We know the stakes. About money in culture without taboos

With David Matthew and Patrick Kosenda we talk about the civic run #We know the Stats, about breaking the taboo of silence around money, and about why public spending is simply a prerequisite for trust, solidarity and real democracy in culture.

(Interview is simply a edited and completed version of the podcast Are you aware? p. We know the stakes. Culture at work).

Rafał Górski: In the call of the citizens' run #We know the stakes you proclaim the postulate “Let us uncover the stakes in culture! adequate silence, time for transparency." What kind of taboo do you think breaks this campaign?

David Matthew: First of all, I feel like we're breaking a fewer taboos and they're all about money. In our culture there is simply a strong conviction, even saying that "gentlemen do not talk about money". We believe that money should be discussed frequently and openly. This is 1 of the conditions for a conscious civilian society to mature.

Where money is not discussed, especially public money, there is always area for abuse.

I can make a individual example. A decade ago as a debut author, I tried to find out what rates I could anticipate for the gathering or for the book release. It was not easy, actually no 1 wanted to share this knowledge: neither publishers nor another authors. It wasn't until after the time, bullet-proof, that the odds were highly uneven. Importantly, we are talking about the same work and what I want to emphasize powerfully – poetry. poesy that functions very small in marketplace mechanisms. So the point was not that any of them were more read, attracted a larger audience or sold books better. These differences were purely recognized: any received 5 or 10 times more for the same work. I, on the another hand, did not have any mention points, I did not know how much I should demand. And this is mostly the case today. So I think that just looking in the wallet is already a taboo break. And we think those wallets belong to us, and we're going to.

Patrick Kosenda: erstwhile we talk about transparency and about breaking taboos associated with talking about money, we do this from the position of both organizers and as creators. We have been moving in this strategy for years and although it may be incomprehensible for many people, this does not entitle us to stay silent about the transparency of earnings in our industry.

What does it mean that “only transparency allows to build trust and solidarity between artists, organizers and audiences”?

Patrick Kosenda: Culture is not created exclusively by artists. It is besides created by organizers, and above all the audience, understood widely, due to the fact that each of us at any phase of our lives is simply a recipient of culture, more frequently or little often. The organisers of cultural events themselves told us that the transparency of the rates would simply make it easier for them. They would know how much another festivals or institutions are paying, and could thus offer fair, adequate remuneration to artists and authors they invite.

As far as the public is concerned, it is clear to us: citizens have the right to know how money is spent and distributed, especially those from public funds. Just due to the fact that individual doesn't read poetry, doesn't go to the theatre or watch movies co-financed with public money, doesn't mean they don't pay for this cultural life. Since we all make up for it, we all have the right to know how these resources spread.

In the case of artists, the deficiency of transparency of wages frequently leads to conflicts.

Setting rates for participation in cultural events present is simply a lottery. Sometimes individual assumes that he will receive a akin wage as his friend for the same work, and then it turns out that the differences are respective times. But it besides works the another way around, any authors presume that working in a large cultural institution means unchangeable conditions and decent earnings, and only later, somewhere in the crucibles, it emerges that workers operate on junk contracts and for very low rates.

David Matthew: In my opinion, the deficiency of transparency of wages in culture besides strengthens the narratives present outside the cultural environment. I mean the stories of alleged “artists of free eaters” who supposedly get public money “no 1 knows for what”. The transparency of rates could effectively break these narratives, due to the fact that we would simply know who, for what and how much they actually receive.

Hard and without anesthesia

– this is how we have been operating since 2020. Journalism that is not indifferent. The civilian Affairs Weekly announces abuse, educates and gives tools for a real, civic change.

Give 1.5% and be our contributor

Where does the transparency of rates in culture already work?

David Matthew: The transparency of rates works in much of the planet – the full of Scandinavia can be an example. The first tab on the website of Norsk Forfattersentrum, the Norwegian Association of Writers, includes a clear list of fees, rates for 30 minutes and 60 minutes of authorial meetings, for conducting a gathering or panel, participating in a panel or even lending a part for reading. These are regulated and applicable rates throughout Norway. It functions likewise throughout Scandinavia, everything is clear and clear.

The interview that Patrick and Michał Mytnik conducted with Paweł Partyka, a Polish-Danish translator surviving in Copenhagen for forty years, will shortly be released. It tells in item about the Danish strategy of backing literature, about how rates are standardised, but besides about the culture of transparency and the standards in force.

