The International Herald Tribune has a useful overview of the European struggle to sustain their museums, as the traditional model of government patronage continues to fade. It’s not really a new story, since privatization of public services of all kinds has been a matter of debate in Europe for more than 20 years. But the article defines the basic dynamics of the issue quite well:
No less than health care and education, culture is seen as a public right that governments have a duty to satisfy. Further, above all to cultural officials raised in a statist tradition, corporate sponsorship of the arts motivated by public relations, not altruism, is viewed as somehow tainted.This contrasts dramatically with the American approach. In the United States, most museums were born of civil society, they were filled with art bequeathed by philanthropists and they are sustained by private donations. In fact, a common American view is that government meddling, symbolized by a culture ministry, poses a greater threat to cultural freedom than any amount of corporate involvement.
In the end, however, the challenges of corporate and philanthropic support remain the same on both sides of the pond: how do you engage and retain the interest and patronage of those with wealth (coporations, individuals, and even government) without bending your mission to align with theirs? In the United States, we’ve had a bit more time to get used to the tension in that question (for good or ill). But for all of us, it’s worth raising again and again, to be sure we remain thoughtful and responsive to the challenge.
NOTE: For an interesting series of essays on the challenge and history of public funding in the United States, check out Public Money & the Muse.
