor behind your practice."
It’s also important to note that not every publication runs on the same model. ARTpublika Magazine, for instance, keeps its bi-annual thematic issues invitation-only, curated to fit each theme rather than open to submissions. But it also runs a separate paid track through its blog, where artists can commission a review or place an event announcement about work that’s independent from the themed releases. As such, the curated side stays curated, and the paid side is labeled as exactly what it is.
So if we are telling artists to treat their practice as a business, then we should not be penalizing them for doing so. But, the artist who pays for coverage in the open comes out better, not worse, than most of the industry around them. As do publications that ensure their practices are transparent and responsible. Now that’s something to think about.
Note* Image by Liz Publika