In its Letters to the Editor today, the Philadelphia Inquirer publishes a pithy note by one Michael Donnelly, who says what other Philadelphians are doubtless thinking about the $68-million public fundraising drive to keep the Eakins from leaving town:
Here’s an idea: Continue to raise the money. Then, ask homeless advocate Sister Mary Scullion, or city schools CEO Paul Vallas, or even SEPTA board chairman Pasquale Deon how they think such a concerted effort to raise an exorbitant amount of money could otherwise benefit the Philadelphia region.
There’s always a tension between culture and society’s “more urgent” needs. I’m strongly in favor of arts funding. But in this case, I think the guy’s got a point. Unlike Donnelly, though, I would say that this money comes from people who are interested in funding culture, which is also important to the social fabric. The question is whether this impressive philanthropy might be better applied to a less flashy, but more broadly significant, cultural project. It’s always easier, but not necessarily better, to raise fast megabucks for a dramatic “rescue” appeal.
See Derek Fincham‘s Illicit Cultural Property blog for an interesting discussion likening the recent (withdrawn) nomination of “The Gross Clinic” for historic-object designation to foreign governments’ export restrictions on art.
Welcome to my blogroll, Derek!