Act for artists: the Sejm has just decided on its further fate

The debate surrounding the law to provide social security for persons performing the artistic profession is extremely heated. The sheer scale of the discussion says a lot about how artists are perceived by Polish society. Although the Sejm has already adopted the bill and sent it to the Sejm Committee on Culture, National Heritage and Media, both in the media and among politicians there is a dispute about justice and the legitimacy of the proposed solutions. Who will actually benefit from the law? Rich celebrities or folk craftsmen?

What are the benefits of the law for artists?

The project submitted at the end of May primarily involves subsidies to social security contributions for people with low and irregular incomes. In order to benefit from this type of support, it will be necessary to obtain the formal status of “professional artist”. According to government estimates, about 20,000 people in Poland could benefit from this form of assistance. The law takes into account the specifics of work based on projects, short-term contracts and irregular income, which is extremely common in the world of art and culture. It is for this reason that many artists face difficulties over the years associated with health insurance, social benefits or building retirement capital.

The status of professional artist will be granted upon request to persons who are able to document their achievements and are professionally engaged in artistic activity. This status is to be granted for five years, with the possibility of extension up to eight years. This means that, contrary to some opinions, help will not be available to anyone who simply calls himself an artist. The system of subsidies is to be aimed at people with lower incomes, and the threshold for entitlement to support is to be on average 125 percent of the minimum wage for the last three years, i.e. about PLN 68 thousand gross per year. Thanks to the surcharges, artists will be able to supplement social and health insurance contributions, which will translate into access to basic benefits such as public health care, sickness benefits or maternity leave. Importantly, the funds will not be paid in cash, but will go directly to ZUS. This solution is to ensure the continuity of insurance and the construction of pension capital. The supervision of the system is to be exercised by the Center for Education and Artistic Work — an institution established for the purposes of the Act as an intermediary between the state and the artistic community.

Method of financing

Many people interpret the project as a “surcharge to artists”, understood as giving them additional money from the state budget. In fact, the mechanism works differently. The purpose of the Act is not to finance artistic activities or to pay cash benefits, but to enable artists to have access to the same social security as most workers on stable contracts. The State would have to pay the missing part of the contributions directly to the Social Insurance Institution, so that their level corresponds to the minimum wage. It is this element of the project that has become the axis of the dispute: for some it is an attempt to correct long-standing negligence towards the artistic environment, for others — an unjustified privilege of one professional group.

Who will actually benefit from the law? Certainly not the richest.

According to a poll conducted by the Pollster Research Institute for “Super Express” 74% of respondents do not want the state to pay subsidies to artists for pensions and social security contributions. The results of the study quickly became an argument used by opponents of the law. There were voices in the Sejm comparing the situation of artists to the everyday life of entrepreneurs. PiS MP Norbert Kaczmarczyk stated:

“According to the survey, 80% of citizens are against this law. And why? Because there are millions of entrepreneurs in Poland, who also have irregular incomes, who have to take care of paying their contributions. We must ask ourselves: can the state budget afford this type of financing? PiS has proposed that half of this type of project could be financed from the reprographic fee that the state has raised by regulation.”

While this argument may sound convincing, it does not get to the heart of the problem faced by those in artistic professions. Comparing their situation to running a business is a simplification. Artists operate in the specific conditions of the cultural and art market, often without doing business. Many of them work under civil law contracts or carry out individual projects that do not provide income stability or adequate social protection.

However, the most important element of the whole project is the fact that the proposed solution does not apply to all artists, but only those who are in the most difficult economic situation. According to the law, support could cover about 20,000 people, so only part of the artistic community. This is much less than it might seem when we hear about “surcharges for artists”, and incomparably less than the number of entrepreneurs operating in Poland. It is estimated that there are about 62 thousand professional artists in the country, and their average monthly income is only PLN 1955. This means that the law is not aimed at famous actors, celebrities or stars of the stage - although this is the group that its opponents often refer to. As the director, screenwriter and journalist Kamil Czudej points out, the proposed system would be used primarily by people involved in maintaining local traditions, handicrafts, folk art or regional music. It is they who most often remain invisible in the public debate, despite the fact that their financial situation can be extremely difficult. Czudej also points out that the use of subsidies does not mean receiving money “on hand”, but the participation of the state in financing contributions, which serve to build a common system of social security. It also recalls that the contribution holidays alone for entrepreneurs cost the state budget about PLN 3 billion last year. So why is there so much opposition to the Artists' Act — which covers a much smaller group of people and generates incomparably lower costs?

The answer to this question is worth looking not only in economics, but also in sociological studies on the social perception of artists and creative work.

Persona non grata: why don't we want to support artists and culture?

For decades, the position of artists in Poland was shaped in the shadow of war and then communism. During the period of the Polish People's Republic, artistic activity was rarely associated with the need to function independently on the market — artists more often worked within the framework of state cultural institutions. At the same time, their work was subject to restrictions due to censorship and ideological requirements of the system. In a sense, the time for the development of free art and culture in Poland is therefore relatively short. Three decades is not enough for a culture to take root for good in the public consciousness as a common good, belonging to all citizens, and not an area associated with elites or the former system. The systemic transformation brought the creators long-awaited freedom, but at the same time subjected culture to the logic of the market. In the 1990s, many actors, musicians and media people achieved recognition and financial success, while part of society struggled with the effects of economic change. As residents of the former Popegeer lands struggled with unemployment and poverty, film, television and stage stars became increasingly visible in public spaces. For part of society, this may have perpetuated the belief that the artistic environment is a privileged group and detached from the everyday problems of ordinary citizens.

Today, however, such an explanation is no longer sufficient. The report “Active and Absent” (2026) prepared by the National Center for Culture shows an interesting paradox: Poles remain culturally active, but less and less participate in culture through institutions and public life. Culture is consumed primarily privately — via the internet, streaming platforms or social media — and often only serves as a backdrop to everyday life. It is possible that this is why we value culture as a product, but we are much less likely to see the people behind its creation and the conditions of their work. The artistic freedom gained after 1989 opened up new opportunities for creators, but at the same time it closed culture in the logic of the market, where it increasingly functions like any other commodity.

Opposition to supporting artists can therefore stem not only from economic calculations, but also from the way in which we perceive culture today. We use it almost every day, but we rarely think of it as the result of someone's work requiring social security. Perhaps that is why it is easier for us to accept culture itself than to publicly support the people who make it up. Sources:

1. https://www.gov.pl/web/kultura/tworzymy-pierwszy-w-polskim-prawie-system-bezpieczenstwa-socjalnego-dla-tworcow-kultury--projekt-ustawy-przyjety-przez-rade-ministrow
2. https://www.prawo.pl/kadry/projekt-ustawy-o-zabezpieczeniu-socjalnym-osob-wykonujacych-zawod-artystyczny-po-rzadzie,1545548.html
3. https://www.zasp.pl/zasp/aktualnosci/dzieje-sie/
4. https://wiadomosci.wp.pl/wiekszosc-polakow-nie-chce-doplat-dla-artystow-najnowszy-sondaz-7294536382388704a
5. https://nck.pl/en/badania/aktualnosci/-aktywni-i-nieobecni--pelny-raport-z-badan-kontekstowego-uczestnictwa-w-kulturze?utm_source=chatgpt.com