This page tracks W.A.G.E.'s interest in contractual materials, starting in 2015 with an unfinished years long effort to produce a resale royalty contract on blockchain through to the present day with the development of CONTRACTS , a set of interactive work agreements for freelance art and cultural workers.

In 2015, W.A.G.E. began developing an updated and modular version on blockchain of Seth Siegelaub and Robert Projansky’s 1971 The Artist’s Reserved Rights Transfer and Sales Agreement , also known as The Artist’s Contract.

The Artist’s Contract was intended to give artists control over the conditions of the sale of their work as well as the conditions of its exhibition, resale, and other concerns beyond artists’ oversight once it has been transferred. It may be best known for introducing the resale royalty — the right of artists to claim 15% of any increase in the value of their work after the first sale.

After more than 2 years of research and development, including the W.A.G.E. Artists' Resale Rights Working Group  (2015), a series of artist discussion groups, as well as long form interviews with art dealers, art advisors, and collectors, in October 2017 W.A.G.E. convened a closed 2-day summit at the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London, UK to establish a policy framework and move the project toward realization.

Representing W.A.G.E.'s first step beyond the nonprofit sector and conceived as a key component of WAGENCY, the purpose of The Artist's Contract on Blockchain was to reclaim a portion of the surplus of wealth generated by speculation on the unpaid labor of artists; to redistribute this surplus to bring about a more equitable distribution of art’s economy; and to control the conditions under which artists’ work is used.

With developments in blockchain technology occuring faster than our ability to fund and build the project in addition to WAGENCY, another summit was convened at the Institute of Contemporary Arts the following summer to update and further refine our approach.

In 2019, after W.A.G.E.'s involvement in Decolonize This Place's Whitney Museum campaign , our interest in contracts grew to include standard exhibition and Non-Disclosure Agreements which constitute a little known structural barrier to artists collectively organizing, especially in the context of museums. Whether challenging labor relations or institutional governance, these agreements inhibit artists from self-organizing or withholding content from exhibitions.

Navigating the increasingly fraught state of the art system in the age of political protest, and without the resources in place to bring The Artist's Contract on Blockchain to fruition, it remained in a holding pattern until the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. At that point, W.A.G.E. pivoted away from an effort to reform the commercial market and toward the urgent and much deeper crisis most working artists were facing: not the loss of income from artist fees or sales but the loss of income from secondary jobs — the work we do to support ourselves which is often freelance, non-unionized gig work such as artist assisting, studio managing, art handling, and adjunct teaching.

In summer 2020, we returned to The Artist Assistant's Work Agreement which had been developed in 2018 for WAGENCY, and began developing a set of contracts for art and cultural workers, detailed below.

Note: A large amount of written material was produced in the development of The Artist's Contract on Blockchain and will be made available in the future.

The criteria for W.A.G.E.'s 2018 analysis below was derived in part from a series of long-form interviews conducted in New York in 2017 with persons who have or were then working as artists’ assistants, in addition to conversations with artists who were then employing assistants. The collection of individual accounts was crucial in locating common needs and outlining best practices to help both parties navigate the inherent power dynamics of the workplace while creating mutually sustainable relationships between artists and their assistants. An initial draft agreement for artist assistants was briefly introduced with the launch of WAGENCY in 2018 and further developed in 2020-22.

Not unlike the variety of institutional models in the nonprofit sector, artists' practices range in form, as do their studios as sites of production. Depending on the employing artist’s income and demand for their work, the studio might be run by a single person or employ tens or hundreds of workers. Depending on the employing artist’s material practice and working method, the workplace might be located in an artist’s home or in a converted industrial space restored to its intended use as a factory. Depending on the level of involvement of the employing artist in the process of production, the degree of contact between assistants and employer can range from highly intimate and familial to remote and instructional.

Different forms of artistic production produce different forms of exploitation. In studios where fabrication takes place in factory-like conditions, assistants might be more likely to experience workplace discrimination, harassment, and health and safety violations. In smaller studios, the more intimate nature of the working relationship might result in assistants being prone to accepting lower pay and the equivalent of Just-in-Time (JIT) scheduling or zero-hour contracts because a friendship has developed with their employer.

Regardless of the number of employees, studio location, or the employing artist’s presence, the issues facing assistants often replicate the issues experienced by artists when they work with institutions. These include the devaluation and underpayment of highly skilled labor, the exchange of exposure or social connections for work, and the unremunerated provision of content.

The creative contribution of assistants also raises complicated questions about authorship. Assistant positions are commonly filled by other artists who may have been hired because their artwork has relevance to their employer's own art practice. But because assistants are waged workers they usually receive no direct benefit from the profit generated by increases in the market value of the work they contributed to making. The degree to which assistants contribute to producing content for the employing artist is difficult to measure, but it is clear that the field does not regard assistants as co-producers or co-authors and does not reward them financially as such.