In fresh years, the transparency of fees in the UK, the United States, France and the Netherlands has besides been increasingly stressed. Our action had its inspiration in akin initiatives, which appeared in Anglo-Saxon countries a fewer years ago – the USA, the UK, Ireland or France. Then the authors began, under appropriate hashtags, to disclose their rates for the work they did. The effect was very significant. In the countries we are talking about, there have been immense racial inequalities, where the authors of heaven, frequently more celebrated and well-readed, have received many times lower wages. In Poland, we fishy that a akin action may uncover inequalities primarily against a class background.

Article 29a of the Act on the organisation and conduct of cultural activities states that ‘It shall not be disclosed: the amount of the remuneration of the supplier of the service or of the supply of artistic or creative activities’. Who do you think is the enemy of the campaign?

David Matthew: The enemies in my opinion are first and foremost those who believe that there should be a different law for artists than for another citizens. In this respect, however, artists are actually privileged by Article 29a, which excludes artistic activity from the Public Information Access Act. It is the only group so clearly privileged compared to another citizens.

What year does this article come from?

David Matthew: This provision was introduced in late 2015, and entered into force in 2016. As for his genesis, it is somewhat grotesque. At the time it was the highest popularity of Polish cabarets. There is no point in naming them, but the fact is that they drew very large money from performances in smaller cities. We're talking 40-50 1000 zlotys for 1 evening. frequently this meant that the full local cultural budget was "burned" for 1 event – mayors or city presidents utilized these performances as part of the celebration of city days. It is worth remembering that PLN 50,000 in 2014 had a completely different value than today.

At the time, there was full transparency in these expenses. And the scandal broke out, and the residents started asking why specified immense public funds were being spent on individual performances. But alternatively of drawing systemic conclusions from this, the then rulers concluded that the best solution would be... to hide these rates. As a result, artistic activity was removed from the Act on Access to Public Information, allegedly in order to "protect artists".

In fact, it was a privilege protection.

It was a cabaret – a cabaret in power. This provision was introduced under the cloak of concern for the interests of artists, so that they did not gotta disclose their fees. Furthermore, this provision is contrary to Article 32 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, which speaks of the equality of citizens with respect to the law. It is hard to talk of equality erstwhile 1 professional group is so clearly privileged legally.

Importantly, this article besides works to harm the artists themselves. And here I go back to the question of who the enemy is. In my opinion, it is those who believe that this privilege should proceed to exist. This state of affairs separates artists from the remainder of society, makes them a privileged group. Only in practice only a narrow group of the best earners is privileged. They benefit from deficiency of transparency, while the vast majority of artists receive much lower wages. As I mentioned earlier, this is primarily at the expense of people entering adult life and starting artistic activity. They are deprived of basic comparative tools, do not know how much they can and should anticipate for their work. The effect is easy to predict: they get pennies or they get nothing, frequently being convinced that it is normal.

If you're talking about the best-earned artists, is that how you view cultural events?

David Matthew: Here, I would definitely separate the staff of the festival offices from the alleged CEO, the people at the top of the decision-making structure. Our conversations with employees of large cultural institutions, organizing the biggest festivals in Poland, show that they know European standards and are full aware that the transparency of rates would make their work importantly easier. There would be no suspicions, no mistrust, and the constant impression that “everything is secret”. Therefore, I cannot say that "organisers" are a problem as such. In practice, the organizers of these festivals are the employees.

When I talk about workers, I frequently mention to festival curators, a individual with a visible, exposed position. Very often, however, they stay performers of decisions of supervisory boards, boards or another bodies managing the institution. So if I were to point out the enemy, it would be alternatively the conviction and opposition of the managers, their reluctance to disclose rates and to transparency. Besides, we learned that 1 of the festivals had tried to contact others, asking for information about the fees, precisely to effort to introduce any form of standardisation. It didn't work.

Patrick Kosenda: I would besides add political decision-makers who hold the introduction of standards of transparency in Poland – not only in culture, but besides in another areas of public life. Paul Partka, mentioned earlier, stressed that transparency in the sphere of culture is straight linked to the level of transparency of the full society and another sectors of public life. In Denmark, culture is no exception, as is the case in Poland, where transparency concerns the full system, including those exercising power.

How do media and journalists approach the issue of culture in Poland?

Patrick Kosenda: The issue of transparency in culture does not actually function as a media topic. In the last year, it appeared marginally during the discussion around Joanna Kuciel-Frydryszak's book "Boys", erstwhile the author demanded higher royalties after a very good sale. The problem is that the full debate revolved around millions of amounts, that is, money that concerns a ray of artists from different industries. This was, of course, a “hot” media due to the fact that we are talking about large sums and about authors from the first rows of festivals. On the another hand, the issue of wage of an average poet or creator operating outside the main circuit practically does not be in the media.

