Museum Funding-Fundraising

Ok, I exaggerate: The two are not really connected. But the news the other day that was posted online at the Wall Street Journal’s Money Beat Blog is rather astonishing in the context of the Detroit bankruptcy, which threatens the Detroit Institute of Art’s collection.

Before I tell give you the quote, big hat-tip to Hyperalleric.

Here’s the story:

As Detroit settles in for a long, tortured trip through bankruptcy court, the public financing deal for a new arena to house the Red Wings will likely skate by intact….

Michigan’s state legislature approved Wednesday a $450 million bond offering that would form the public backbone of Ilitch’s Holding’s $650 million entertainment center and development district near the heart of downtown Detroit.

The bonds will be floated by the Michigan Strategic Fund, which handles all of the state’s private development funds. The public, $283 million portion of the bonds will come from the Downtown Development Authority, which earmarks a slice of downtown property taxes for reinvestment there. They both have investment-grade credit ratings and function independently of Detroit’s city government, which makes their involvement in the deal important. Detroit’s credit rating is somewhere between junk status and radioactive.

“This isn’t a source of money that can be redirected to the city,” [Brian] Holdwick [executive vice president for the Detroit Economic Growth Corporation] said. The private portion of the MSF bonds will come from Olympia Development of Michigan, which is run by Red Wings owner and sports-and-pizza mogul Mike Ilitch.

Ok, I get that — but does Holdwick understand the optics of this? In the midst of a city that may, or may not, be willing to strip its glorious art museum of its treasure, the state will help build a new stadium?

I will only cite for you evidence that stadiums never live up to their billing: here’s an article from 2002 by economist Alan Krueger: The High Cost and Low Benefit of Sports Subsidies. Here is: As Stadiums Rise, So Do Costs to Taxpayers. I could go on, but the evidence is clear: these things do not ever deliver the benefits they promise.

Hyperallergic cites different evidence. This is not unclear.

Sports fans, judging by comments, are all for it. I cite one sane commenter:

Something I haven’t been able to find through using various search engines, is, what the heck is wrong with their current stadium that justifies wasting money on a new one?…

The evidence rests.

Inside Higher Ed took up the subject of financially weak museums who’ve looked for salvation at universities in a recent article. It’s a good subject. In New York, we’ve tried some partnerships and mergers that haven’t worked — most recently, the Museum of the City of New York gave up its management of the South Street Seaport Museum, which was damaged by Hurricane Sandy last fall and was already struggling to stay alive and vibrant.

The IHE article, cryptically headlined A Home for Artifacts, begins be setting the scene: institutions of higher ed may be worrying about their long-term financial viability, but that hasn’t deterred museums, which are in worse shape, from looking at them for help — “…and that’s likely because many of them face larger existential threats than their counterparts in higher education.” The upsides: economies of scale, potential new donors and security for museum, and new expertise for their curricula for the universities. The downsides: a loss of independence and the potential for getting lost in a larger organization for museums, new obligations for the universities.

As examples, the writer uses the Corcoran Gallery’s tentative pact with the University of Maryland; the Textile Museum recent union with George Washington University; the Jewish Museum of Florida’s leap into the arms of Florida International University, and most prominently Drexel University’s 2011 acquisition of the Academy of Natural Sciences in downtown Philadelphia.

Here’s a bit from the report:

…the process of incorporating the museum into the university has at times proven difficult, but that it has benefited both over all. The merger created a new biodiversity, earth and environmental science department within Drexel composed of 20 faculty members, including 13 academy scientists. The academy gets a new source of revenue in tuition from the academic department.

Drexel gained 13 faculty members — seven of whom are already tenured — in areas in which it did not previously have expertise, particularly environmental science and environmental policy. The university has already started offering courses in those areas. The affiliation has also opened up new potential co-op and internship opportunities for Drexel students.

The museum also cut its costs by about 5 percent as part of the affiliation with the university through shared services. Gephart said that some positions were eliminated, but that the academy was able to find jobs — either inside the university or elsewhere — for every employee who wanted one.

Gephart {president of the Academy] said the partnership with Drexel has been a boon to the museum’s fund-raising….

ETC.

I realize that this is a science museum, but there are parallels with art museums in certain cases. To me, it’s an example that, while a last resort for struggling museums, is worth knowing about.

It was just over a month ago that I wrote here about the Freer-Sackler’s attempt to crowdfund its coming exhibition, Yoga: The Art of Transformation. With a campaign called “Together We’re One,” the museum set out to raise $125,000 between May 28 and July 1, with the money going to support the exhibition, exhibition-related web content, printing of the exhibition catalogues, and public programs (including a family festival).

What happened? A lot of money flowed in – as of this moment, according to the website, donors have contributed $129,050. So the Freer-Sackler* has extended the campaign for a week, until next Monday, “ to enfold as many studios, yogis, art lovers, ashrams, community organizations, and philanthropic individuals as possible into the fabric of yoga history.” It did not set a new goal.

The museum is playing its hand for this exhibition very well. Aside from crowdsourcing, it has enlisted Alec Baldwin and his relatively new wife, Hilaria Thomas, a yoga instructor, as chairs for the exhibition’s gala, “Some Enlightened Evening,” to be held next Oct. 17, two nights before the exhibition opens to the public. As controversial as Baldwin often is — most recently slurring a gay reporter via Twitter — he still draws people, and I believe will add to the Freer-Sackler’s coffers. With luck, he’ll even give it money, instead of just lending his name.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Freer-Sackler

*I consult to a foundation that supports the Freer-Sackler.