Building the Art World We Actually Need

The creative economy in Europe is undergoing a fundamental transformation. According to Eurostat, nearly one-third of Europe’s 7.8 million cultural workers are now self-employed — more than double the rate of the general economy.[1] This shift represents not just statistical change but a structural evolution in how cultural work gets done, creating both opportunities and challenges for everyone involved in arts production.

This transformation didn’t happen in a vacuum. It reflects broader changes in how creative careers develop, how institutions operate, and how cultural value gets created and distributed. Understanding these changes helps explain why certain conversations about arts support matter for tomorrow’s cultural landscape — and why the gap between institutional and independent work deserves closer examination.

Caspar David Friedrich, Wanderer above the Sea of Fog (Der Wanderer über dem Nebelmeer), c. 1817. Oil on canvas, 98 × 74 cm. Hamburger Kunsthalle, Hamburg. Public domain.

About two months ago, I had two conversations that crystallized something I’ve been observing throughout my career: there’s often a disconnect between what arts support actually involves and how it’s perceived — even within the art community itself. These conversations also revealed something more troubling: how favoritism and nepotism in institutional settings often push talented people toward independent work, not always by choice.

The first was with a fresh graduate from the academy, talented and eager but overwhelmed by everything beyond studio practice. As we discussed portfolio development, exhibition opportunities, and strategic career planning, I found myself articulating something I’d been thinking about for months: “I do essentially the same work my colleagues do in museums and galleries — research, curatorial thinking, project development, strategic planning. The main difference is that I work freelance rather than within a government or city-funded institution.”

The second conversation was with an established artist who’s been creating consistently powerful work for decades. She’s incredibly prolific, with ambitions that match her impressive track record and ideas that could fuel another lifetime of meaningful projects. During our session, she mentioned that her husband — also an artist and extremely supportive of her career — remains skeptical about professional arts management. His concern, as conveyed to me, was whether I’m actually helping her advance or simply creating expensive complications.

Both conversations made me realize how much these individual experiences reflect broader patterns in European cultural work — and how the choice between institutional employment and independent practice isn’t always about preference. Sometimes it’s about which doors are open, and to whom.

The Numbers Behind the Shift

Readers interested in the statistical context of European creative freelancing can find detailed research findings here. Others may prefer to skip to the next section.

The scale of freelance creative work in Europe has reached unprecedented levels. Eurostat data shows that 31.7% of the EU’s 7.8 million cultural workers are self-employed, compared to just 13.8% in the general economy.[2] Cultural and creative industries contribute €354 billion in value added — representing 5.3% of the total EU economy — while supporting 8.1 million workers across 2.9 million enterprises.[3]

This growth shows remarkable consistency. The sector achieved 4.5% employment growth in 2022 and maintained a 4.3% compound annual growth rate in value added from 2013-2020, significantly outpacing broader economic performance.[4] Academic projections suggest this trajectory will continue, with research from NESTA estimating that creative industries could create 900,000 new jobs by 2030 if current growth rates continue.[5]

However, this economic success masks significant challenges. Culture Action Europe’s 2024 Creative Pulse Survey of 1,497 cultural professionals found that nearly half of respondents, especially freelancers, reported poor working conditions, while over two-thirds lacked sufficient social protection.[6] The European Labour Authority notes that “reliance on self-employment and temporary contracts leaves many without essential protection like health insurance and pensions.”[7]

The Perception Problem — And the Unspoken One

That moment with the young artist was revealing. When I explained that my work parallels what happens in institutional settings, I could see the recognition in their eyes. Suddenly, the professional development, strategic planning, and project guidance made sense in a familiar framework.

The difference isn’t the work itself — it’s the context. When a museum curator helps an artist develop an exhibition proposal, it’s seen as institutional support. When an independent professional provides identical guidance, it sometimes gets questioned as unnecessary expense.

But there’s another perception problem that rarely gets discussed openly: why so many qualified professionals end up working independently in the first place. In my experience — and in conversations with colleagues across Croatia and the wider region — the path to institutional positions often has less to do with qualifications than with connections. The pattern is familiar: positions that seem open but are effectively pre-decided, selection processes that favor insiders, opportunities that circulate through personal networks before ever reaching public calls.

This isn’t unique to the art world, of course. But in a sector that prides itself on progressive values, the gap between rhetoric and reality can be particularly stark. Many talented curators, art historians, and cultural workers find themselves building independent practices not because they prefer freelancing, but because institutional doors remained closed despite their qualifications.

