Debate contribution published in Western-Posten 10. July 2026
By Marie Thams, representative of the Danish Association of Visual Artists, BKF
Volunteering and association life are again on the lips of many. The government wants to strengthen civic engagement and the new government foundation states that volunteer efforts should be strengthened. A "tripartite association life" is being created, where organizations, municipalities and foundations will work together to find solutions to major societal challenges, and hassle and bureaucracy will be removed to make it easier to make use of the volunteer forces.
These are fine ambitions. But they raise a question that no one has yet asked: Who are we really counting on when we talk about volunteers? Because there is a crucial difference between the citizen who gives up his or her free time and professionals who work for free.
Volunteers and communities are good civil society. No doubt about it.
Recently released The Institute for Cultural Analysis, a report on volunteering in cultural life, which shows that the broad cultural volunteering takes place both locally and nationally, and that it includes practical, strategic and specialist efforts. The tasks are carried out in people's free time and constitute an indispensable part of Danish cultural life.
In this connection, Director of the Danish Institute for Cultural Analysis Esben Danielsen has pointed out that that volunteers in cultural institutions are under pressure, as a professionalization is taking place in the boardrooms that risks threatening the energy and commitment of the enthusiasts. This is an important observation. But while we rightly worry that too much professionalization and bureaucracy are squeezing out volunteers, there is also a reverse movement that we rarely talk about: that too much volunteerism is pushing professionals to work for free.
Because here is a distinction between volunteer people and professionals who work for free that we need to keep in mind:
There are the volunteers who contribute their time and commitment – not as professionals, but as citizens who come together for a common cause in their free time. They are the ones who guide at the local history archive, train the small-group team or keep the local cultural center alive. That is volunteerism in the best sense of the word. And that is good.
And then there are professionals who work for free, but are not volunteers. For example, it is the artist who sits on the municipality's visual arts council, on institutional boards and professional committees, where they advise and guide. They contribute with professional expertise, which the council in question depends on to be able to make qualified decisions. They are at work. But they are often expected to do it for free. And often the artist experiences being the only one in the boardroom who does not have a permanent position and salary.
It's unfair. And unfortunately, that's the reality in many places:
The logic of volunteerism prevails in several municipal arts councils and makes the artists' professional contributions appear as something that is given without payment. It is free consultancy work. And that does not work in the long run. Neither for the artists nor for securing their expert knowledge.
It is rooted in a tenacious practice that utilizes artists' skills and commitment, and which is based on a belief that the desire for influence outweighs the necessity of being paid for one's work.
It's a shame, because visual artists want and can contribute their skills to the benefit of municipalities, institutions and communities. But this is a professional contribution, and it should be recognized and rewarded as such.
Artists are already one of the lowest-earning professional groups in Denmark. The latest figures from Statistics Denmark show that visual artists earn an average of Business income of 212.400 kroner per year before tax. The vast majority of artists live on combined incomes. When exhibition fees are low, when the gallery takes a large slice of the pie, and when teaching jobs are low-paid and temporary, the overall economy for many artists falls below a sustainable level. In this context, the idea of putting additional unpaid professional work into councils and boards is not a question of goodwill. It is a question of simply not being able to afford to work for free.
Perhaps the skewed approach is because art and pleasure are well mixed. That there is a perception that artists cannot help but make art regardless of the conditions. But many may have to stop when they can't afford it. Then the time is spent on other, paid work. Time is not infinite. And professionalism is not free.
Therefore, a distinction should be made between professional groups and their very different working conditions when discussing volunteering in culture.
So even though we celebrate and support the local volunteer enthusiasts, there is also a need for us to professionalize cultural life. And for that professionalization to also extend to the councils and committees that depend on the expertise of the artists.