Why do the wealthy donate to the arts? Obligation to do so was my first thought, but after reading Robin Pogrebin’s article, “These Donors Will Take Anything but Manhattan,” I learned why. Social status. Pogrebins says that “gifts serve as something of an entry fee to New York’s loftiest social circles.” Wealth is not enough to be acknowledged by the social elite. A deeply rooted love for the arts is required and investing large sums of money to popular organizations masks feigned interest. I do not see art as a business, but others think very differently.
Knowing art donations have self-interested intentions, I am surprised to read on and find a wealthy couple breaking the norm. Shelly and Donald Rubin donate money to small art establishments, such as the Bronx and Queens Museums, with no expectations in return. Their donations, one $300,000 and two $500,000, are small compared to the $100 million donation to the New York Public Library, but large compared to other donations received from these small institutions. The Rubins simply love art and feel obligated to support it. True and honest intentions.
Unlike larger institutions which host events to praise and publicize those who contribute, smaller institutions have little to offer. Only a very grateful thank-you. That is why the Rubins’ string of donations to a number of lesser-known art institutions is surprising. Their hands on approach is also a shock. While many donate through representatives, the Rubins discuss issues face-to-face. “At the Bronx Museum, for example, Mr. Rubin talked at length with Ms. Block about building attendance before deciding to help finance the museum’s free admission.” The Rubins act on their concerns and besides a short article on The Times, they have little acknowledgment.
I hate less than meaningful intentions so this article was a nice read. Pretending to have a passion for art by signing a check takes away from those who love art, but do not have means to support it. However, I cannot judge because I am neither a lover for the arts nor a wealthy socialite, but I can have an opinion.
Works Cited
Pogrebin, Robin. “These Donors Will Take Anything but Manhattan.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 08 Oct. 2013. Web. 11 Oct. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/arts/design/these-donors-will-take-anything-but-manhattan.html?ref=design>.
In truth we need in my opinion these self absorbed aristocrats who have the money to share. When I was reading this, the first thing that came to mind was the song “love makes the world go round,” just replace love with money. These billionaires are what give us the opportunities to go to museums for free. Without their donations we wouldn’t have museums today, tourism would decline, and NYC/ America wouldn’t be what it is.
I wonder how this entire concept of donating to the arts to join a society started. Maybe one man that originally DID have a passion for arts decided without rich people to help the arts wouldn’t be preserved….and here we are today. Assistants of billionaires donating to the arts.
It’s interesting that even though these high status, wealthy people contribute money to the arts, the arts is quickly disappearing. If donating money towards the arts is a requirement to be considered part of an elite social circle, then this situation should be a win for the donators and a win for the art institutions. Thanks to people such as the Rubins, small art institutions are able to survive these troubling times. From reading the article and your summarization, the Rubins seem like people who respect art for what it is rather than an entrance pass into the elite social class. I agree with Jessamyn that even though these aristocrats are self-centered, their donations are what allow students like us opportunities to explore the arts, free of charge or for a discount.
I think you bring up a great point that most wealthy people only donate for the “hidden benefits.” They expect a ceremony, articles and a bunch of people applauding and thanking them. Although I am sure there are wealthy people who donate because they genuinely love and are interested in the arts (like the couple you mentioned), your article brought up some doubts that I have about the elitist one percent. To these people, their donation of $500,000 may seem like petty change. I feel like they think of their donation as something they are obligated to do in order to be able to get into high “social circles.” I can’t help thinking that this approach is totally wrong. Although I appreciate that they are donating money to sponsor the arts, I wish it were more genuine and they didn’t expect anything from their donations.
I love how the Rubin’s donated because they actually wanted to and not for social status. They clearly have no ulterior motive, since those institutions can’t give anything in return. It’s nice to see that smaller art institutions are also getting some help rather than only the big institutions getting all the donations. It kind of is a win-win situation (albeit art is declining) since the art institutions stay alive, and the viewers (us) get to visit them. Honestly, I’m not a fan of museums, but there probably are a lot of people who do, so this money would be extremely helpful in keeping museums alive.
Honestly, I feel like the wealthier classes do engage in unenthusiastic donations, and not just with the arts. There are very few people who truly appreciate the cause that they are donating to, especially when they do not have to worry about financials. There are obviously some decent people who do appreciate the cause that they are supporting, though it is not the norm. I wish that weren’t the case, because art is truly spectacular, and maybe if there were more donors out there, art would become a profession where one is able to thrive, and people would not go into something other than art simply for monetary purposes.
It’s very intriguing to take a look at how people choose to spend their money when given the choice. The fact that the Rubins choose to give their money towards the arts instead of simply donating to charities already says something. Thy have chosen to support the arts, and it is clear and very cool that they choose to support what they want, not simply what popularity dictates. They choose to donate to certain institutions which aren’t as popular to help them stay alive and to help them fund and garner more opportunities. It’s definitely very nice what this couple is doing in terms of helping so many places.
To be honest, if the wealthy socialites want to donate their money to museums and to the arts, even if it is not with the most genuine intentions, I am not going to stop them. While I do believe the work of Shelly and Donald Rubin is more admirable and perhaps more praiseworthy I still respect the donations of the socialites who are giving to enhance their status. After all they are donating their money, whatever their reasons may be, it helps us students and citizens. I think its appropriate to praise the Rueben’s and I am happy they are finally getting the recognition that they deserve in this article.
There really are people out there who simply love art and wish to share the joy of seeing and learning about art to others who are less fortunate. What the Rubins did and are still doing is amazing in the fact that they aren’t using art to hold themselves on a pedestal of fame. As you said, it is really refreshing that they aren’t using art to provide for the success of their ulterior motives.
Art has been connected with business for a long time but I don’t think we’ve been able to step back and look at art for what it is. It’s an appreciation for all things inspirational and commonplace. To put a price on that and use it flaunt one’s fame and wealth is ridiculous. It’s good to know there are still people like the Rubins who care for art because they simply love it.