In the contemporary artistic landscape, digital platforms such as On the Move (OTM) have evolved far beyond their initial conception as simple informational directories. Established in 2002 as an international network focused on artistic and cultural mobility, OTM now functions as a comprehensive ecosystem that aggregates hundreds of annual opportunities across more than 80 countries. These include residencies, fellowships, grants, conferences, and professional development programs. Its stated mission revolves around enabling equitable access to international mobility, with freely available resources encompassing country-specific funding guides, mobility information points (MIPs), advice on visas, social security, taxation, and reports addressing well-being, sustainability, and mobility amid precarious conditions. At first glance, this framework appears as a democratizing tool—a benevolent intermediary linking individual artists to global institutions and promoting cultural exchange. Yet, upon closer scrutiny, OTM emerges as an active economic interface that modulates the flow of artistic labor, shapes professional aspirations, and subtly contributes to the economization of creative practices. The seeming profusion of opportunities cultivates a perpetual horizon of potentiality, which, rather than empowering participants, often normalizes competitive dynamics and shifts economic risks onto individuals. The inherent logic of the platform's continuous stream of convocations—an endless scroll of "open calls"—fosters a psychological state of perpetual anticipation and apprehension about exclusion (a digital manifestation of FOMO). The mere proliferation of options simulates a vibrant, inclusive marketplace. Nevertheless, beneath this facade lies a hyper-competitive terrain where success rates remain marginal, and the distribution of opportunities perpetuates profound inequalities.
I. The Ideology of Abundance and the Naturalization of Structural Scarcity
OTM's interface standardizes a set of expectations wherein international mobility serves as the paramount marker of professional pertinence. By centralizing and homogenizing calls for participation, the platform does not merely report on the market; it delineates its implicit boundaries. The "stationary" artist—one who remains anchored in local contexts due to familial, economic, or situational factors—is subtly relegated to a marginal status, almost archaic in implication. This embedded normativity aligns with the demands of a globalized art market that seeks a seamless supply of adaptable, transient cultural workers: individuals who can be temporarily integrated into diverse locales for project-based engagements, devoid of enduring institutional obligations or comprehensive social safeguards. To illustrate, consider how OTM's aggregation of opportunities from entities like the European Cultural Foundation or Asia-Europe Foundation reinforces a narrative of boundless connectivity. Yet, this narrative obscures the uneven geographic distribution of funding, where artists from the Global South often face visa hurdles or currency disparities that amplify exclusionary effects. Such dynamics echo broader critiques of globalization, where mobility is valorized as a universal good, yet its accessibility is stratified by socioeconomic and geopolitical factors.
II. The Speculative Economy of the Application Process
A substantial portion of economic value accrual transpires prior to any project's realization. The application procedure demands considerable unremunerated intellectual and emotional investment: conceptual proposals, detailed budgets, refreshed portfolios, and artist statements calibrated to the evolving thematic priorities of host institutions (such as social engagement, technological innovation, environmental awareness, or postcolonial perspectives).
This labor encompasses distinct facets:
- Affective commitment: the imperative to convey authentic enthusiasm and ideological congruence.
- Narrative reconfiguration: the ongoing revision of one's professional trajectory to conform to varied criteria.
- Administrative overhead: the navigation of intricate digital portals and the assembly of extensive documentation.
Framed as personal investment in career advancement, this speculative endeavor yields collective advantages for institutions and the platform alike—generating repositories of contemporary artistic trends, demographic insights, and creative flows, all without direct recompense. The legitimacy of selection processes is bolstered by the sheer volume of unsuccessful submissions, which underscore the exclusivity and esteem of the limited slots awarded. For instance, a residency call from a prestigious venue like the Rijksakademie might attract thousands of applications, each contributing to market intelligence that informs future programming without acknowledging the contributors' input. Expanding this view, one might draw parallels with other creative sectors, such as freelance journalism or gig economy platforms like Upwork, where speculative bidding similarly extracts value upstream. In the arts, however, the ideological overlay of "passion-driven" work further entrenches this model, rendering it less visible as a form of labor extraction.
