Here’s an interesting tidbit from Peterborough, New Hampshire, where town officials are challenging the nonprofit tax status of the venerable MacDowell Colony (here’s the AP story via CBS News, and here’s an update from the Keene Sentinal).
The Colony has been a famed retreat and work haven for more than 5500 artists since 1907 — like Aaron Copeland, who wrote parts of ”Appalachian Spring” while there, or Thornton Wilder, who used the town of Peterborough as his inspiration for Our Town. At issue are the property taxes the town loses by virtue of the Colony’s tax status. In a general review of area nonprofits, town selectmen decided that fostering the creative work of individual artists didn’t meet the requirements of tax exemption. Says the AP article:
State law defines a charitable organization as one that advances ”the spiritual, physical, intellectual, social or economic well-being of the general public or a substantial and indefinite segment of the general public that includes residents of the state of New Hampshire.”
The MacDowell Colony certainly benefits its artists-in-residence, but ”that doesn’t strike us as being the general public,” said Bob Derosier, one of the town’s lawyers.
”From what we understand, their primary purpose is nurturing artists of the highest merit,” he said.
It’s a fascinating and horrifying debate, striking to the core public value of cultural organizations. Is there public utility in giving visionary people a place to expand, explore, and express? We all better hope so.
Horrifying in some ways, yes, but is anyone else surprised that this very debate hasn’t happened already? Aren’t we always talking about the ongoing struggle between what we as artists value and what the public values (or think they value)? Granted, there are other motives here (like a desire for more tax income), which is scary, but isn’t the debate about just what service we provide to the community worth having? Better yet…is our case strong enough to counter such an attack?
Shouldn’t places like The MacDowell Colony be supported by the people who consume the art that is created there, or by the businesses and organizations that produce or publish the work, or by private benefactors who want to volunteer their patronage? I’m increasingly skeptical of the old “trickle down” art-is-good-for-everybody philosophy that says that society as a whole should support elite artists because at some point their collective accomplishments will provide an indirect benefit. It’s an oblique, qualitative argument that is generally put forward by people who seek direct quantitative support. I’m inclined to side with the people of Peterborough who have a right to ask for a measurable return on their investment.
when i start seeing stories like this filter through the media i think perhaps it is time to get out of dodge –sharpish. head for the hills and all that. no wait, there’s a tax on them hills……clearly the MacDowell community has failed to meet it’s contract with the townsfolk and should re-evaluate it’s mission to be more inclusive and repsonse to local needs. BUT when are artists in this country going to dig their heels in and fight these cuts in public subsidy? Don’t we give enough tax money to pork barrel projects, bridges in alaska and the pentagon to justify a half decent art budget & freedom of expression to make what artists want with the money given (rather than the narrow vision the far right prefers). does it meet all the critieria of the free market, probably not, but then neither do no-bid contracts for government work. I’m not going to stand up and tell a local community that they need the arts and should support artists unconditionally, but as with most societies artists contributions are often measured differently to the bar down the street or the grocery store, (businesses that do pay tax). How many citizens in Peterborough enjoy listening to Copeland? As a afterthought I kinda wish the CIA would get back into the art game again as with their programs in the ’50s. At least there you had a government agency that promoted freedom of expression as a tonic to soviet totalitarianism and backed American artists by sending them around the world to promote these American values, however distateful this idea might be, right now it seems preferable to this slow starvation technique government seems to be taking to the arts.
[in response to Trev]
yours is a philistine argument at best; such thinking is one reason our large, rich and powerful country is increasingly held in contempt by thoughtful people around the world…does the tax-free status of private schools and colleges benefit any but the students? or symphony orchestras/museums tax-free status benefit those who never attend? would you then impose taxes on these institutions?
at the heart of this is a fear of “elites”, that is, anyone who stands above the crowd, doesn’t have the mass taste (imposed by corporate tastemakers for corporate profit, such as Disney, Hallmark, TV sitcom packagers)…strangely, average Americans don’t grasp this “taste Mafia”, they accept it, raise their children in abysmal ugliness, ignorance and vulgarity, calling it “American”…serious art cannot survive such a society, and our serious art and its makers, present asnd future, are no exception..shame on the town officials of Peterborough, if it weren’t for MacDowell, they would be just a blip in the road
Abby:
More than happy to discuss this with you but not if you’re going to attribute motives to me that can’t be gleaned from my comments.
