<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Historic button produced by employees of the Corcoran Museum in D.C. when the “elusive” <\/span>Walter Hopps, once an art dealer, was director; now reproduced to celebrate the publication of Hans Ulrich Obrist’s <\/span>History of Curating<\/i>.<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/span><\/p>\n <\/span> <\/p>\n <\/span> <\/p>\n <\/span> <\/p>\n Moving From the Dark Side <\/span><\/span><\/b> New York art dealer Jeffrey Deitch will be the new director of L.A.’s Museum of Contemporary Art. Certain NYC art galleries — but definitely not Deitch Projects –are perceived as offering better exhibitions than many museums. Perhaps we should pause and compare art museums and commercial art galleries or, to put it another way, the for-profit and the non-profit spheres. The art dogma is that these should be as separate as Church and State, which is what we believe in the USA, right? Art museums are tax exempt, considered to be charities operated for the public good. Because donations may be deducted, more or less, from taxable income, museums are government-supported sub rosa<\/span>. This indirect support far outweighs any direct support, unlike in Europe. It is generally supposed this legerdemain was instituted because of a lack of interest on the part of the American public in the arts and a presumed outrage if direct funding were set in place. What? Money for men in tights? For screeching sopranos? For the preservation and public display of paintings that only the rich admire? For marble carvings of naked ladies? For Shakespeare, when vaudeville is so much better? No, the reasons are not historically clear. Consider that as part of the City Beautiful movement in the 19th century, local governments gave land for temples of culture like the Metropolitan Museum in New York and removed those acres and the consequent structures from the tax roles. There is no record of riots in the streets when this happened. A more persuasive theory is that an indirect method of arts support prevented government say-so in programming, perhaps a justifiable fear considering the so-called Cultural Wars that ensued in the last century.<\/font><\/font><\/span><\/p>\n Charitable Deductions Preferential tax treatment of expenditures or gifts to organizations that the law qualifies as having a socially beneficial characteristic and for which the donor is not motivated by direct benefit when making the contribution. Since 1917, individual federal taxpayers have been allowed to deduct gifts to charitable and certain other nonprofit organizations. Such organizations (hereafter called “charitable”) were already exempt from the income tax. A charitable deduction extended the benefits of exemption to individual taxpayers, so that income donated to charitable organizations was exempted from all levels of income taxation. <\/span>Galleries are run for profit. Museums technically are not, but since government support, unlike in Europe, is wanting — and getting more so — non-profit art venues such as museums pretty much have to be self-sustaining through fundraising, the largess of trustees, and corporate sponsorships. Admission fees do not cover very much. Hence we have fundraising events, and the ceaseless sucking up to the rich and the courtship of corporate sponsors. Oh, yes, did I forget to mention that the tax-policy ploy is paid for by a tradeoff? Staff and trustees are not allowed to use their positions in non-profits for personal gain. But gains can be subtle and difficult to track or catch. You would not want a CEO of even a major corporation if he (or she) were a total Art Babbitt, worried about whether or not a bicycle wheel attached to a stool was art. In any case, why would anyone give so much money and time if not really interested in art? The <\/b>period of Old Money sense-of-duty is long gone. It seems that if you are art-interested, it is almost inevitable you are going to be self-interested. Not only does one hand scratch the other; your left hand scratches itself. What if the principle of full disclosure were made law? That all trustees and staff (certainly directors and curators) must publicly list the art they own? Is transparency enough? Who would read those lists? Lists alone will not stop conflict of interest and potential gain on the back of the taxpayers who do not make charitable deductions. A museum exhibition usually increases the value of the art in the exhibition and all other art by the artist. I assume that this is why galleries and collectors are more than helpful to museums. I am told that galleries often pick up packing and shipping costs and subsidize catalogues. And sometimes collectors do the same.<\/font><\/p>\n <\/font><\/font><\/span> <\/p>\n <\/font><\/font><\/span> <\/p>\n <\/font><\/font><\/span> <\/p>\n <\/font><\/font><\/span> <\/p>\n <\/font><\/font><\/span> <\/p>\n <\/font><\/font><\/span> <\/p>\n <\/font><\/font><\/span> <\/p>\n <\/font><\/font><\/span> <\/p>\n <\/font><\/font><\/span> <\/p>\n![\"hoppsbutton.jpg\"](\"http:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/artopia\/hoppsbutton.jpg\")
<\/span>\n
\n
\n
The deduction was intended to subsidize the activities of private organizations that provide viable alternatives to direct government programs. The 1917 law increased tax rates, and the deduction was introduced to alleviate congressional concern that the higher tax rates would discourage private charity (Wallace and Fisher 1977). To control the revenue loss, total charitable deductions were limited to 15 percent of taxable income. Corporations were first allowed a deduction in 1935. <\/span><\/span>
From <\/span>The Encyclopedia of Taxation and Tax Policy <\/i>by William C. Randolph
![\"hopps1.jpg\"](\"http:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/artopia\/hopps1.jpg\")
<\/font><\/font><\/span><\/p>\n