Neill Roan flags a re-emerging public conversation about the costs and benefits of charitable giving, particularly to seemingly wealthy nonprofit arts organizations. Says he:
”Shouldn’t charitable gifts go to the less fortunate?” is a policy question that those of us in the cultural sector can expect to hear asked more often and more urgently. This question has been around a long time, and as a former fundraiser, I can attest that this question leads to a rocky and perilous conversational landscape.
Roan points to Jenny Price’s essay against philanthropy in Good Magazine, in which she suggests that giving is often just a redistribution of wealth to repair the damages caused by that wealth generation. In another argument, Stephanie Strom proposed in the New York Times that the tax shelters for wealthy donors come at too high a cost to the public (which the National Council of Foundations called ”just plain silly”).
More recently, there was this little tidbit from former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich:
I’m all in favor of supporting the arts and our universities, but let’s face it: These aren’t really charitable contributions. They’re often investments in the lifestyles the wealthy already enjoy and want their children to have, too. They’re also investments in prestige — especially if they result in the family name being engraved on the new wing of an art museum or symphony hall….
He goes on to suggest a modification to the current tax law:
If the donation goes to an institution or agency set up to help the poor, the donor gets a full deduction. If the donation goes somewhere else — to an art palace, a university, a symphony or any other nonprofit — the donor gets to deduct only half of the contribution.
It may currently be a debate about the spending, practices, and tax benefits of the ultra-rich and the mega-nonprofit. But the thoughtful cultural manager will prepare for such conversations to trickle down — to their city council, to their major donors, to their public, and to their local media.
Why should people give to your organization rather than support the poor, the hungry, or the destitute? And why should your donors get a tax break on their gifts? They are horrible questions to answer, but you’d best have an answer at hand.
I’d seen some of these straws in a new wind, but hadn’t realized there were so many of them. They give us yet another reason to believe that the formal high arts may notably shrink in the next decade or so. Combine this with the shift in money and power in New York from the Upper East Side to Tribeca, and things look even worse.
The upper eastsiders were the old-fashioned arts donor, arts board types. Tribeca is a new downtown culture. So few people from there go to classical music events (just for instance) that one big classical music institution in NYC doesn’t even rank Tribeca in its top 50 zip codes. And this is now the richest, most powerful zip code in the city!
I’ve had this conversation with a former board member of a theatre I worked for. She was also very involved with her church and the animal shelter. My discussion with her was about increasing her giving to the theatre, which was in competition with her other community giving.
The point I made, though, is germane to this topic: that without the arts, we wouldn’t have much of a culture — that our humanity, such as it is, is referred to and cultivated by our creative disciplines. Our support of artistic organizations creates a culture which is capable of sustaining a concern for the disenfranchised, downtrodden, and destitute.
There seems to be a question of scale addressed in some of the criticisms of cultural philanthropy, but in the best sense, the scale doesn’t apply to the art, only the context of the presentation. Supporting arts organizations makes a livelihood for artists possible; many artists, both living and dead, are as likely to have their work presented by organizations of all sizes.
We’re debating this over at the Fractured Atlas blog as well:
http://www.fracturedatlas.org/site/blogs/post/adamthehutt/797363814013067965“>http://www.fracturedatlas.org/site/blogs/post/adamthehutt/797363814013067965″>http://www.fracturedatlas.org/site/blogs/post/adamthehutt/797363814013067965″>http://www.fracturedatlas.org/site/blogs/post/adamthehutt/797363814013067965″>http://www.fracturedatlas.org/site/blogs/post/adamthehutt/797363814013067965
http://www.fracturedatlas.org/site/blogs/post/developingthearts/5381044774480727255“>http://www.fracturedatlas.org/site/blogs/post/developingthearts/5381044774480727255″>http://www.fracturedatlas.org/site/blogs/post/developingthearts/5381044774480727255″>http://www.fracturedatlas.org/site/blogs/post/developingthearts/5381044774480727255″>http://www.fracturedatlas.org/site/blogs/post/developingthearts/5381044774480727255
This is really a significant threat, since it seems to be coming from multiple ideological angles. I suspect some of these complainers could be placated by trotting out the old “arts as an engine for economic development” argument, but that only goes so far. As much as we may be inclined to agree with it in other contexts, we need a way to counter the old-school liberal ideology that is only interested in helping the downtrodden, not investing in society’s potential.
What is it that the fine arts “do”? Well, for one thing, art museums teach visitors a language of “visual literacy.” To the notion that visual arts are only for the wealthy, and for recreational purposes, I would pose this question: “Is there any dearth of images in the poorest neighborhood in the poorest city in America?” Unresoundingly, the answer is “no”. Why? Because images have power — the power to sell products (think cigarettes, hamburgers, and liquor); the power to motivate individuals to action (think political propoganda); the power to teach empathy (think makeshift memorials to the children who are dying violent deaths in our streets every day.)
Only for the wealthy? Only for recreation? I THINK NOT. As our culture is increasingly dominated by images — television, print media, internet — it is disgraceful to think that some political elite would reserve the power of visual literacy only for the rich and the privileged (i.e. those who can surround themselves with art irrespective of public institutions dedicated to art).
