This report was published in September 2001.
Table of Contents
Forward Executive Summary Section II: Summary of the Artists' Quake Aid (AQUA) Report Section III: Artist and Gallery Case Studies Section IV: General Conclusions Section V: Key Concerns for Artists Section VI: Short Term Set of Recommendations Section VII: Long Term Recommendations/Issues Raised by the Earthquake Section VIII: Artists' Quake Aid Statistics Section X: Studio Preparedness Earthquake Tip Sheet Earthquake Preparedness ResourcesSection IV. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
What can be learned about how a devastating earthquake affects artists in Seattle? Talking with artists about their losses, concerns and issues, and assessing the information gathered in the surveys, has led to several general observations.
1. Artists live and work in unsafe conditions.
Whether it's the hardship of surviving as a working artist in the United States, or the dramatic increase in rent for work space, many artists are working and living in unsafe buildings and spaces. In fact, 13 of the 34 artists who filled out the work space survey stated that their number one concern is unsafe buildings. Two others listed that they were afraid to apply for other funding as they were living illegally in their work spaces. Take the example of Denise, the choreographer in Artist Case Study #1. The group of choreographers was renting a studio/rehearsal space that was zoned for storage. The emergency exits were not up to code, there was no heat, and the windows had to be left open to ventilate a restaurant two floors down.
Choreographers and dancers often have a higher overhead than the income they earn from their work ö hence, inexpensive work space allows them to continue to produce artistically. This is true for many other artists who are prolifically producing their art while producing very little if any income directly from their artistic work (this is especially true for performing artists and many contemporary artists who produce non-commercial work). Thirty-seven percent of the AQUA applicants do not make their living from their artwork. Denise is just one of many who rent or lease work space in nonretrofitted buildings that are not maintained with the appropriate safety standards.
2. Earthquakes and other natural disasters can be devastating to artists who are living close to the edge financially.
Losing the studio which hosts an artist's studio show and the ability to produce work for several months can cause an artist to lose significant portions of their annual income. Lorenzo, the artist featured in Case Study #2, lost his work space and was unable to produce work for several months. He had worked hard to build his annual studio sale into an event that produced over 35% of his annual income. In addition, the studio sale would lead to several commissions that would keep him busy for several months following the sale. His situation was even more problematic as he has a family that relies on his income.
3. Artists are not viewed as having a legitimate business and thus are unable to get support from government relief programs for small business owners.
Many artists conveyed that government assistance programs did not address their needs and that they were overlooked as a workforce by society. As mentioned above, many of the artists who are actively contributing to our cultural vitality are not making a living from their artwork. These artists could not apply for FEMA Disaster Unemployment Assistance (unemployment benefits for individuals who sustained damage from the earthquake that prevented them from continuing to work) or other programs that required a certain amount of earned income from an individual's business.
4. Careful storage of artwork can be an effective loss prevention measure.
Some glass artists (see Artist Case Study #4) store their work tightly packed in boxes with bubble wrap or lay the pieces on bubble wrap on the floor. Others do not have the room or situation to use this storage method (see Artist Case Study #3 and #5).
An artist's studio is fluid; works-in-progress must be easily accessible and are constantly being moved around. Inventory at a gallery is treated similarly. (See Gallery Case Studies #2 & #3). The gallery personnel will move works around to find certain pieces and show them in certain light to clients. Artwork is constantly arriving and being shipped out. This makes it inconvenient to store the work in a fashion that secures it continually against possible breakage.
5. It is cost-prohibitive for most artists, especially glass or ceramic artists, to carry earthquake insurance for their artwork in their work spaces.
In our research with the insurance industry, we drew the following conclusions. First, it is difficult to find coverage for glass and ceramic work ö only a small number of specialty carriers even offer it. Second, it is known to be very expensive. Third, the coverage has a high deductible. The deductible is often based on the entire inventory rather than the total losses. For instance, if one had an inventory that is valued at $500,000 and had losses totaling $50,000, the deductible would be 5% of the entire inventory, or $25,000. Third, it is difficult to set a value on work until it is sold. Often, the insurance company will only reimburse artists for supplies and the time it took it make the work. Fourth, inventory in the studio of glass or ceramic artists moves quickly, so it is hard for artists or their studio assistants to maintain the inventory and update the insurance agencies. Fifth, and perhaps the most significant, again and again artists said earthquake insurance is a low priority in terms of their operating and living costs. One glass artist said 'I would rather have health insurance to make sure I am healthy enough to be able to produce my work.' With these reasons in mind, one can understand why only one of the glass artists interviewed had earthquake insurance.
Joseph, the glass artist featured in Case Study #6, does have earthquake insurance for his artwork, but primarily because his studio is in his home and the artwork is covered by his homeowner's insurance policy. His deductible is high and based on the entire contents of his home. Joseph was lucky that his insurance agent let him place his own work as if it was his 'collection' and therefore the policy covered the breakage after the $21,000 deductible.
6. Most galleries do not carry earthquake insurance.
The galleries interviewed had the same justification for not having earthquake insurance, as did the artists, high deductible and cost. One gallery director thought that the old brick building where his gallery is located was so unsafe that he wouldn't even be able to find coverage. Another gallery owner said, 'How can one run a business with that expense (earthquake insurance)?'
In most cases, artists are financially responsible for artwork breakage during exhibition or while it is being stored at the gallery. Some galleries have contracts that waive the galleries' responsibility (see Gallery Study Case #3) in the event of earthquake damage. Even if artists wanted to question this policy, several expressed confidentially that they would not want to jeopardize their relationship to their gallery in anyway.
These general conclusions are the basis for a set of short and long-term actions discussed in the remaining sections of this study.
