Growing as a part of moral society, we are taught to help the poor. Thanks to Shelley and Donald Rubin who have donated over a million dollars for the past year, many art institutions were able to receive a ray of light. However, what makes the Rubins different from other donors is not the amount of their donation, but where they donate. Some of the organizations they support include the Socrates Sculpture Park in Long Island City, the Queens Museum of Art, and the Bronx Museum of Arts. Unconventionally, they are all located outside of Manhattan: a mecca for arts and entertainment. By choosing to donate to non-Manhattan venues, the Rubins are losing their privilege to be “acknowledged at glamorous ballroom galas,” with “their names etched onto prominent buildings.” Yet, they are winning the opportunity to truly demonstrate their belief, “small really is beautiful.”
Nevertheless, it is too quick to judge that the Rubins are the only “revolutionary” donors out there. Henry Christensen III and his wife have been aiding those in their home borough of Brooklyn, while Alan Suna, his brother and a colleague have supported the museums in Queens over the last twelve years. Does this mean that such underrepresented institutions are receiving enough spotlight? Not so much. Many face significant financial crises, which make $5,000 individual contributions worth a million dollars to them. However, as the article already indicates, such donations “can also come with strings attached.” Although I understand that this notion is often true, I oppose it. I believe that the arts should remain independent and free; it should not be manipulated by any other means.
The broad concept of supporting those in need does not only exist in the arts world of New York City, but also globally, through prominent examples of Olympic Games and World Cup. By hosting in developing countries, the IOC and FIFA are ultimately allowing them to grow and advance. For example, the 1988 Seoul and 2008 Beijing Olympic Games helped those cities to be one step closer towards progress and innovation. Before the events were hosted in South Korea and China, many people had heard of negative aspects, which turned out to be simple preconceptions. Similarly, there are many other nations with much potential, such as India, Brazil, and Russia, waiting to be discovered. Perhaps it is about time to give more attention to the underrepresented. They certainly deserve it.
Works Cited
Pogrebin, Robin. “These Donors Will Take Anything but Manhattan.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 08 Oct. 2013. Web. 10 Oct. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/arts/design/these-donors-will-take-anything-but-manhattan.html?ref=design>.
Great title (go Tom Cruise)! I agree with you that giving recognition to those that aren’t as “mainstream” is important for cultural diversity. Lesser known institutions (or countries) would be encouraged to develop and become part of the global spotlight. In addition, doing so will also help break social stereotypes and stigmas that would otherwise be detrimental to public relations and globalization. Giving attention to the underrepresented gives them a voice, allowing them to share their distinctive qualities and contributions to everyone else. You never know what you might find as looks are always deceiving. You could be in for a surprise.
I enjoy reading articles like this because it brings light to issues that are commonly lost or overshadowed by the more pressing and sensationalized stories. In the city that never sleeps, where countless events happen, some do not receive the due recognition and respect. I think it would be nice if we take a chance to appreciate philanthropists like the Rubins, who have set new bars in philanthropy by renouncing credit and fame for personal beliefs. Their dedication to the arts in the four boroughs may not have brought the boroughs up to par with Manhattan, but they are certainly a step closer.
Conversely, those who donate money in hopes of receiving credit, or as you mentioned, have stipulations in their donations, are doing charitable acts somewhat selfishly. If one believes that it’s the outcome that matters, then one can overlook the intention of the philanthropist easily. However, if one takes into account the intention of the benefactor, then one may find the act of donation for fame selfish. Either way, this is an ethical issue, where solutions vary from one perspective to the next.
Lastly, I found it interesting how we are now taking a universal or holistic approach to arts. I like how countries are increasingly putting aside their egos to encourage the arts, and thereby, the economy, of the developing nations. I strong believe that the underrepresented should be given an opportunity to shine because they may have something new and unique to offer.
