• Share on Facebook
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Linkedin
  • Share by email
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Linkedin
  • Share by email

Why is ageism seen as an acceptable form of discrimination in the art world, asks Ally Wallace.

Looking through the jobs and opportunities on a-n.co.uk recently, I spotted this listing for a residency in Luxembourg. It looked interesting, but then I noticed this: ‘Applicants should not be older than 40 years’. Why 40, I wondered? Why has someone sat down and decided they don’t want any resident artists over the age of 40?

This age restriction thing always bugs me – especially when there seems to be no reason for it. Usually the opportunity will specify that applicants should be under the age of 35, or occasionally even 30. Sometimes, you read these listings and then you’ll have a look at the organisation’s website, and it’s only when you get the full brief – maybe at the very end – that it states you have to be under 35. It’s happened to me so many times: an opportunity will look promising but then you read on and realise you can’t apply because you’re too old.

When I mention this to people who aren’t involved in the art world they can't quite believe it. If you apply for a job in any other realm, it's common practice not to ask your age, sex or race – positions are generally offered without any prejudice or bias. It seems so strange that when it comes to art, age discrimination is relatively widespread. If something is obviously sexist or racist, we’re pretty much all in agreement that it's a bad thing, but it seems like we haven’t yet decided if ageism is wrong. We’re all a bit vague about it... Keep reading on a-n