Who's behind you?

Patrick Kosenda: We are supported by people of culture and social activists. Journalists are besides starting to support us, and I feel that we have mostly drawn their attention to this. We have excellent ambassadors and support of Watchdog Polska, an organization from which we learn standards of transparency. Our appeal, addressed to cultural institutions in Poland utilizing public funds, was signed by winners of the most crucial literary awards in the country. But I would say that the most crucial thing for us is the support of citizens, people who do not work in culture on a regular basis and do not necessarily specify themselves as its regular recipients and who at the same time realize perfectly that the transparency of public spending is crucial in all sector of democratic society.

Within a fewer days of the launch of the campaign, over 320 people signed the appeal. The National Section of Museums and Institutions for the Protection of Landmarks of NSZZ “Solidarity” declared its support publicly. We besides received the support of the Union of Professional Librarians of the National Library. We have besides received support from the MP Daria Gosek-Popiołek. Practically all day brings fresh people, entities and institutions that join our action. We believe that this process will proceed to make in the right direction.

David Matthew: What I'm most happy about is that support starts coming from truly different backgrounds. As far as creative environments are concerned, actors, dolls, writers, filmmakers and series, painters, musicians are involved. But besides the employees of libraries, cultural centres and the full cross-section of people, which we can call the creators of culture in Poland. There's no dominant group here. possibly only the literary group is simply a small bit more represented due to the fact that we came from there and it was easier for us to get the first ambassadors.

But it shortly turned out that people understood that the substance was about everyone.

Call on cultural institutions to disclose rates, introduce financial transparency and destruct Article 29a primarily concerns those who hold little exposed positions in each cultural centre, in each library – all who are not the main beneficiaries of cultural funding. They frequently work for very low wages if they have a contract of employment, usually for a minimum national or a akin amount. Even more frequently they do not have an employment contract at all, but they work on the basis of work contracts or contracts. And yet they put their work and time into culture.

Welcome to internships, internships and volunteering!

Join us!

“We know the situation on both sides of the barricade, so we want to overthrow this barricade, and the work and fun of organizing cultural life from the hands of managers to the shoulders of artists. Let us not limit ourselves to complaining that our creativity does not have the right space to be – let us make it together”, you compose on the website culturewpracy.pl. How can you join the run and the Labour Culture Association?

Patrick Kosenda: We have a fewer options. First of all, we invitation you to the website of petitioneonline.pl, where it is located our appeal to cultural institutions. We want to collect as many signatures as possible to show that this is not a fanaberia, but a real support for citizens from different sectors. More information about our action can be found on the web page znawistawki.pl. We besides encourage you to share our material online and visit our fanpages on social media: We know Stawki and Culture at Work.

You can besides come to us as an action ambassador to engage actively in promoting transparency of wages in culture.

It is besides very crucial to supply financial support for citizens, and we request resources to develop, professionalise and increase our scale. We besides appeal to people of culture to uncover our own rates, as we ourselves do as part of the #We KnowStakes campaign. We encourage you to inspire another creators and cultural workers. Finally, we remind about civilian rights – anyone can apply for access to public information. Any citizen, without giving a reason, may ask, for example, any festival in Poland utilizing public funds, how its funds were spent. If the answer is not given, we support the further investigation and the acquisition of as much information as possible.

What question has no 1 always asked you about the subjects we talk about? And what is the answer to that?

David Matthew: I was amazed that no 1 had yet asked the question, “Are we not afraid?” related to the fear of exclusion or failure of chance to participate in festivals, copyright meetings and another events. The answer is simple: we are not afraid. First of all we are, I can say this with all the courage on behalf of the full Labour Culture Association, citizens of this country, and only in the second place artists, critics or creators operating in different areas of culture. If taking part in the main festival circulation in our industries is to trust on a constant agreement of silence and vague, untransparent rules, what fun is it to participate in it? no for us personally.

I myself come from an environment that was not privileged in culture, I was not born in a creative family, in an environment of celebrated filmmakers or people of culture who already had a position in this world. Therefore, I do not want to enjoy privileges that are not available to all. This does not mean that we were not invited to festivals, on the contrary, we had the chance to get to know this strategy from the inside. We saw what it looked like and stated clearly: we do not want to function like this.

This is simply a good point at the end of our conversation.