JEAN YOON
Reports are not exactly good bedtime reading, and Occupation Artist is no exception. Despite all the impressive charts and figures, this recent release from the OAC reveals little that you don't already know from common sense and, more often than not, common sense is a lot more useful.
Granted, the authors frame their reports as a 'starting point' for further discussion and research. Occupation Artist is intended to be the first in a series of investigative reports on Ontario artists. Where the figures obscure or raise obvious questions on the true conditions of artists, the authors point out the failings of their data.
The findings of Occupation Artist are limited by its primary source of information, the 1981 and 1986 Census of Canada. The term 'artist' ranges from radio and tv announcers to musicians and singers, camera operators, dancers, directors, interior designers, poets, newspaper editors and translators. Information is organized in categories that are often too broad to be relevant. For instance, 'writers, editors' includes newspaper editors, screenplay writers and poets.
Similarly, data on employment rates of artists is falsely reassuring. In 1986 the unemployment rate for artists was 5.1%, lower than the provincial rate of 6.8%. For artists in performing and audio-visual occupations the rate was 7. 1 %. The rate for actors was a dismal 16. 1 %. What these figures do not reveal, in any case, is how many of these 'employed' artists were actually employed creating art, and how many were driving cabs or doing temp work to subsidize their vocation.
Interesting and revealing statistics do arise in the areas of age, gender and income rates. A large majority of artists in 1986 fell between the ages of 15 and 44. And while there is little discrepancy between the incomes of male and female artists 15 to 24, a gap appears after age 35 with men earning an average of $33,137 and women $20,770, or just 63% of what male artists earned. By age 55 male artists outnumber female artists two to one, with women earning only 61.2% of what their male colleagues earn.
Other points the study reveals are that artists are more likely to be bilingual in the two official languages, have a higher education standard than the provincial average, and tend to live in major urban areas, particularly Toronto and Ottawa/Hull. Eight of twelve individual arts occupations have average incomes well below the provincial average, with performing arts close to the bottom. (Actors earned an average of $18,782 compared to the $22,828 provincial average for all people employed in 1985.)
In conclusion, the study raises questions for reports to follow in this series, questions which are, for the most part, exasperating. 'What is the reason for this younger concentration of artists?' (Older artists wise up and get a real job. They go into teaching or politics.) 'Are there different factors affecting the participation of women artists?' (Sure. The arts is an unforgiving industry for women with children. Many women artists never resume their careers after child-rearing.) 'How meaningful a concept is unemployment in the arts occupations when there is such a high level of self-employment?' (Not very meaningful at all. Poverty, poverty is meaningful.)
No doubt future reports will contain figures supporting this kind of anecdotal knowledge. Documentation on ethnic minority artists would also be welcomed. In the meantime, Occupation Artist serves as a useful tool for artist lobbying groups and arts policy makers. Clear, readable and concise, with useful graphs and tables, Occupation Artist achieves its mandate to begin discussion on the condition of the artist within the labour force. When arguing a case it always helps to have statistics behind you.