One’s potential does not always show clearly. No matter how badly one is doing right now, we can’t deny his possibility for greatness in the future. It is important for us to recognize the abilities of the minorities. Through supports to otherwise unseen institutions, we can bring them into the general view of the world. Doing so, we bring about new voices and new views into our global society. You never know how great the impacts these once ignored voices and ideas could make. It’s not unlikely that we might start the next generation of cultural revolution.
I think that it is interesting that the Rubins have devoted their time and money in museums that are not less popular, but less recognized as say, the Metropolitan or Museum of Modern Art. Yet, I have definitely heard of them before. This just goes to illustrate that people just do it because they love art, not solely for gaining recognition. Also the less recognized museums do need the funding. Manhattan based art centers get the funding from tourists (who may not know about the recommended fee), whereas museums in Queens or Brooklyn may not get that type of popularity. I also liked that you related it to the potential of smaller countries in terms of the Olympic Games. Give smaller countries a chance to shine.
Janice Fong
Janice Fong
It is good to see someone help more the sake of helping than by trying to get something big out of it. Like you said, they gave up opportunities to be recognized by donating outside of famous places. It also important to donate to non-Manhattan venues to avoid a something resembling a monopoly. If only famous Manhattan venues stick around while others venues fail due to lack of funds, the Manhattan venues will have a lot more control in the area of the arts.
I also liked your examples of the olympics in Beijing and Seoul. I will honestly admit that I used to think Beijing was an empty, overly-industrial places with nothing but factories and suffering. But the Olympics gave China a chance to show a different side of Beijing. It helped them overcome pre-conceived notions as you said.
You picked a great article that raised awareness of a good deed done by the Rubins.
The Rubin’s contributions probably help more art institutions than it could have had they all been located in Manhattan. Therefore, their specific choice to do so seems to be driven by purely selfless means. Your statement that art should not be manipulated or steered in a certain direction was an interesting statement. I think that it’s very rare for that to be true nowadays when the arts are deteriorating and famous institutions are even suffering. The New York City Opera’s last production “Anna Nicole Smith” was put on to attract a more youthful crowd. Thus, art is often subject to conforming or being manipulated to appeal to a certain crowd. Whether art has not been twisted is based on the motivations of the artist because an artist that has not largely been recognized may feel more compelled to adapt their work to appeal to the general audience. Art at its center is about a perspective and an opinion, two aspects of thinking that can change with new evidence.
I like that you chose to write on this topic because it’s quite interesting to look into how many things like museums, zoos, theaters, etc, are financed. For instance, I feel like many of us attend these places, but fail to think about who pays for it all. If the entrance is free for us, we might think that the whole place must be easy to maintain, almost forgetting about all the costs that go into maintaining any institution. Similarly, if we do hear about someone donating to a place, we usually find their name on a plaque or bench to thank them. Meanwhile, it’s nice to read about the Rubins’ and their devotion to simply doing good and helping others. This particularly shines through in the comment about the Bronx Museum, where even though the admission is free, the Rubins’ wish to attract more people. This shows that they are really devoted to helping all of these enjoyable places which is really sweet.
Also, I like how you brought in the idea about the Olympics because it’s true that when such an event is held somewhere it can help drastically. Similarly, the Rubins’ donations can be just as helpful to smaller institutions, and it says a lot about their characters’ that they still choose to donate to these places, as opposed to, like your article mentioned. being acknowledged at glamorous ballrooms and having their names etched into buildings. To them, donating to these smaller-scale arts supporters and places is glamorous, so that’s really cool.
It’s reassuring to hear that people like the Rubins are contributing to lesser-known art institutions outside of Manhattan that nevertheless have the potential to grow and thrive. By giving them even a little bit of financial support, they gain opportunities that they wouldn’t previously have had. These donations not only give the institutions a chance to prosper, but also help to break traditional stereotypes. I think it’s honorable that people are acknowledging these less-prominent organizations that are trying to achieve bigger and better things. With a little assistance, anyone and anything can accomplish greater goals.