I’m a long-time arts professional who has written my share of fundraising appeals using the very arguments I’m eschewing here. What I’ve been seeing in recent years, however, is an entrenched elitism and a sense of entitlement that’s keeping many institutions from responding pragmatically to changes in the outside world.
Decent Americans who are being asked to pony up a portion of their meager paychecks want to know what’s in it for them and that’s a perfectly valid question. If we can’t answer it without dismissing them or condescending to them or calling them blips in the road, we probably don’t deserve their support.
One of the key questions in this issue is: Why, after a hundred years of fulfilling the same mission, in the same way, does the town now insist that MacDowell admit that it is no longer a charitable institution under state law?
I have this quote from an octegenarian, a longtime and revered Peterborough selectman: “These selectmen are inexperienced and don’t know what they’re doing.”
Forget all the jingoism about “ponying up” and “doing their share” — this is a shakedown — one of many caused entirely by over-reliance on property taxes and the lack of courage, leadership, and civic will to consider tax alternatives. Get a load of “view taxes” and you will see yet another travesty, another symptom of the same obsolete tax policy.
What’s obvious to me is that the world is changing fast, and that traditional arts institutions are not changing with it. Twentieth century Americans put the arts on a pedestal, but those pedestals are cracking and twenty first century Americans aren’t rushing in to repair them.
To sustain support at twentieth century levels requires a large, cohesive, well-educated culture of like-minded Americans who care deeply about the arts and who want to keep them on their pedestals. It also requires a certain amount of buy-in from less committed segments of society who, whether or not they patronize the arts, are willing to grant them their elevated status. I simply don’t see such a consensus emerging among the generations that were raised in the last few decades.
Respected octogenarians’ opinions notwithstanding, these Peterborough selectmen may be more representative of future arts policy makers (and arts audiences) than we care to admit. I think that if they’re questioning the value of maintaining our pedestals, we might do well to come up with a better argument than, “that’s the way it’s always been done.”
Trev:
Bravo! You are so correct in saying that the times are changing and the arts institutions are not changing with them.
From the glut of sales in art in the eighties to the gallery system not encouraging young people to simply look and get to know the art, funny the gallery audience is shrinking! When you alienate your future audience you get what you get!
Now, being an artist who gets the results of this by having less exhibition possibilites available to them and more and more institutions ( like MacDowell ) demanding you are already a success … no wonder the artists’ latest dilemma is in maintaining their integrity while holding a full time job, and still producing art because their life depends on it!
Sorry, Trev, but you lost your credibility with the phrase “consume the art” in your first post. Art is not toast; it’s a gift that’s passed from spirit to maker to beholders.
If you insist that the changing times have turned art into goods, you will succeed at pitting artists such as Linda against one another. Even though many of today’s artists feel as though the world owes them a living, and that they should be able to support themselves through the making of art, any intersection of money and art erodes its essence. But artists should be protected and nurtured, whenever possible. And that’s been the philosophy of Peterborough officials for more than a century. Which has, by the way, paid off, making it one of the nation’s top arts communities.
Obvious:
What’s interesting about the question of consumption is that, like it or not, the commercial realm is where the arts as we know them will live or die. Right now they’re not doing so well.
If we choose to place art in the realm of religion and support it with philosophical arguments, as you have here, we really should be prepared to survive, as most religions do, on the generosity of true believers.
Until recently, American society has accepted the faith-based argument that “artists should be protected and nurtured” because we all worshipped at the same cultural alters. But this simply isn’t happening anymore.
Ultimately, the measure will be economic, as you demonstrated so well in your last comment. If Peterborough has indeed benefitted in tangible ways by being one of the nation’s top arts communities, then let’s demonstrate that in clear secular language so that those who don’t go to our church can understand what’s in it for them.