The intimacy of knowledge-sharing coupled with social engagement inside and outside the studio casts assistants in a supporting role that is often both intellectual and emotional. An assistant’s job title might be Studio Manager but the work is likely to pivot around supporting the employing artist in making their artwork. This could begin with its conception, carry through the process of fabrication, and end in the oversight of its installation in a gallery, museum, or private collection. The decisions an assistant makes throughout this process on behalf of their employer, whether supervised or unsupervised, constitute a critical and under-recognized dimension of contemporary art production.

In spite of the uniquely complex nature of this relationship, the issues that arise in the studio workplace mirror those of workers in other fields, including inequitable treatment based on race, gender, and ability; severe health and safety concerns; and unreliable work schedules. Obstacles to worker empowerment are also similar. Fear of retaliation or of being easily replaced by others just as desperate for work precludes advocating for better conditions and pay.

Assistants also share what is perhaps one of the most pervasive problems in the contemporary labor market: misclassification of work. Determining whether or not an assistant is an independent contractor (1099) or an employee (W-2) has significant implications for each party. For the assistant, it can mean underpayment of wages, lack of benefits, and increased exposure to certain kinds of risks. For the employing artist, it can result in fees and penalties. It can also leave them open to claims on intellectual property should there be a dispute: independent contractors have the potential to claim legal joint authorship of artwork, a right that employees do not have.

When the employing artist and assistant discuss and agree upon an equitable rate, they should consider other factors, including previous experience, if there are special skills required or being offered, duration of work, regularity of agreed-upon work, number of hours worked per week, whether it is part-time or full-time, hourly or salaried, what benefits the employer can offer if the assistant is classified as an employee, or what the assistant will need to take on if classified as an independent contractor. In addition to a salary or hourly pay, some artists implement agreements to pay their assistant(s) a percentage of the sale of artworks to which they have contributed.

Employing artists should advocate for equitable pay for their assistants when working in an institutional setting. Assistant labor must be understood by institutions as a cost of production in the mounting of exhibitions which is not the responsibility of the exhibiting artist. However, cases may arise in which outside labor may conflict with in-house staff responsibilities and hours. These should be carefully negotiated to ensure that assistants do not displace or reduce the hours of existing institutional workers.

Suggested rates for assisting an employer during exhibition installation are budgeted for a 10-hour day. For example, an individual whose install rate is set at $35/hour would suggest the institution budget for a day rate of $350. Rates are higher to reflect the additional expense of being away (if applicable), working more demanding hours, and to acknowledge assistants' specialized skills and knowledge of their employers’ work. Travel, lodging, and per diem(s) for the installing assistant(s) are typically budgeted in addition to the day rate.

Building on The Artist Assistant's Work Agreement, in summer 2020 we embarked on the development of a second agreement for art handlers. Extended Zoom conversations with Ian Epps of the Art Handlers Alliance of New York led to our co-organizing a roundtable discussion to review and build on W.A.G.E.'s first draft agreement. The group included representatives from Arts Workers for Black Lives, Art Handlxrs, and Level It.

Introduction (15–30 min)

Part 1 (45 min–1 hour)

Ask each group to share how the forms of exclusion and inequity their work addresses manifest in the workplace, with a focus on representation and pay scales. Here we’re looking to understand the structural barriers to entry, advancement, and leadership, as well as any conditions of work culture that perpetuate exclusion and inequity, noting any differences between the nonprofit and for-profit sectors.

Part 2 (45 min–1 hour)

Open discussion about strategies for reforming hiring practices, and enforcing equal representation and pay, with the goal of developing contractual mechanisms within the Art Handler Work Agreement.

In preparation for drafting The Teaching Artist's Work Agreement, with the help of Heleya De Barros, Co-Executive Director of the Teaching Artists Guild, W.A.G.E. assembled an informal roundtable discussion on freelance teaching artist labor. Participating were Norwood Creech (Memphis), Carina del Rosario (Seattle), William Estrada (Chicago), Amanda Adams Louis (New York), Heleya de Barros (Seattle).

What distinguishes the labor of freelance teaching artists from that of employees?

Sketch out scenarios in which teaching artists would be hired as independent contractors, as well as scenarios in which they might be classified as employees; develop a set of parameters defining the nature of legitimate freelance teaching work.

What are the different contexts a freelance teaching artist might work in?

Develop a comprehensive list of work contexts including venue (museum, school etc); employer (city agency, nonprofit organization); hiring party (who would be using this contract on the employer side?); learner constituency (age, subject etc).

What are the skills freelance teaching artists might be contracted to supply?

Enumerate the skills necessary to supplying the services expected in the scenarios outlined above.

What forms of exploitation do freelance teaching artists experience?

Discuss and outline the various forms of exploitation freelance teaching artists might experience in the following areas: wage equity and transparency, worker safety, equal representation, compensation, and worker classification. In addition, the need for intellectual property protection.

Based on what we learn through our discussion, can we set cross-sectorial pay rates?