In a climate where traditional government arts funding is increasingly volatile, artists and small arts organisations across Australia are forging new financial paths to stay afloat. The shift is not just about diversification; it’s a transformation in how art is produced, shared and sustained.
Despite policy ambitions to centre the artist, financial stress remains endemic. Creative Australia’s competitive grant rounds typically see success rates between 15 and 20%, and a 2023 survey found that nearly half of artists earn less than $10,000 annually from their creative work. Visual artists and craft practitioners face a 47% gender pay gap. While the Revive national cultural policy aims to address structural precarity, the reality for most artists remains one of multiple income streams, often with limited security.
In this article:
The rise of direct-to-consumer funding platforms
Patreon and Substack have emerged as powerful tools for creators to generate recurring income. Patreon alone channels over $200 million annually to creators, offering stability through subscription-based support. Writers like Bri Lee and Sarah Wilson have found success on Substack, building significant subscriber bases that supplement or replace freelance journalism income. However, this model also requires creators to act as marketers, administrators and community managers – roles that many find exhausting, or ultimately detract from art-making.
Crowdfunding remains robust
Platforms like Pozible, Kickstarter and Indiegogo continue to offer viable one-off funding opportunities. In Australia, Pozible campaigns like Byron Bay’s Fletcher Street Cottage ($398,005) and the Lockdown Locals photography book ($17,170) show the platform’s effectiveness.
But campaign success is far from guaranteed and demands significant promotional labour from artists. From building pre-launch momentum to maintaining ongoing engagement through social media, email updates and press outreach, artists often spend weeks managing the visibility of their campaign.
What happened to NFTs?
While the NFT boom of 2021 has sharply cooled – with a 63% market drop in Q1 2025 – the underlying blockchain technologies are maturing. Web3 models, including DAOs (Decentralised Autonomous Organisations), are now being explored for transparent royalty distribution and collective decision-making. An ARC Linkage Project is currently developing user-friendly NFT infrastructure for Australian artists, suggesting this space may evolve in less speculative, more artist-centric directions.
These shifts mark a move away from hype-driven sales towards long-term, infrastructure-focused solutions – ones that may prove more meaningful to working artists than the high volatility of early NFT markets. Yet engagement remains niche, and many artists remain sceptical of blockchain’s environmental costs and equity implications.
Corporate partnerships and funding: the new patronage?
Initiatives like Cotton On’s Co-Opt Club, in collaboration with Universal Music Group, have signalled a new kind of creative sponsorship. Emerging First Nations artists like Bianca Simpson and Tylah Saunders have contributed wearable art to fashion collections, benefiting from both remuneration and national exposure. Creative Partnerships Australia is pushing for more cross-sector collaborations, especially those that embed artists into sectors like health, education and technology.
Such partnerships may feel out of reach for the everyday working artist for now, but the Federal Government is pushing for more opportunities into the future.
Grassroots funding and artist-led microgrants
Peer-to-peer funding is also on the rise. Creative Australia’s upcoming Giving Day to the Arts will provide microgrants of up to $5000 to artists and collectives to support digital fundraising campaigns. Meanwhile, artist-run spaces like Outer Space (Qld) and organisations like Aphids (Vic) show the power of cooperative, localised support networks.
These initiatives reflect a shift toward self-determined funding models that prioritise community connection over institutional gatekeeping. They also provide crucial support for artists in regional or marginalised communities who are often overlooked by larger grant programs. However, the reliance on peer-to-peer fundraising can place uneven pressure on artists’ personal networks and often favours those with greater digital literacy or community visibility.
The cost of independent funding: burnout and bias
But these new models come with hidden costs. Artists report burnout from the relentless need to self-promote, with 70% of creatives experiencing exhaustion or distress in the past year. Income remains unstable for many, with 45% of creators reporting inconsistent earnings. Meanwhile, platform algorithms – often opaque and biased – play gatekeeper to visibility and income. Women, CALD artists and artists with disability remain disproportionately underpaid.
What comes next?
Alternative funding isn’t a temporary fix – it’s becoming the new normal. That brings both opportunity and risk. As arts economist Justin O’Connor noted in a 2024 policy roundtable, “We need to stop thinking about survival funding and start thinking about sustainability funding.”
For artists, sustainability may mean embracing hybrid models, combining public support with direct audience income, brand partnerships and collective funding. For policymakers, it may mean recognising that precarity isn’t solved by a grant, but by structural reform. As the arts sector continues to evolve, the question is no longer whether artists can adapt – but whether the systems around them will.
