Biz Licenses for Artists - A shift in policy or attitude?
Submitted by eatpaintstudio on Wed, 05/19/2010 - 3:38pm.
Hi:
I am a professional artist who does not regularly show or sell my work - I have a studio in a manufacturing district.
When I graduated art school in 2004 there were no business classes for artists and certainly no talk of requiring artists to get a business license. It seems (at the moment) that the winds favor licensed artists - with the internet and alternative venues, we don't strictly rely on galleries to sell our work anymore and the city needs/wants revenue.
I have had inconclusive and disheartening exchanges with the Dept. of Business Affairs and Licensing on this issue ... even the Lawyers for the Creative Arts said that it was "unclear" but did state that they did not believe that artists were required (legally) to get a license.
I have been looking into how other cities deal with their creative population, some have income minimums before a license is required - and, in the case of Chicago, maybe a supplemental "arts" district status for manufacturing districts or MI-2 zones could be put into play.
The rub seems to be letting the city define what we do as "manufacturing" when the primary function of our work is NOT mass production of interchangeable goods for sale and/or profit. This also unfairly targets visual artists (as opposed to writers, poets, some photographers) who create tangible and sometimes large scale works...
Some artists want to stay "under the radar" but I think its better to be visible and say what we do... and ... they kinda already know we are here.
What is the CAR stand or vision on this? I am not an expert and I'd really like to know what "the right" thing to do is ...
-thank you-
I am a professional artist who does not regularly show or sell my work - I have a studio in a manufacturing district.
When I graduated art school in 2004 there were no business classes for artists and certainly no talk of requiring artists to get a business license. It seems (at the moment) that the winds favor licensed artists - with the internet and alternative venues, we don't strictly rely on galleries to sell our work anymore and the city needs/wants revenue.
I have had inconclusive and disheartening exchanges with the Dept. of Business Affairs and Licensing on this issue ... even the Lawyers for the Creative Arts said that it was "unclear" but did state that they did not believe that artists were required (legally) to get a license.
I have been looking into how other cities deal with their creative population, some have income minimums before a license is required - and, in the case of Chicago, maybe a supplemental "arts" district status for manufacturing districts or MI-2 zones could be put into play.
The rub seems to be letting the city define what we do as "manufacturing" when the primary function of our work is NOT mass production of interchangeable goods for sale and/or profit. This also unfairly targets visual artists (as opposed to writers, poets, some photographers) who create tangible and sometimes large scale works...
Some artists want to stay "under the radar" but I think its better to be visible and say what we do... and ... they kinda already know we are here.
What is the CAR stand or vision on this? I am not an expert and I'd really like to know what "the right" thing to do is ...
-thank you-