I am really delighted to hear that there are philanthropists like the Rubins who are donating to lesser-known art institutions outside of Manhattan. For most people, when they hear about the arts of New York City, they only think about the arts in Manhattan but in reality, everywhere in New York City has a plethora of art. I think it is important to give recognition to places that are not as popular so that they are not forgotten. Arts located outside of Manhattan are just as valuable and essential as the arts in Manhattan. I am also glad to hear that the Rubins are performing charity solely to benefit others rather than with the intention of gaining fame and recognition.
I like your example of the Olympics and World Cup featuring games in developing nations. They really do take an effort to promote developing countries such as the 2010 South Africa FIFA World Cup, and as you mentioned the 1988 Seoul and 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. There are certainly much more in place for developing nations as Brazil looks forward to the 2014 FIFA World Cup and the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro. I am glad that developing nations are given an opportunity to showcase themselves to the world because it not only helps the nation grow but it can also help break stereotypes and make everyone more cultured.
With New York City’s large arts and culture scenes, there are an abundance of events to attend; however, many smaller institutions outside Manhattan are commonly overlooked and do not receive proper recognition. That is why I applaud the Rubins’ contribution and devotion to institutions that are less recognized and more unknown. It is still important to support these kinds of institutions because they offer valuable variety and insight to the arts. With donations, they can truly grow and prosper. In addition, it is nice to see people do good deeds purely for selfless means. Often, people perform charitable acts for positive recognition and attention but the Rubins donate money just to help those in need. The Rubins are an excellent example of genuine kindness and philanthropy.
As good as the intentions of these donors, the fact remains that the underrepresented still remain somewhat unrepresented even if they are brought to the attention of the masses. This is mainly attributed to the fact that venues that tend to be prosperous tend to have a large crowd of loyal customers and are well known. While reading this response, I felt a sense of helplessness. The fact that there are instances that separate similar entities so greatly. This instance of philanthropy is admirable but I am still skeptical at the impact it will have on the museums. I like your reference to Beijing about the chance for less known countries to show themselves on the world stage, there is definitely potential for these countries to prove themselves to the world. Hopefully, the other museums are able to set themselves apart from the museums in Manhattan, so they can gain popularity and possibly receive more donations.
I’m glad to hear that Donald and Shelley Rubin are donating to smaller, less well-known art institutions outside of Manhattan, rather than the bigger, more renowned ones. Just because some of these art havens are not as well-known doesn’t mean that it can’t contain just as much beauty and wonder as bigger museums. Although I agree that the arts should remain independent and free, sometimes the arts do need a boost, whether it is a financial situation or marketing. The addition of the Olympics adds a very nice touch to the post as it brings about the idea of a treasure hiding underneath a layer of dirty generalizations.
I think it is really important to have people like the Rubins because mere donation is not nearly as affective as strategic philanthropy. I disagree when you say that the arts should be free. If the arts are struggling to survive, as they are in the boroughs outside Manhattan, outside help is often necessary at almost any cost. Donations can-jump start institutions like this, and allow them to build enough so that they can eventually attract a big enough crowd to be self-sufficient. Look at something like the Bronx Zoo. For many New Yorkers, this is one of the few reasons they have ever been to the Bronx. If this zoo lacked enough funding and support to become big enough to be self sufficient, it would have ceased to exist. However, a donation can extend a collection, and the end result is that people all over New York City have immediate access to the arts and eventually you have a great diversification of the arts as a whole.
Its always nice to hear about people who chose to do unconventional things for the good of humanity. While the Rubins could’ve donated to a large establishment, like the MET, they chose to support local theaters and museums. Maybe, their donation was intended to spark a movement to donate to smaller establishments. Some smaller venues and theaters may be just as good as the MET, but just don’t have the money to put on such elaborate show. While I believe its important to have philanthropists, like the Rubins, supports smaller arts, I also think its still important to keep receiving large contributions to large places. Without that funding, the MET would not be able to continue to put on their extravagant shows.