This perception gap affects everyone: emerging artists who need guidance but hesitate to seek it, established artists whose partners worry about “frivolous” spending, independent professionals whose expertise gets undervalued simply because it doesn’t come with an institutional letterhead, and cultural institutions that could benefit from outside perspectives but remain closed to collaboration.

What the Work Actually Involves

Let me describe what a typical week looks like, and why this work serves essential needs across the cultural ecosystem — needs that exist regardless of whether someone is working within an institution or independently:

Coordinating international logistics: Arranging the shipping of a sculpture to a collector in Germany, handling everything from documentation to transport coordination. This kind of work bridges the gap between artist and collector in ways that government-owned institutions typically manage.

Developing cross-sector partnerships: Separate meetings with a designer and an architect about potential collaborations. These conversations explore how contemporary art can integrate into commercial and architectural projects, creating opportunities for artists while bringing quality work to new contexts.

Expanding exhibition possibilities: Planning exhibitions in non-institutional spaces — venues that traditional galleries often overlook but that can reach entirely different audiences. This requires different thinking than institutional programming but serves similar goals of connecting art with publics.

Planning an auction: Developing the strategy and logistics for an upcoming auction, which involves everything from artist selection to pricing research to promotional planning.

Portfolio reviews: Conducting a comprehensive portfolio review for an artist, analyzing the presentation, documentation quality, and strategic positioning of her work for different opportunities.

Artist coaching sessions: Working with participants in our one-on-one artist coaching program, Kritička muza (Critical Muse). These sessions cover everything from conceptual development to practical career strategy, providing the kind of sustained, personalized support that institutional settings rarely offer.

Exhibition material design: Creating visual materials for upcoming exhibitions — work that requires both design skills and deep understanding of how to communicate artistic concepts to diverse audiences.

Writing: Art criticism, exhibition reviews, and blog posts. This critical writing serves the same function as institutional publishing but often reaches different audiences through independent channels.

Grant applications: Preparing applications for current open calls and public funding opportunities — the same work that institutional employees do, but without the institutional infrastructure that makes it easier.

Responding to educational partnerships: An arts academy reached out about collaboration on specialized workshops bridging contemporary theory with practical career skills. They have excellent faculty for technical and theoretical instruction but need additional expertise for industry navigation and professional development components — precisely the kind of gap that independent professionals can fill.

Developing transparent institutional processes: Continued work with a cultural institution on establishing a democratic jury system for their exhibition programming.

Collection advisory work: Addressed a collector inquiry about both direct artwork purchases and longer-term collection development strategy. This included advising on presentation and documentation approaches that would serve both personal enjoyment and potential future institutional collaboration.

Digital optimization for galleries: Worked on website updates for a gallery client, optimizing their artist presentation pages and exhibition archive for better international visibility. Small changes in digital presentation can significantly impact how galleries are perceived by potential collaborators and collectors.

Organizing a panel discussion: Perhaps the most significant project this week: organizing an upcoming panel titled “Umjetnička karijera: mitovi, stvarnost i prepreke koje nitko ne spominje” (Art Careers: Myths, Reality, and the Obstacles Nobody Mentions). This panel emerged directly from conversations with artists who were finalists — and one winner — of this year’s Radoslav Putar Award for the best young visual artists in Croatia.

The panel will address questions that rarely get discussed publicly: How do art careers actually develop in Croatia? What obstacles does nobody mention until you’ve finished your academy education and are left asking “what now?” What do artists and institutions actually need from each other for the contemporary art scene in Croatia to grow and for the art market to come alive?

These conversations with the Putar Award artists revealed something important: even those who receive significant recognition face systemic barriers that talent alone cannot overcome. The panel exists because these discussions kept happening privately, and it felt important to make them public.

Who Actually Needs This Support?

The traditional model assumes abundant institutional resources and clear pathways. Reality looks different:

Emerging artists navigate an increasingly complex landscape where talent alone isn’t sufficient. They need systematic guidance — from portfolio presentation to strategic opportunity evaluation — that art education couldn’t fully provide within degree constraints. They need to understand how to filter opportunities, present projects professionally, and build sustainable career foundations.

Established artists often work independently for decades, developing significant bodies of work without systematic project development support. They may have gallery representation but need specialized guidance on complex projects, grant applications, or strategic planning that falls outside their gallery’s scope or expertise. Sometimes they have powerful ideas that need professional structuring to secure appropriate support.