III. Asymmetries in Funding and the Rhetoric of Support
Asymmetries become evident in how institutions offload preliminary costs—such as research, proposal development, and even partial production—onto applicants, while maintaining unilateral authority over final visibility and compensation. "Travel grants" or "modest stipends," frequently positioned as magnanimous offerings, seldom encompass the full spectrum of living expenses, relocation costs, foregone alternative earnings, or the intangible burdens of temporary displacement. This rhetorical framing recasts a prospective employment relation as a philanthropic exchange, wherein the artist is positioned as a beneficiary obliged to express gratitude rather than negotiate fair terms. The juxtaposition within the same feed of fully funded residencies and "pay-to-play" schemes (self-financed models) acclimates users to the notion that artists ought to furnish their own capital—be it temporal, financial, or symbolic—to uphold institutional agendas. A case in point is the proliferation of artist-in-residence programs in biennials like Documenta or the Venice Biennale, where nominal fees mask the true economic calculus, often leaving participants to subsidize their involvement through personal savings or crowdfunding.
IV. The Reconfiguration of Artistic Subjectivity under Platform Logic
The sway of platform capitalism reorients artistic subjectivity: from primary producer of artifacts to perpetual solicitor and self-manager as a brand entity. This paradigm engenders a strategic fragmentation of identity, with creators positioning themselves variably as "emerging," "interdisciplinary," "underrepresented," or "research-oriented" contingent on each call's emphases. Such versatility does not invariably signify creative malleability but rather a pragmatic adaptation to an ecosystem characterized by volatile funding priorities and scant structural security. The artist morphs into an individual micro-enterprise, accountable for branding, risk mitigation, and continuous skill enhancement within a marketplace lacking collective safety mechanisms. To enrich this analysis, note how algorithmic curation on OTM prioritizes listings based on recency or institutional partnerships, further entrenching visibility hierarchies that favor established networks over peripheral voices.
V. The Pedagogical Dimension of Precarity
OTM assumes an implicit pedagogical role by acculturating artists to the tenets of the neoliberal art world. Its tutorials on funding applications, international navigation, and mobility strategies perpetuate the assumption that the prevailing system represents the sole feasible paradigm, instructing users in individual competition rather than collective advocacy for improved conditions. The platform's professed "neutrality"—as a mere informational conduit—serves as a buffer, mitigating direct clashes between artists and the rule-setting institutions. This detachment is akin to that observed in educational platforms like Coursera, where content delivery masks underlying commodification processes.
VI. Intersectoral Dimensions and Structural Exclusions
Mobility's impacts are not uniform; intersections of gender, class, race, disability, and geographic origin impose supplementary barriers. These manifest in disparate access to initial networks, heightened administrative loads due to linguistic or bureaucratic challenges, and elevated risks during transit. While OTM provides targeted resources for at-risk or displaced artists, the foundational architectures often replicate existing hierarchies. For example, artists from conflict zones may find mobility resources invaluable yet insufficient against systemic biases in funding allocation. Comparatively, similar patterns emerge in academic mobility platforms like Euraxess, where international fellowships ostensibly promote knowledge exchange but frequently exacerbate brain drain from underrepresented regions.
VII. Theoretical Contexts and Prospective Horizons
These mechanisms align with wider critiques of cultural neoliberalism: immaterial labor as theorized by Maurizio Lazzarato, the "new spirit of capitalism" per Luc Boltanski and Ève Chiapello, and platform capitalism as dissected by Nick Srnicek. The COVID-19 pandemic intensified these strains, as evidenced in OTM's reports on well-being and mobility in uncertain times, which highlight shifts toward virtual alternatives yet underscore persistent inequities. Looking ahead, envisioning hybrid models—blending physical and digital mobility—could mitigate some asymmetries, provided they incorporate artist-led governance.
VIII. Toward a Reconceptualization of Mobility
This inquiry does not advocate for dismantling platforms like OTM but for their politicization and realignment. Their current ethical stance, predicated on "access" and "transparency," requires augmentation with metrics of economic equity: mandatory disclosures of actual hourly rates and unremunerated hours, artist-driven feedback systems, and campaigns to eradicate application fees alongside reimbursements for shortlisted candidates. Ultimately, cultural mobility should transcend its euphemistic imperative to become a domain of balanced, negotiated interactions. The contemporary artist is not a voluntary nomad but a navigator of market currents; infrastructures must acknowledge and mitigate the substantive burdens of that navigation.
