Artists and other cultural workers have tried to create stable, long-term collective income systems for themselves forever. In 2004, an American tech entrepreneur launched one of the most ambitious redistribution schemes up to date, the Artist Pension Trust (APT). The idea was to give artists not just long-term income, but even a pension—a luxury highly uncommon among the professional group. Practically, the trust pools artworks of participating artists and sells them over time to provide the artists with a stable, long-term source of income. But in recent years, the APT has come to be known especially for a seemingly never-ending series of scandals.It became apparent that the APT was going south in 2018 when ArtForum reported that over 20 British participating artists were suing the organization for being utterly dysfunctional. In July 2021, a very similar story by the New York Times broke the news, showing that the APT did not learn from its mistakes. The fund's public image of a promising artists’ solidarity model disintegrated, laying bare the APT's tech and finance-driven, extractive business model.The APT model requires our critical attention because it can easily be misconceived as yet another failure of artist solidarity and proof that self-organization cannot resist platform extractivism. Forget about the redistribution of wealth. However, the opposite is true. We’re not dealing with the bankruptcy of artist self-organization and decentral redistribution here. We’re witnessing the urgency to create the real deal. We can’t wait for platform corporations to create the infrastructures and business models we need to fight precarity. Seeing the APT going down, we ask: What are the alternatives? How can art workers reclaim agency in the struggle for solidarity, against precarity?
LINK
An overview of innovations in a particular area, for example retail developments in the fashion sector (Van Vliet, 2014), and a subsequent discussion about the probability as to whether these innovations will realise a ‘breakthrough’, has to be supplemented with the question of what the added value is for the customer of such a new service or product. The added value for the customer must not only be clear as to its direct (instrumental or hedonic) incentives but it must also be tested on its merits from a business point of view. This requires a methodology. Working with business models is a method for describing the added value of products/services for customers in a systematic and structured manner. The fact that this is not always simple is evident from the discussions about retail developments, which do not excel in well-grounded business models. If there is talk about business models at all, it is more likely to concern strategic positioning in the market or value chain, or the discussion is about specifics like earning- and distribution-models (see Molenaar, 2011; Shopping 2020, 2014). Here we shall deal with two aspects of business models. First of all we shall look at the different perspectives in the use of business models, ultimately arriving at four distinctive perspectives or methods of use. Secondly, we shall outline the context within which business models operate. As a conclusion we shall distil a research framework from these discussions by presenting an integrated model as the basis for further research into new services and product.
