"The Disability Art Industry is Rotten," Says an Artist with a Disability

"The disability art industry is rotten."

These words came from a painter who is herself a person with a developmental disability.

At Type B workshops, the hourly wage is about 50 yen. When she submitted her work to a disability art organization, she was offered a flat fee of only 900 yen per painting.

"Too many workshops exploit us through 'fulfillment' while paying writers a pittance, earning money instead through novelty goods."

"This industry is rotten because it assumes it's natural for things to be cheap just because we have disabilities."

I am publishing her words exactly as they are, as the voice of a person directly affected.

As someone with a developmental disability myself, this is a story I cannot overlook.

Chapter 1: Disability Art is a Human Rights Issue

There are three layers of structural problems overlapping in Japan's disability art industry.

❶ Art Brut was structurally hypocritical from the moment it was invented

❷ That hypocrisy was imported into Japan in its worst possible form

❸ The Adult Guardianship System has merged with it, creating a "perfected form of exploitation."

Chapter 2: The True Identity of Jean Dubuffet, Inventor of Art Brut

Art Brut is a category invented in 1945 by the French painter Jean Dubuffet. It means "raw art" that is uninfluenced by culture, often called "Outsider Art" in English. In Japan, it is used almost synonymously with "disability art."

Researcher Antonia Dapena-Tretter of Royal Holloway, University of London, exposed Dubuffet's structural hypocrisy in her 2017 paper "Jean Dubuffet & Art Brut" published in the journal Platform.

First, Dubuffet was an unsuccessful painter until his 40s. He failed to differentiate himself because his style was too similar to Picasso's. So, he invented the category of "pure art uncontaminated by culture" and positioned himself as its "discoverer."

Second, he bought works from artists for next to nothing. A wood carving that Clément Fraisse spent three years making was bought for 50,000 francs (500 new francs). Gérard Olive received one roll of film; Raphael Lonné received one record player. The most famous Art Brut artist, Adolf Wölfli, had his works bought for a single pack of chewing tobacco, according to the paper.

Third, Dubuffet sold his own paintings from the same period for extraordinary prices. His painting "Paris" sold for $25 million (approx. 2.7 billion yen) at an auction in April 2015.

Fourth, he imposed unwritten rules on the artists:

• Do not seek fame
• Be satisfied with even the smallest reward
• Choose between making art and being seen as an artist

Artists who broke these rules were removed from his collection. When artist Gaston Chaissac claimed he was being plagiarized, he was demoted from the collection and never called an Art Brut artist again.

In short, this is what Dubuffet was doing:

❶ Invented the "pure art" category to make himself stand out in the art world

❷ Confined artists within that category

❸ Preached "do not seek fame or money"

❹ Acquired massive fame and wealth for himself

❺ Removed any artists who rebelled

Behind the beautiful story of "introducing the pure art of disabled artists to the world," a structure of dominance by collectors over artists was built in from the start.

Chapter 3: That Hypocrisy Was Imported to Japan

This Art Brut was imported to Japan after the 2000s.

Within the industry, the person who has most clearly objected to this spread is Hiroyuki Imanaka, representative of Atelier Incurve.

Atelier Incurve is an art studio that supports artists with intellectual disabilities and is highly regarded in the industry. In a blog post titled "The Last Lecture Against Art Brut Tonight" on January 12, 2016, Mr. Imanaka stated:

"How many years has it been since Japanese-style Art Brut landed (or was imported)? It spread in the blink of an eye. And it was spread by accepting a 'twisted' usage of the term."

"The driving force behind its rapid spread was the power of traditional welfare organizations (it's a mystery to me why a single social welfare corporation or organization has a network that can move major politicians)."

"The name 'Art Brut,' which categorizes people with disabilities, is clearly a 'stigma.' In other words, it is pure discrimination."

"In committees of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare and the Agency for Cultural Affairs, discussions proceed on the premise of Art Brut." "It's easier to get subsidies if you label it Art Brut."

