Today’s New York Times page one story on arts cuts in Europe addresses something that’s been on my mind for a while. I of course sympathize with arts groups that are having to grapple with sudden declines in the money they receive from their governments. But I’m not too crazy about the phenomenon described near the end of the article, namely:
As a result, some European arts institutions have begun looking for financial support in the United States, courting American companies or wealthy Americans with emotional ties to an ancestral homeland. But that means, as Mr. [Andreas] Stadler [director of the Austrian Cultural Forum in New York and president of the New York branch of the European Union National Institutes for Culture] acknowledged, that “we are also competing with American institutions, which are also hit hard.”
No kidding. Many European institutions have been recipients of American philanthropical largesse for decades – Save Venice, for example, goes backs to 1966, when Venice suffered crippling floods, and has raised more than $20 million from Americans for various projects since. American Friends of the Israel Museum dates to 1968. The Royal Oak Society, which raises money from Americans to preserve historic houses in the U.K., takes in nearly $2 million a year from Americans. American Friends of the Louvre started in 2002, and American Friends of Musee d’Orsay was begun last year. The list goes on, now growing longer in recent years with Asian groups like the American Friends of the Shanghai Museum (founded in 1995).
What’s wrong with this? My concern is that it’s almost entirely a one-way street. Dollars flow to cultural institutions abroad through U.S.-registered 501(c)3 groups making all donations tax-deductible. Very few Euros, shekels, pounds sterling, or yuan are coming this way — though one recent counter-example is worth a mention. In December, the Kennedy Center in Washington announced a $5 million naming gift from Russian investor/philanthropist Vladimir Potantin (above right) that made headline news. In return, the Center plans to renovate its Golden Circle Lounge, with additional funds from The Vladimir Potanin Foundation, and renamed it the Russian Lounge upon reopening next fall.
I wish he had more company. Until he does, I think we should tinker with the tax code — making donations to groups abroad, when the money flows out of the country — only partially tax-deductible. Say, by half. If many experts are right, that won’t stop the flow, because they say people don’t give for the tax deductibility (we’d see, wouldn’t we?). But other Americans would no longer be picking up the tab.
Photo Credits: Courtesy of Vespig.Wordpress.com
I’m certain that the funds Americans send to Europe for culture comes to far less than 1/100th of one percent of what Europeans spend on the arts. The steady stream of arts organizations Europeans send to America cost Europeans far more than the funds American donors send to Europe.
The Times’ article is just more privatization propaganda designed to undermine Europe’s public funding systems by suggesting they are moving toward America’s private donor model. That, of course, is nonsense. Europeans are going to hold onto their public funding systems in spite of American objections and propaganda. As a result, Europe’s cultural life will always be vastly richer than America’s.
What we see portrayed in the Times article is classic, neo-con, disaster capitalism. They are hoping to use the current economic crisis to force Europeans to abandon their extensive systems for public arts funding. Fortunately, is isn’t working. As Germany and France show, after the economic downturn is over, Europe’s public funding levels will return to their norms. It’s also likely that the cuts created by rightist governments in countries like Italy and Holland will be reversed.
I agree, William. The vast majority of European arts events presented in the US are heavily subsidized by their respective governments. By no means is it a one way street. This “hidden” subsidy must absolutely be taken into account to get at anything approaching a real picture.
Could you be specific — what European arts events are presented in U.S. art museums that don’t come with a fee?
I am a composer and am speaking mostly about the tours European orchestras make in the States. Almost all of the orchestras are owned and operated by governments, and their tours are heavily subsidized by their respective governments who find the work an important part of cultural diplomacy. The best place to observe this is in the steady stream of European orchestras that play in Carnegie Hall. It is obvious that Americans are only funding a very small part of the costs of the countless appearances, much less for the maintenance of the orchestras themselves.
I’m not sure how museum exchanges are funded, but I strongly suspect that the costs of loaning paintings are very low compared to expenses of maintaining an orchestra and sending it on tour.
We might also note that most European governments maintain cultural centers in major cities around the world such as the Goethe Institute or the British Council. New York is especially rich in such organizations. America, by contrast, has nothing comparable, and much to the detrimate of our image abroad.
Fair enough, and I agree with you re: orchestras. But I think we are mixing apples and oranges when it comes to government support. presumably taxpayer-approved, and philanthropic support. Taxpayers here are subsidizing private support.
Although I have watched in dismay as funding in the Netherlands, where I live most of the time, has been cut to nearly nothing for the arts, I have to say that the past government sponsorship of the arts in this country – and in many others – has also meant a pathetic crippling of art and artistic innovation here. One needn’t excel on an international scale in these circumstances; it’s easy enough to pay the rent with a few local sales a year. Moreover, at least in the Netherlands, sponsorship is often limited to local (national) artists and art projects, which means that young artists do not even get exposed to current art trends and the works of their international peers. Similarly, collectors have little idea of what’s out there – and are more than willing to consider the often mediocre production of Dutch artists. (This is not, I should note, a blanket statement; there are some good ones, but there could be more if the system worked differently.) At the same time, government oversight of museums makes it difficult for curators to produce the exhibitions they feel are important, quashing those ideas in favor of those that feature local artists and/or themes that are palatable to (ugh) culture ministers. Bland, much?
