A look at any museum’s annual report or simply the playbill of a production will reveal an extensive list of donors separated into categories by the amount of their contribution. This is true for many arts institutions and especially for many of New York City’s “super-museums.” It seems philanthropy is more prevalent in the arts than in any other business. The Metropolitan Museum of Art’s annual report, for example, includes a lengthy section titled “Contributors to the Museum” where all who have donated more than $1,500 are formally recognized. The MET’s 2013 operating revenue (a total of $248.2 million) was funded (in 60 percent) by (1) gifts, grants, and funds released from restrictions and transfers, and (2) endowments. The majority of these contributions are often from wealthy individuals or couples, companies, and charitable foundations.
However, these donations often come attached with stipulations on what the money should be allocated towards. More often than not, it is requested that the funds help build a new wing or add a new art piece to a collection. Rarely are donors satisfied with giving their money to more mundane and less glamorous operational tasks, like redoing the air filtration system or maintaining the outer façade of a building. These acts of philanthropy come from a heroic need to “give back.” As Peter Buffet has called it, “conscience laundering” comes from the need to feel better about accumulating more than one person could ever spend in a lifetime by sprinkling a little around as acts of charity. Additionally, donors are more and more seeing philanthropy as a lofty entrance fee into higher social circles. The act of donating to a charity has begun to remove itself from the notion of being truly charitable. However, one may ask why it is necessary to question the motives of where the money comes from.
The motives are important because those who donate for selfish reasons are more likely to send their checks to well known arts institutions. Small galleries and regional museums are often forgotten due to the lack of publicity associated with their name. Donald and Shelley Rubin are two individuals who are breaking the norm by solely donating to less represented museums in every borough but Manhattan. They recently gave $300,000 to Socrates Sculpture Park in Long Island City to transform the former landfill into space possible for outdoor exhibitions. This act of charity certainly deviates from the traditional and makes a greater difference. Small institutions rely heavily on government financing to survive, far more than the MET does. And with the slow drying up of federal funding and the end to many philanthropic foundations, such as Bloomberg Philanthropies, these small institutions can put good use to the donations of the Rubin’s and other like-minded donors.
The New York City government has given considerable support to the super-museums. These federal grants allow for inexpensive and recommended admission fees, although they do not completely cover the cost needed to start free-entry. On one hand, weekly visitor attendance is high. On the other hand, there is still a gap between the operating costs and the total income from the recommended admission price. Some museums, such as the MET and the MoMA, have tried to remedy this problem by raising recommended admission prices. But, more commonly, this is where donations help bridge the balance sheet.
This practice of relying on donation campaigns and the philanthropy of individuals make museums vulnerable to any economic and business instability. As the arts world has seen with the closing of the New York City Opera, relying on appeals for fund-raising is not the strongest solution. City Opera tried to resolve long-term business obstacles with a short-term plea for money. Among those troubling business obstacles was the decision to move out of Lincoln Center shortly after renovating, cutting the season schedule short, and having an inaccessible list of production pieces. Even if City Opera had managed to raise the needed $7 million within a month’s time, many predict that the company would have run into the same problems the following production season.
Some may say that it is odd that the closing of City Opera has come, especially at this time when the city government has never supported the arts more. In his twelve years of incumbency, Mayor Bloomberg has always been a major advocate for the positive influence art can have on a neighborhood. And with the help of his immense personal wealth and his private foundation dedicated to helping arts institutions, it’s jarring to accept that a famed arts company will be dissolving and filing for bankruptcy. However, the arts community should come to terms with the possibility of this happening to all institutions that are poorly maintained and have a weak business structure. In the coming months, Bloomberg will no longer have control of where city money is to be appropriated and there is no telling whether soon-to-be Mayor De Blasio will give the same attention to the arts. These organizations have begun to wonder whether the new mayor will continue to support them, and, more importantly, will Citizen Bloomberg?
Charity has come to take different meanings depending on the intention of the gift, the size of the receiving museum, and how heavily the receiving museum relies on its donors. In different situations, such as a significant donation to a local museum, charity can be a positive welcome to arts institutions. However, many museums rely too heavily on outside donations for the extra support, as City Opera did. Philanthropy is as volatile a market as any other. The museums that rest business structures on this extremely erratic income are doomed to suffer equally erratic seasonal profits and losses. Even stable structures such as the government cannot guarantee a fixed allocation of sums year to year. Although it is fantastic that people are recognizing the importance of art, museums are not recognizing how dangerous it is to expect a certain threshold of philanthropic assistance. Charity has become so popularized to the point where museums have become expectant of donations from individuals and companies. This type of reliance is hazardous if unrestrained.
Works Cited
Buffet, Peter. “The Charitable-Industrial Complex.” ArtsBeat. The New York Times, 26 July 2013. Web. 17 Nov. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/opinion/the-charitable-industrial-complex.html>.
Cooper, Michael. “New York City Opera Announces It Will Close.” ArtsBeat. The New York Times, 1 Oct. 2013. Web. 17 Nov. 2013. <http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/01/new-york-city-opera-announces-it-will-close/?_r=0>.
Pogrebin, Robin. “Arts Groups Fear Losing a Mayor, And His Money.” ArtsBeat. The New York Times, 1 July 2013. Web. 17 Nov. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/02/arts/art-world-fears-losing-a-mayor-and-his-money.html?pagewanted=1>.
Pogrebin, Robin. “These Donors Will Take Anything But Manhattan.” ArtsBeat. The New York Times, 8 Oct. 2013. Web. 17 Nov. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/arts/design/these-donors-will-take-anything-but-manhattan.html?_r=0>.
