In a world in which the World Wide Web and AI can already do almost everything—and are learning more all the time—the question is being asked ever more frequently: what are artists’ agencies still needed for? Artists have their own websites and are present on all kinds of platforms. The search for artists is increasingly automated. And as the financial means available for culture become tighter as well, hardly anyone wants to spend money on agency commissions.
Practical experience shows, however, that people do certain things better—especially when it comes to subjective questions (and there are many of these, inherently, in the arts)—provided they have the necessary expertise and experience. I am thinking of questions such as which opera house prefers which kinds of voices, which personality suits which orchestra, and the like. But people at agencies are also very difficult to replace with machines when it comes to the steady building of careers, advising on artistic development, and deciding which contacts should be made, when, and for which artist. When contracts have to be negotiated in a way that leaves all parties satisfied in the end, people are often more creative than any AI can be. Handling disruptions, dealing with the unexpected, also remains essential: something does not add up; an artist cancels and a replacement must be found; unpleasant information must be passed on. In all of these situations, no one ever doubts that the agency must act immediately.
The development of recent years—whereby paying agency commissions is now the artists’ sole responsibility, no longer one shared with opera houses—is, in this sense, economically understandable from the opera houses’ perspective. But in practice it is short-sighted. An agency that is paid by both contractual partners is far better placed to represent the interests of both sides. It can genuinely seek the best possible solution for everyone involved.