No, Mr. Kristof, Donations to the Arts are Anti-Elitist
Nicholas D. Kristof, writing in The New York Times on December 21, 2008, gave further life to a canard of which I am getting really tired: that classical music organizations (along with other arts institutions) are, to put it bluntly, mostly for the rich folk.
Kristof's column was an attempt to demonstrate that conservatives are more generous than liberals in their charitable giving, a premise for which he presented precious little real evidence. But then he went on:
"...liberal donations frequently sustain art museums, symphonies, schools and universities that cater to the well-off. (It's great to support the arts and education, but they're not the same as charity for the needy. And some research suggests that donations to education actually increase inequality because they go mostly to elite institutions attended by the wealthy.")
I'll let the world of educators explain scholarships to Kristof, but I cannot keep letting go comments by public figures about how arts institutions are for "the well-off." It may well be true that a higher percentage of symphony audiences are in upper economic brackets than is represented in the total population; Lord knows there are many reasons that may shape such an outcome. But the fact is that symphony orchestras are investing more and more financial and human resources in community-engagement and educational activities that reach across all socio-economic boundaries. Whether you look at programs that collect instruments and lend them at no cost to children from families not in a position to purchase them; or to music-therapy programs that send musicians into hospitals; or to partnerships with community organizations and churches throughout our major cities; or to the many programs of low-priced and subsidized tickets that permit and encourage ticket purchase by anyone regardless of economic situation, the truth is that great art is not a frilly entertainment for the upper classes.
I've heard a fair amount of this nonsense lately--some of it from politicians advocating the elimination of the tax incentives that support charitable giving to the arts, some of it from columnists who should know better. Every orchestra administrator I know considers it a responsibility to engage with an entire community, and to remove the barriers of "social elitism" that are perceived to surround our art form and others. In fact, charitable support to orchestras helps them to move in that direction, because community engagement and education programs are the things orchestras do that least pay for themselves. So it is enormously frustrating to read a columnist who with one hand charges orchestras unfairly with appealing to the "well-off," and with the other hand encourages a philanthropic policy that would be more likely to force them to do just that.
"...liberal donations frequently sustain art museums, symphonies, schools and universities that cater to the well-off. (It's great to support the arts and education, but they're not the same as charity for the needy. And some research suggests that donations to education actually increase inequality because they go mostly to elite institutions attended by the wealthy.")
I'll let the world of educators explain scholarships to Kristof, but I cannot keep letting go comments by public figures about how arts institutions are for "the well-off." It may well be true that a higher percentage of symphony audiences are in upper economic brackets than is represented in the total population; Lord knows there are many reasons that may shape such an outcome. But the fact is that symphony orchestras are investing more and more financial and human resources in community-engagement and educational activities that reach across all socio-economic boundaries. Whether you look at programs that collect instruments and lend them at no cost to children from families not in a position to purchase them; or to music-therapy programs that send musicians into hospitals; or to partnerships with community organizations and churches throughout our major cities; or to the many programs of low-priced and subsidized tickets that permit and encourage ticket purchase by anyone regardless of economic situation, the truth is that great art is not a frilly entertainment for the upper classes.
I've heard a fair amount of this nonsense lately--some of it from politicians advocating the elimination of the tax incentives that support charitable giving to the arts, some of it from columnists who should know better. Every orchestra administrator I know considers it a responsibility to engage with an entire community, and to remove the barriers of "social elitism" that are perceived to surround our art form and others. In fact, charitable support to orchestras helps them to move in that direction, because community engagement and education programs are the things orchestras do that least pay for themselves. So it is enormously frustrating to read a columnist who with one hand charges orchestras unfairly with appealing to the "well-off," and with the other hand encourages a philanthropic policy that would be more likely to force them to do just that.
8 Comments