An active supporter within the industry is explicitly calling it "pure discrimination." The three structures Mr. Imanaka points out are:

❶ Traditional welfare organization networks spread it in Japan

❷ Government committees operate on the premise of Art Brut

❸ It has become a "labeling" tool to secure subsidies

Dubuffet's structure is being reproduced in Japan by merging with the subsidy system. And here, another system joins in: the Adult Guardianship System.

Chapter 4: The Merger with the Adult Guardianship System

On September 9, 2022, the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) issued concluding observations to the Japanese government. This was the first review since Japan ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Paragraphs 31 and 32 state:

Paragraph 31 (Concerns)

"Provisions in the Civil Code that allow for substitute decision-making for persons with disabilities, especially those with mental, intellectual, and psychosocial disabilities, particularly through the adult guardianship system."

Paragraph 32 (Recommendation)

"Abolish the substitute decision-making regime by amending the Civil Code and repealing all discriminatory legal provisions and policies, and take all necessary legislative measures to ensure the right of all persons with disabilities to be recognized equally before the law."

The UN recommended "abolishing this system." This was hardly reported in the Japanese media, and even now, new guardians are being appointed every day.

Chapter 5: The Reality of the Adult Guardianship System

The Adult Guardianship System is a system where the family court appoints a "guardian" for a person deemed to have limited judgment. The guardian manages property and enters into contracts on behalf of the person.

Many people imagine a "guardian = someone who protects the person," but the reality of its operation is different.

❶ The person's account balance is not disclosed to the person or their family

❷ A minimum fee of 240,000 yen per year is collected until the person dies (for someone living on a disability pension, about a quarter of the pension disappears)

❸ Even "buying a cake" or "going to a hot spring" can be refused under the guise of property protection

❹ The person cannot "quit" the system of their own will

A system meant to protect the person has become a system that robs them of their freedom. This structure is why the UN recommended its abolition.

Chapter 6: What Happens When the Three Combine

Let's organize the three structures:

❶ Art Brut was invented by collectors to dominate artists

❷ It was imported to Japan and merged with welfare organizations and subsidy systems

❸ The Adult Guardianship System, where a guardian acts on behalf of the person, was layered on top

When these three combine, this is what happens:

❶ An artist with an intellectual disability paints a picture

❷ A guardian enters into a sales contract on behalf of the artist

❸ The proceeds go into an account managed by the guardian

❹ The artist does not know who their work was sold to

❺ The artist cannot use the sales money of their own will

❻ At least 240,000 yen per year is deducted as a fee for the guardian

❼ This structure continues until the artist dies

This is not "support for disability art." It is a structure where three parties—collectors, facilities, and guardians—move assets without the involvement of the person's will.

There is one more thing that concerns me about the industry's movements.

Among the works of famous artists with intellectual disabilities, there are cases where multiple famous characters (Anpanman, Pikachu, Doraemon, etc.) are drawn together in one composition. These actually exist in commercial distribution.

Copyright holders often overlook secondary use of characters within the scope of personal enjoyment. However, copyright holders almost never permit the commercial use of multiple characters mixed together.

What I want to ask here is: "To what extent is the person's will reflected in the production and sales process of that work?"

Does the artist understand that their work contains the copyrighted material of other companies? If they don't, are those around them who put it into commercial distribution while knowing this "lack of understanding" really providing "support"? If a copyright holder takes legal action in the future, who will take responsibility?

Because the person has limited judgment, they have a guardian. Will they make the person alone bear the responsibility for copyright infringement?

Chapter 7: The Reality of Exploitation in Workshops

Up to this point, we've been talking about the "pinnacle of art" in the Art Brut world. The same structure is operating closer to the ground.

I will quote the painter's words from the beginning again:

"At Type B workshops, the hourly wage is mostly around 50 yen."

"When I participated in a disability art organization, the reward for a painting was offered as a flat 900 yen."

According to the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare's "FY2023 Results on Wages," the average wage for Type B workshops (Employment Continuation Support Type B) is 22,649 yen per month. Even so, workshops with the "50 yen hourly wage" the painter mentioned do exist in reality.