What is Secretary Reich thinking! Bread and circuses, ignorant consumers, REALLY preserving the status quo.
Chris Casquilho gets right to the point missing from the criticisms of support for the arts, but I’d also make the point that artists are frequently among the poorest Americans. Without support for cultural organizations that offer employment, commissions and grants to artists, there would be more people for the social service agencies to care for.
The first thing that came to my mind was that charitable contributions enable an arts organization (and colleges and universities, for that matter) to NOT be just a stronghold for the elite. If we just relied on ticket sales/admissions/tuition, we’d all have to double or triple our prices and then we’d really be elitist. Not to mention that as we raise prices, fewer people attend because it’s out of their price range, so then we’d have to quadruple the prices, which would price more people out… You see the cycle.
I agree with Chris that a strong argument can be made for how the arts can encapsulate as well as challenge society. Another aspect to that is showing people how the arts infiltrate our lives without our even being aware of it. What’s advertising without music and/or visual art (depending on the medium)? Have you admired Mt. Rushmore, the US Capitol, the Statue of Liberty, the Chrysler building in NYC? Such architectural beauty can only come through the study of art in addition to engineering. Without art influencing architecture, every building would just be a cement block with a few windows and doors. The same goes for the pictures on our walls and even our furniture. We all enjoy the fruits of drama departments when we go to the movies or watch TV. You get my drift. So the argument that contributions to the arts are just investments for the rich to make sure their kids get to have the same experiences holds no water.
I think more and more arts organizations in every discipline are trying to rectify the situation we created for ourselves over decades and centuries — that the arts are only for the educated and “cul-chahd.” However, this must be done intelligently and collaboratively. If the arts are really to reflect and impact our culture, then we have to allow culture to influence our art without snobbishly thinking that that will constitute “dumbing down” the art form. Otherwise we’ll just look like a bunch of imperialists insisting that art can only look a certain way in order to be valid.
I will say, however, that Jenny Price’s argument about philanthropy being the wealthy’s way of deflecting criticism about their business practices has often come to my mind when thinking about the work of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Yes, the foundation is doing great things, but the money facilitating that was attained through unfair business practices and cutthroat/strong-arm deals. To be fair, I have to acknowledge that Andrew Carnegie was no angel in the business world, either.
Why does the question always have to be to give to either/or? Isn’t there anyone (still) out there who looks at the big picture and considers donations to the local food bank and cultural institutions–feeding bodies and minds/souls? This country’s (and the world’s) greatest philanthropists understood this ethic and it was a root value of their charitable giving. Arts groups don’t exist in a vacuum and if examined closely I bet you’ll find many that assist others in fundraising for human service needs. An old argument that just can’t die as long as need exists.
It all comes down to the schools, again. I live in a 60,000-soul city in Connecticut. The Arts have taken a pounding, and “sports is the thing”- not the play. Local education officials love to show our pupils the joy and beauty of sport.
Whatever we teach in the schools — I mean the primary and secondary schools, will last through to the next generation. My youth orchestra — the Central Connecticut Civic Youth Orchestra — is teaching music AND it is teaching the eight communities it serves about the “Arts Economy”, on the very grass-roots level, if people aren’t taught the Arts when young, and the basic city economy doesn’t include the Arts, and the Artists, we can forget about seeing them when the kids we educate like that grow up. I stand up for the Arts not only as a teaching tools, but a tool for shared experience. If we have a ghost of a chance to bring the Arts back into ‘play’ in the civic conversation, then it must have a larger presence in the school systems throughout the country, for people only learn what they are taught.
This country needs shared experiences more than just about anything. We have 9/11, and untalented people in the news and war — what good things do we have to share? There are what, 670 TV channels? We are not used to sharing good things anymore.
If a kid can become a mechanic on the public dollar, why not a cellist? Instead of asking “why can’t Johnny read” – I ask “Why can’t Johnny Sing? We need to stop making the excuse of “No Child Left Behind”- as horribly destructive as that is, it is a very convenient economic money-wasting and soul-wasting wall to hide behind when asked why our schools can’t teach the Arts. Politics has created a new underclass in the country by underfunding all public education, but it has almost decimated the Arts through NCLB long-range planning. “The classroom’s the thing.” Then we also have to play catch-up with the general society, providing those shared experiences that will be as relevant to people as Playhouse 90 or Show Bernstein’s Young People’s Concerts were a generation ago.
Increase public education funding of the Arts, teach people about the Arts Economy and make the Arts a shareable experience again- as the Met Opera is doing in movie theatres- that will get us going on the right track again.
After slogging through the punditry and usual-suspect commentary, I finally got to some sensible words from Ann Marie Miller & Katrina Axelrod.
First, it may not be in Bill Gates’ league, but my wife and I give monetarily to four causes every year in approximately equal proportions: hunger, animals, environment, and music. And because of my background, I donate time as well to music “causes.” (Rarely do we give any money to open-ended “let me spend your money on anything I think is important” causes such as political campaigns, but that will change once again this year I suspect.)
