Welcome to my blog, which — I can say with certainty — will evolve; blogging is a new experience for me.
I’m going to cut right to the chase (you can read about my plans for this space in “about”) and start with what’s on everyone’s mind: the economy. Everyone’s scared. No one knows quite how to cope. It’s a rare cultural institution that hasn’t cut its budget. But last week’s lavish, record-setting Yves Saint Laurent auction in Paris is actually a good sign, not the last gasp of conspicuous consumption.
The total, you’ve probably read, reached $483.8 million, and one item, an Art Deco arm chair, fetched $28.3 million against an estimate of $2.6 million to $3.9 million! More important, the money spilled forth in every category of art, from Old Masters to German silver. Seventy-seven items sold for more than one million euros.
I don’t think the sale augurs well for the art market, near-term; it was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to buy high-quality objects with great provenance. But it does show that there are plenty of people with liquid assets who’ll spend money for something they really want.
What if those people really want something everyone benefits from, like a strong museum or a vibrant theater scene, rather than a trophy object. That $28.3 million spent on a chair could have purchased, say, Franz Marc’s rare “Grazing Horses III,” which set a record at auction last year, and still left $4 million in the buyer’s pocket. It could have paid for the entire Museum of American Folk Art, which cost $22 million at its opening in 2001. It could have paid for almost 30% of the grants made by the National Endowment for the Arts in recent years.
Even before the stock market plunged brutally yesterday — again — many experts believed that the “conspicuous philanthropy” that prevailed during the boom was dead. And maybe it is — if it’s defined as mega-gifts for buildings. But if the buyers in Paris last week were willing to spend so publicly, can’t cultural institutions convince people like them that a rescue gift is also a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity? And would these donors then be heroes and heroines?
To give them recognition, I would be willing to take nominations for a “national honor roll” published right here on this blog.
What about that other worry — that donations to arts groups are bound to decline when social needs are so great. It’s real, and there will be a drop, as there was after Katrina and other calamities. But, if past is prologue, there will be a rebound; most arts funding comes from individuals, not corporations or foundations.
Riding out these financial troubles won’t be easy, and even conspicuous philanthropy won’t save the many cultural groups that over-expanded. But there’s hope for those who can get back on a prudent course — with one caveat. If President Obama goes ahead with plans to limit the tax deductibility of charitable contributions, the woes will deepen. That’s a subject I’ll return to soon.