At the beginning of the month, a striking press release by the professional body that represents Canadian artists, Canadian Arists' Representation (CARFAC), informed the public that Inuit artists would “miss out of profits made on their work” at upcoming sales at Joyner Waddington's and Walkers auction houses in the days to follow. The interminable battle for resale rights in Canada was made to sound like urgent news. “The artists will not receive a dime,” the release warned, going on to quote several artists about the grim financial realities they faced. 

Despite these somewhat dubious tactics, CARFAC's press release did note some startling data. Resale-royalties legislation exists in 59 countries worldwide, including the entire European Union and more recently Australia. The group explained that in two years, “Australia has paid more than $600,000 in royalties” to more than 380 artists, “over 60% of whom are Indigenous. The lowest royalty paid in Australia so far has been $50, while the highest amount paid was $40,000.” 

Seeking a response to the press releases, ARTINFO Canada contacted Stephen Ranger, vice president of Waddington's, to discuss the issue. Ranger's evident frustration at the rhetoric employed by CARFAC warranted our getting in touch with April Britski, executive director of CARFAC National.

In the midst of a season punctuated with secondary-market movement, this debate stirs up a great deal of passion on all sides. Here is what they had to say (interviews from the two sides have been interspersed here, to give a sense of the back and forth):

To April Britski: Since there have been no new developments regarding the issue of Canadian artists gaining resale rights lately, why release this statement now, and why distinguish Inuit artists from the rest?

AB: We’ve been looking to get artist resale rights for two to three years, and since the fall of 2010, we’ve been paying close attention to Canadian auctions, trying to get a sense of what they could mean for artists. Usually that involves looking at what artists are being sold at the fall and spring auction, and focusing on them. In this case, we noticed that there were two auctions of Inuit artists, in particular, so we arranged a release shortly thereafter highlighting their issues.

The press release appeared to position the subject as news, and not just a comment on the status quo needing to be changed. Was it CARFAC's intention to sound an alarm?

AB: Our previous releases are very similar. Season to season, we want to educate people about an artist’s relationship to their secondary market. And we want to send a message to government: that every spring and fall, this could have an effect on an artist’s life.

***

To Stephen Ranger: What was your response to this latest CARFAC release on Inuit artists, and what did you perceive its purpose to be when the whole country is still waiting on resale rights?

SR: The Inuit issue being piqued is all about optics, and, in my view, very deceiving and very cynical. They’re bringing that up like Inuit artists are poster children being denied their profits. But it comes around the time that the big Inuit art sales happen every year.

They didn’t mention the Inuit artists last year, they mentioned Canadian art in general. It has to do with timing and auctions. And at this time, last year, I became proactive, and said “you haven’t asked us what we thought, you haven’t engaged us on this. Don’t you think it’s time?”

Tell us a bit about the history of your relationship with CARFAC, on this subject, and what any discussion has amounted to.

SR: CARFAC has traditionally taken a confrontational tack with regards to the issue of the artist's resale rights. It wasn’t until last spring that they had engaged with anyone in the industry, after making noise about it for a long time. I went down to a conference of theirs at that time, and laid out a number of issues that people would be concerned about in the art business.

What are those concerns?

SR: For instance, CARFAC’s most recent press release presupposes that all artwork appreciates, that immense profits are being made off of artists who were forced to sell their work for very little money, and that collectors buy artwork only for investment purposes.

***

To April Britski: Would you agree CARFAC assumes the above in its argumentation for resale rights?

AB: We never said that collectors only buy work for investment purposes. And we do know that not everything appreciates in value. It is possible that some work sells for less than what it initially sold for. This is possible, certainly. But that is the chance that people take when they decide to resell work.

Do you agree with Stephen that CARFAC has taken an aggressive stance towards the auction houses?

AB: Our intent was not to call out the big, bad auction house. Our intent was to illustrate that a lot of work is being sold by Canadian artists, and without this right, we wanted to show how many artists are being affected and how much money they’re missing out on.

We wanted to show the need. For example we illustrate Kenojuak Ashevak, an Inuit artist who has a lot of work selling on the secondary market. She’s an older artist who’s in very poor health, and has told us personally that it would be very beneficial for her to have this right in place.

April, what complications do you see the introduction of an artist's resale right potentially having for artists or the market?