Cultural institutions of all sizes seek ways to strengthen their programming while maintaining credibility and transparency. They might need help developing selection processes, evaluation systems, or partnership structures that serve both artistic quality and institutional mission. Ironically, some of the most closed institutions could benefit most from outside perspectives — but their insularity prevents them from seeking it.

Non-arts organizations increasingly recognize art’s value but lack expertise in artist collaboration, artwork selection, or project development. They need professional guidance to create meaningful partnerships that benefit artists while serving their institutional goals.

Collectors and advisors require specialized knowledge for acquisition decisions, collection development, and presentation strategies that go beyond traditional dealer relationships.

Small galleries and understaffed museums operate with lean teams and tight budgets. They might need curatorial expertise for specific exhibitions, translation services for international outreach, digital optimization for broader visibility, or strategic guidance for programming that exceeds their current capacity.

Educational institutions serve their academic mandate well but often need bridges to professional practice through career workshops, industry connections, or practical skills training their faculty can’t provide.

The Infrastructure We’re Missing

The skepticism about independent arts practice often stems from unfamiliarity with how much essential work falls between institutional cracks — or, in some cases, from those who benefit from keeping the system closed.

Museums can’t provide individual career guidance to every emerging artist — nor should they, given their broader cultural mandate. Galleries focus appropriately on exhibition programming and sales relationships. Art schools excel at education but have finite capacity for ongoing professional development and project structuring.

This leaves vast territories of necessary work: strategic career planning, portfolio development, grant application structuring, project presentation, institutional partnership development, democratic selection process design, cross-sector collaboration facilitation, collection advisory services, exhibition text development, digital presentation optimization, and educational programming that bridges theory and practice.

Someone needs to serve these functions. Independent arts professionals fill that role using the same expertise that powers institutional work, just applied more flexibly and accessibly.

The difference between working inside an institution and working independently isn’t primarily about the quality of work or the expertise involved. It’s about context, access, and — let’s be honest — who you know. When an institution’s curator develops an artist’s career, it’s called support. When an independent professional does the same work, it’s sometimes called overhead. But the expertise is identical; only the letterhead differs.

The Professional Evolution

When that young artist understood that my work parallels institutional practice, he was recognizing something important: professional expertise doesn’t lose value when it operates independently. If anything, it becomes more responsive to diverse needs and institutional gaps.

The curatorial research, critical frameworks, and project management systems I employ match those used in museums and galleries. The distinction lies in application: direct collaboration with artists requiring support, institutional partnership development, cross-sector project facilitation, and systematic development of ideas that might otherwise remain unrealized.

There’s also a freedom that comes with independence. Without institutional politics or the pressure to maintain existing hierarchies, independent professionals can advocate more openly for what artists actually need. We can name problems that institutional employees might hesitate to acknowledge publicly — including the favoritism that shapes so many career trajectories in the cultural sector.

Building Connections, Not Competition

The most significant aspect of independent arts practice involves strengthening the entire ecosystem:

When I help artists develop stronger applications and presentations, I’m potentially creating future institutional collaboration opportunities. When I work with cultural institutions on transparent selection processes, I’m helping them build credibility while supporting artist development. When I facilitate partnerships with non-arts organizations, I’m expanding the audience for quality contemporary work. When I advise collectors, I’m building the economic foundation that supports artist careers. When I optimize gallery websites or translate exhibition texts, I’m helping institutions reach international audiences more effectively. When artists successfully secure funding for projects they’ve been developing, everyone benefits from new work entering the cultural landscape.

The objective isn’t competing with existing institutions but extending their reach and effectiveness across multiple sectors — and, when necessary, providing alternatives for those whom institutions have failed or excluded.

The Honest Economics

Professional arts support costs money because expertise, time, and systematic thinking have value. The same curatorial analysis that happens in museums, the same project development that institutions employ, the same strategic planning that successful galleries use internally — these skills remain valuable when applied independently.

The difference is accessibility and flexibility. Artists can access professional development without institutional gatekeeping. Small institutions can bring in specialized expertise without full-time hiring costs. Non-arts organizations can develop meaningful cultural partnerships through professional guidance. Complex projects that might never secure traditional support can still receive professional structuring and facilitation.