Arguments based on pity (or guilt)used to be labeled “argumentum ad misericordiam” & they are just as bogus now as they were in Aristotle’s day. This applies to the starving artist as much as to the starving masses. I can’t speak for Bill Gates, but I give not out of pity, but out of an inexplicable need to build: what kind of a world do I want to live in & what kind of a world do I want to leave behind?
I also heartily agree with Ms Axelrod’s get-off-your-duff-and-do-something attitude. We’ve had enough studies and “proofs” of the arts’ value to society or community or economy.
I came here directly from an e-newsletter from Institute for Education and the Arts which I immediately stopped reading when I saw yet another article quoted from another local paper entitled “Reasons to Keep the Arts.” Has anyone stopped to think just how stupid that thinking is? Forget sports which, in my opinion, is not really where the battle is. Try imagining a headline reading: “Reasons to Keep Mathematics.” This isn’t meant to be just flip, but to point out that, not only are those reasons considered unnecessary, no one would dare ask the question, even though most parents don’t use more than mid-level arithmetic and a bit of logic in their work lives and can’t do most of the math problems their kids are given for homework. What I want to see in the paper some day is that a school board was challenged to defend the use of teaching trigonometry in our schools since few will ever have any practical need for it as adults.
We forget the old axiom that as soon as we say that the reason we are obeying the king because the king is right, the king is dead. As soon as you are forced (or fooled) into making arguments in favor of X, you can kiss X goodbye.
What we need to do is replace all the punditry with some good old activism — get out and do some art. And while we’re at it, teach it and give to it along with all the other building activities we need to do to make this a place we don’t want to leave.
[And by the way, please don’t take me too seriously about questioning math in the schools. After teaching the basics to everyone, maybe we should start including a Math Appreciation course in the curriculum. I research and publish in the field of mathematical music theory & I get a little tired of math-illiterate people challenging the math-music connection.]
I started thinking about this issue 20+ years ago while I was sitting in a Cuyahoga County (Cleveland, OH) Commissioners meeting. I was there to lobby for a $7,500 annual grant the performing arts center I worked for usually received. As I sat there, the person then addressing the Commissioners was begging for help to pay her heating bill. (Note: It gets cold in Cleveland in the winter.) The Commissioners were sympathetic but, as I recall, did not have funds or a program in place to help the person. I started feeling guilty about the $7,500 grant my organization wanted. But upon further reflection, I began to believe in the importance of philanthropy pursuing two tracks simultaneously, addressing both high-level Opportunities as well as deep-seated Problems.
Philanthropy must certainly demonstrate mercy and help the poor, sick, and endangered. But it should also invest in those opportunities, I believe, that can elevate humankind and take society to the next level. We never seem to be very far from the bloodthirsty savagery, unbridled greed, or monolithic thinking that threaten to tear our social compact apart. I have not felt guilty about raising money for the arts or higher education since then.
The thing I disdain most about this argument is that it pits arts and social service agencies against one another, when in reality neither has enough funds to fully meet the demands of their clients, and both are worthy of support. Furthermore, within the arts community this argument immediately conjures up a tired conversation about the value of traditional vs. newer arts organizations, where struggling symphonies and fragile ballet companies are pitted against impoverished community arts practitioners and strapped arts education programs.
The work of arts and social service nonprofits — not to mention environmental, religious, and even recreational (sports) nonprofits — COMPLEMENT each other. Together they create an extremely diverse landscape of products and services that, without the nonprofit tax code, would falter or fail completely in our current market. I once heard NEA Chairman Dana Gioia say that whether you donate to prayer or politics or avant-garde art, the US government will go in “half-sies” with you on your contribution. This uniquely American broad-brush support for organizations that serve the public interest and the public good is a supreme act of good will and good faith that should not be tampered with. It acknowledges that many pathways exist to serving the body, belly, mind, heart, and spirit of the American people and that they deserve equal backing by the US government.
Should we be concerned about the low levels of private funding donated to fight poverty, hunger and oppression? Of course we should. But discouraging private funding for the arts is a wrong-headed and divisive way to address the problem.
I was a grant panelist lately for a local arts council. The applicants in front of us requested three times the amount of money we had to distribute. This creates an inevitable either/or situation (in this case, only between competing arts organizations). In the broader world of philanthropy, side-stepping the either/or question regarding arts and social services doesn’t make it go away. When I have three dollars in my wallet, I can have a gallon of gas, or a hamburger – but not both.
The reason this is “an unpleasant argument” is because when the folks who make the decisions about the distribution of resources get down to work, there is a real question between low income energy assistance and funding a symphony, theatre, or museum – and most of us, when pressed, would really hate to see an elderly woman live in a fifty-five degree home because we needed to give a raise to our first violinist.
The long and short of it is that there is a hierarchy of needs, and a scarcity of resources in the nonprofit sector. Those of us making a living in the arts are fortunate that our society affords an abundance that can adequately serve the basics of human life and a certain amount of higher culture. We do have both. The discussion is maybe about “more of which” and why.