MacDowell Redux: Serving artists DOES serve the public good
Posted: March 12, 2007
[ view a fully formatted version of this post ]
Way back in December 2005, I noted an emerging court case in Peterborough, New Hampshire, in which the town was challenging the charitable tax status of the MacDowell Colony for artists. Most will be pleased to know that earlier this month, the court ruled against the town and in favor of the Colony.
The MacDowell Colony celebrates its 100th anniversary this year, as a retreat and work haven for promising artists to focus on their craft. But in 2005, budget shortfalls led Peterborough's Board of Selectmen to evaluate every nonprofit in their taxing district. The MacDowell Colony appeared to them a ripe target for challenge, since (they believed) it served artists, not the general public, and since the art produced was not of direct benefit to the citizens of Peterborough or the state. More specifically, the town's attorneys advanced four arguments against the Colony's tax status:
Judge Gillian L. Abramson found none of the above arguments to be compelling, and drove some useful stakes into the ground in the process. Said the ruling:
For society to enable the production of art, it must necessarily support the artist. Art does not appear from thin air. It is created by an artist. The artist uses a process to make his or her art. By providing artists with an environment conducive to creating such art, MacDowell encourages the production of art....Thus, MacDowell undertakes a chartiable mission in supporting the artistic process, thereby providing a benefit to, at the very least, artists across the world, and, in a broader sense, the general public.
The city of Peterborough is pondering an appeal.
NOTE: For the legal eagles among you, I've uploaded a a full draft of summary judgment (in PDF format). Useful stuff throughout.