In some workshops that use "disability art" as a signpost, this structure is at work:

❶ Users draw pictures

❷ The workshop turns those pictures into novelties (postcards, tote bags, T-shirts, etc.) and sells them

❸ The proceeds go to the workshop

❹ Users are paid a very small amount as "wages"

This is not illegal. Since Type B is a welfare service for "employment support," users are not "workers" but "users receiving training." Minimum wage laws do not apply.

But what the painter is saying is this:

"Is it okay for the compensation for the labor of painting to be 50 yen an hour or 900 yen per painting?"

"Is it not exploitation to be told repeatedly that it's okay because it's fulfilling?"

It's not just a problem with individual workshops. It's a problem with the structure of the industry itself.

Chapter 8: Recent "Licensing Models" and Questions for the Industry

For those who have read this far and wondered "So what should be done?", I want to share recent developments.

Heralbony has attracted significant attention in Japan as a company that commercially develops art by disabled artists. They established a model where they sign licensing agreements with artists and return a portion of the sales from commercialized products to the artists. This is a clear improvement over the traditional structure where "the facility sells the work and the artist is told nothing."

However, challenges remain for the industry as a whole. Precisely because Heralbony's model is excellent, some latecomers who imitate it include businesses where contract transparency and confirmation of the person's will are insufficient.

There are three questions for the industry as a whole:

❶ How do you confirm the artist's will when contracting with an artist with an intellectual disability?

❷ In the case of an artist with a guardian, is the artist's will reflected through a contract with the guardian alone?

❸ How do you respond when an artist expresses a desire to "terminate the contract"?

This is not a story about one company, but a challenge common to the entire industry. Businesses that cannot answer these are reproducing Dubuffet's structure in modern Japan.

Chapter 9: As a Person Directly Affected, I Cannot Stay Silent

I have been in the field of disability welfare for 30 years, but I have always had doubts about the Art Brut world. The reason is that I interact with people with intellectual disabilities on the ground.

As the term "disability art" spreads in the industry, the voices of the artists themselves are hardly heard. What is heard are the voices of collectors, facilities, curators, and the government. It is rarely discussed what the artists themselves think, how much they receive, or if they know where their work is going.

And as someone with a developmental disability myself, I have thoughts.

When you have a disability, the moment you are deemed to have limited judgment, society says, "We will decide for you." Out of goodwill.

When did that "deciding for you" turn into "moving your assets for you"? The boundary has been left ambiguous within the Japanese system.

In 2022, the UN recommended "stopping this." In 2016, Hiroyuki Imanaka denounced it as "pure discrimination." The painter at the beginning wrote that it is "rotten."

Hearing this, what do you think?

Chapter 10: Three Indicators to Measure if Support is Genuine

I have one proposal for the industry, the government, and collectors.

"Three indicators are enough to measure whether support for disability art is genuine."

❶ Does the artist know who their work was sold to?

❷ Can the artist use the sales money of their own will?

❸ When the artist expresses a desire to "quit," are they allowed to quit?

Businesses, collectors, and facilities that cannot answer "yes" to these three are not supporters. They are part of the exploitation of artists' rights.

I would like managers who thought "our business is different" to reflect on how they can specifically answer these three questions.

I propose to the government that these three indicators be included in the criteria for subsidy reviews. Subsidies for projects labeled "disability art" should be limited to workshops where the confirmation of the person's will is guaranteed.

I would like collectors who purchase works to confirm before buying—not just with the guardian or facility, but with the artist themselves—whether they agree to the sale.

And to the families of those affected: please stop for a moment before using the Adult Guardianship System. Options for "supported decision-making," which supports the person's own decision-making, will be developed in the future.

Finally, to the disabled artists themselves: Your work belongs to you. You are the one who decides who to sell it to, for how much, and whether to stop.

The reason I continue this work is consistent: to increase the number of people with disabilities who can achieve self-actualization.

Even with a disability, you have the right to know who your work was sold to and for how much. You have the right to use the proceeds of your own will. You have the right to quit if you say you want to stop.

I want to create a society that does not rob people of these rights in the name of "support."

I will end by quoting a sentence the painter wrote at the beginning.

"As someone who has received academic art education, I want to sell my paintings at a fair price."

This is her declaration. And it is a quiet protest against the industry.

Thank you for reading to the end.