And yes: independent professionals also avoid some of the constraints that come with institutional employment. We don’t have to navigate internal politics, defer to hierarchies that may not serve artistic quality, or pretend that selection processes are merit-based when they clearly aren’t (and I’m not saying they all aren’t but, sadly, this is true for many of them).

What We’re Actually Building

After years of occasionally having to justify independent arts practice, I’ve moved beyond defensive explanations. The results speak clearly:

The emerging artist now approaches opportunities strategically rather than randomly. The established artist has a concrete pathway for realizing her long-held project vision. The cultural institutions I work with develop more transparent and effective programming. The non-arts partnerships create new revenue streams for artists while expanding art’s public reach. The collectors receive guidance that enhances both personal satisfaction and cultural contribution. The galleries achieve better international visibility and clearer communication of their artistic programs.

This represents cultural infrastructure development — creating support systems that enhance rather than diminish existing institutional capacity while extending art’s influence across sectors.

The contemporary art ecosystem requires more flexibility and accessibility than traditional structures alone can provide. Independent professionals serve as cultural translators, project facilitators, and bridge-builders, helping artists thrive, institutions extend their impact, and new audiences discover quality contemporary work.

We’re part of an evolution that makes the art world more responsive, more accessible, and more comprehensive in supporting diverse creative practices while expanding its cultural influence.

The Real Measure of Impact

By the end of those conversations two months ago, something had shifted. The young artist expressed genuine appreciation for what he called “a fresh perspective and truly informed guidance” — the kind of systematic approach to career development that had felt overwhelming when he tried to navigate it alone.

The established artist’s response was perhaps even more telling. After we’d worked through her long-held project concept, she said she finally felt supported in her ambitions, like she had additional capacity to pursue what matters to her, and — most importantly — that someone genuinely understood and cared about her artistic vision.

These aren’t testimonials I’m seeking, but they illustrate something important: when professional arts support works effectively, artists don’t just get better outcomes — they feel empowered to pursue their work with renewed confidence and strategic clarity.

Questions Worth Asking

Rather than debating whether independent arts practice is legitimate, perhaps we should ask different questions: How do we create more pathways for artistic development? How do we help institutions maximize their impact while addressing their blind spots? How do we ensure that professional expertise reaches everyone who needs it — not just those with the right connections? How do we support the realization of ambitious projects that might otherwise remain concepts? And how do we build an art world where merit matters more than networks?

The contemporary transformation of European cultural work — with nearly one-third of cultural workers now freelance — suggests these questions are being answered through practice rather than policy. Artists, institutions, and independent professionals are collectively building new infrastructure that serves needs traditional structures couldn’t address.

The art world we actually need includes museums, galleries, and educational institutions — and also includes the support systems that help everyone else thrive while bringing quality art to broader audiences across all sectors of society. Building that expanded infrastructure isn’t about replacement; it’s about completion.

And perhaps most importantly: building it requires naming the problems that keep the current system from serving everyone it could. Favoritism and closed networks aren’t bugs in the system — for some, they’re features. Independent practice offers one way around these barriers. Open conversation about their existence might eventually help dismantle them.

What support systems do you see as most essential for contemporary cultural practice? Whether you’re an artist planning your development, an institution considering collaborative approaches, or simply someone interested in how creative careers actually evolve, your perspective contributes to this ongoing conversation.

---

[1]Eurostat, “Culture statistics – cultural employment,” Statistics Explained, accessed January 2025, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Culture_statistics_-_cultural_employment.

[2]Eurostat, “Culture statistics – cultural employment.”

[3]European Commission, “Cultural and Creative Industries,” accessed January 2025, https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/cultural-and-creative-industries_en.

[4]KEA European Affairs, “New Market Analysis of the Cultural and Creative Sectors in Europe,” 2023, https://keanet.eu/new-market-analysis-of-the-cultural-and-creative-sectors-in-europe/.

[5]Nesta, “Creative economy employment in the EU and UK: A comparative analysis,” accessed January 2025, https://www.nesta.org.uk/report/creative-economy-employment-in-the-eu-and-uk-a-comparative-analysis/.

[6]Culture Action Europe, “Creative Pulse Survey,” 2024, https://cultureactioneurope.org/news/creativepulsesurvey/.

[7]European Labour Authority, “Creative sectors: ELA study reveals precarious working conditions and undeclared labour,” 2024, https://www.ela.europa.eu/en/news/creative-sectors-ela-study-reveals-precarious-working-conditions-and-undeclared-labour.