Right Livelihood for artists

If the following questions have been vexing you then you may find these musings interesting:-

• Can I earn a living, solely as an independent artist and stay proud of what I do?

• Why do I have to be in competition for limited funding with my fellow performance artists? Collaboration, not competition, is our natural creative state.

• Why must I judge the success of my art only in terms of “the yellow brick road” of progressively larger theatres, all the way to London?  Why can’t success mean staying right here doing locally and socially relevant work?

"….  I could happily engage in my work whilst doing no harm to myself or others".

Rather than bashing my head against the perennial problem of finding different ways to make a living in the arts I thought I’d start again, from another angle, and design what my own personal “success landscape” looks like.

In the course of my researches I have encountered the concept of Right Livelihood from the Buddhist Noble Eightfold Path. I’ve used this to identify the factors that, for me, mean that I could happily engage in my work whilst doing no harm to myself or others.

“Do myself no harm” 

• Don’t do work that makes me ill - For me, this includes stress. If you’re working with highly stressful or abusive people it will impact on you physically. 

• Gain reasonable return that reflects the value of my work and use all of my skills and talents - Well, no surprise there. We are all happier when we feel valued, stretched and respected, no matter what work we do. For me it is also important to be allowed to express myself. It’s part of the process of reflection and growth. Once I’ve found the words for something, understanding follows.

“Do no harm to others” 

• Make a responsible contribution to my home - It’s important to me that I don’t make others work harder because I’m not contributing responsibly.

• Don’t overcharge – I have always found it difficult to put a price on services that relate to people. Working as a teacher and then in further education, I saw helping people to get to where they want to go as something that should be accessible to all. And what about those who simply can’t afford it? Now, in the arts, I feel this even more keenly.

• Be inclusive – This is one of the most important values of my life. Inclusion and Equal Opportunity. When I don’t act according to those values I do harm to others and also to myself.

• Give of my best – Short-changing people in your work leaves a sickly imprint on those affected, on the transaction and on you.

• Be environmentally aware – This is incredibly broad of course and trying to do no harm to an entire planet is no easy endeavour but we can all make conscious decisions about the responsible use of resources and services.

• Don’t corrupt the nature of the work for profit – What an interesting and glorious world it would be if we could all bring our artistic vision to expression just the way we want and need to. You could argue that it is the role of producers and arts funding bodies to ensure quality. That in their selection process they are allowing the best to float to the top. But what if they are simply ensuring sameness? So what if only three people saw your artistic expression. If only one of them was deeply moved then surely the endeavour was worthwhile. You created from your heart, a free and pure expression – a gift - and it touched and helped someone else. Why not? 

The answer?

I have recently encountered the work of Charles Eisenstein and particularly his Sacred Economics.  He argues in favour of a Gift Economy.

“Indeed, to charge a fee for service, or even for material goods, violates the spirit of the Gift. When we shift into gift mentality, we treat our creations as gifts to other people or to the world. It is contrary to the nature of a gift to specify, in advance, a return gift, for then it is no longer giving but rather bartering, selling. Furthermore, many people, particularly artists, healers, and musicians, see their work as sacred, inspired by a divine source and bearing infinite value.”

I was stunned by how closely this seemed to fit into my own idealisation of a Right Livelihood. In this context I could create work and “do no harm”.

"…. the Gift Economy is so new, so different from our ingrained mindset that we all have to find our way"

But how to ensure that I “gain reasonable return” so that I can make a “responsible contribution” to my home?

Well Eisenstein has built his self-employed practice as a writer and speaker on this basis. He makes his writing available via the internet for free but people can also buy the book. In other words they can choose to make a return Gift.

He goes into more detail about exactly how your practice might look with some interesting examples:-

http://www.realitysandwich.com/sacred_economics_ch_21_working_gift_pt_22

But he stresses that, actually, the Gift Economy is so new, so different from our ingrained mindset that we all have to find our way. I see the perfect manifestation of my Right Livelihood as being a self-employed writer/community animateur/speaker who offers all of her services on a Gift basis. Maybe your Right Livelihood looks different.

It's scary though isn’t it? A risk? It depends upon others valuing my Gifts enough to allow me a reasonable and responsible income. How can I get myself ready to take such a risk?

Well, the first part of my answer to stage the transition. I know what my Right Livelihood looks like now, I have some of the tools to get there – particularly Eisenstein’s Gift concept – but in order to be responsible I may not be able to get there all at once. I’m going to try some things out, learn as I go, grow it slowly.

"But when the performance itself is a Gift then surely the return Gift, made in recognition, is also performance?"

The second part of my answer is to consider where the Gift part of the process sits in the artwork itself. Currently, when we pay a fixed fee before we see a performance the act of payment is thoroughly removed from art. It is not part of the process, it is an evil necessity to be got out of the way in a dark box-office where no one can see.

But when the performance itself is a Gift then surely the return Gift, made in recognition, is also performance? It is part of the art. Maybe the audience should be invited on stage to make their gift in the light, directly to the performers. Maybe they should be invited to make a short statement of critique or gratitude?!

A terrifying concept. But I would like to explore it. I am ready to take my first step to Right Livelihood as an independent artist and I am offering my first show Vega on a Gift basis at the Bike Shed Theatre on 14th January 2013 at 7.30. Pre-booking advised! ​

---