This is why some museums here have now started to form partnerships with corporations, which I think is all to the good (despite public outcry). But it certainly seems that there are enough European corporations to link to without having to go overseas and raid American coffers. Philips and Audi have both been great partners for Dutch museums. Surely there are others elsewhere in the EU who can be called on to do the same.
To the point about European orchestras coming to the US with their government’s subsidies, so how do you think the Cleveland Orchestra and other premier US arts entities get over to Europe? On Eruos alone? I like your idea Judith about less of US tax-deduction when US contributions go overseas. Bad enough that we’re looking at the possibility of a total cut in tax deductions for the arts here if the tax code gets an overall.
That’s exactly the point. Countries aren’t in the habit of funding each other’s cultural lives — though the flow leans in the direction of America because Europeans provide so much more funding for the arts.
@William, it seems to me that you’re not considering the loss of tax revenue from charitable donations to the arts as public support. But it is.
I think William’s point is that the flow of cultural money between the US and Europe – be it private or public, be it through tax deductions or no – is by no means one way.
He further argues that more cultural money flows to the US from Europe than vice versa, once the role of government subsidies is factored in (as it should be). We would really need an in-depth study to know for sure, but I suspect William is right.
One thing for certain is that it is nowhere near a one way street.
The indirect government arts funding through tax deductions in the USA is far smaller than the direct funding used by European governments.
It seems we don’t have data for the flow of cultural funding between the USA and Europe. But we have other data that might help us understand the situation. Germany has 133 fulltime, year-round orchestras, while the USA with four times the population only has 13. Germany has 83 fulltime, year-round opera houses while the USA doesn’t have any. In fact, it only has about 6 companies with actual, dedicated opera houses (New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Houston, Washington, and Santa Fe.) Their seasons range from seven months to six weeks.) And that’s just the comparison with Germany. The numbers for all of Europe would bury the USA.
Happy to publish this data, but it’s so far from my original suggestion that I don’t see it adding to the conversation. How many of those full-time orchestras have ever set foot in the US?
Remember, I did not suggest that Americans gain no tax benefit from donating overseas — just half what they get now. And, as I also pointed out, that change may have no affect on the donations, if many philanthropic experts, who say tax benefits have little impact on donation decisions, are correct.
I think singling out and penalizing potential international arts donors in the way you suggest -making it even harder for European arts groups to raise money from US devotees just when they need this kind of new income the most – would be a real diplomatic setback for the US.
Especially at a time when the State Department is putting serious effort into improving international relations through cultural diplomacy.
To make matters worse, you are recommending such a penalty be levied following decades in which US culture has profited disproportionally from the largesse of European governments.
I believe your proposal for such a special penalty would be counterproductive. The cash benefits to the US government are bound to be outweighed by the negative impact this would have on our cultural and diplomatic relationships abroad.
Something that isn’t mentioned is the large numbers of US visitors who enjoy free access to the great national museums and galleries (in the UK anyway). At our Museum in London, nearly 40% of all international visitors (including other European countries) are from the US – a huge percentage. That doesn’t in itself justify US donors supporting UK institutions but their are many benefits for US citizens who visit – or who use collections that are freely available online.
The generosity of US donors in supporting UK organisations is widely noted and admired; it also serves as a challenge to UK donors to up their game, whcih in fairness they are doing. I expect this trend to continue in the future as nobody I speak to is expecting public subsidy of the arts to be reestablished at former levels.
I actually can imagine scenarios in which UK public subsidy of the arts could rise to former levels, albeit not in the immediate term.
The current UK arts funding climate is reminiscent of the late ’80s, when the Thatcher government was trying to impose a private donor/corporate sponsorship culture on the arts, accelerated by – or as an excuse for – draconian cuts, depending on your point of view. It didn’t work. The Major government changed course and increased government support of the arts, and the increases continued under New Labour.
So it’s happened before, and it could happen again.
However, even if it does happen, it will certainly take a while. Especially considering the pressure that has been coming from two directions: a sudden tripling of the projected budget for the Olympics in 2007 – which led to vast sums of money formerly available to the arts being siphoned off to plug the gap – and the economic downturn.
In the case of the former, one can only hope that early reports of a £800m underspend on the Olympics will mean that this money will be ploughed back into the good causes in the arts that were suddenly being denied in 2007 and thereafter.
Once the Olympics are over and the economy improves, we may be in a better position to judge whether the Thatcherites actually prevailed after all these years, and whether the pendulum of the “boom and bust” cycles of UK public arts subsidy will indeed be permanently weighted towards the “bust”.