On Demand
Rags to Riches
By Claudia La Rocco
July 14, 2008
Spiraling living expenses, unaffordable health insurance, the rampant disappearance of studio space to make way for luxury developments, prohibitively expensive admission prices which make it increasingly difficult to keep up on what’s happening in theaters and museums … this really isn’t a good time for artists in New York. More days than not, it seems, somebody mentions that another one has jumped ship for Minneapolis or Berlin or some other more arts-friendly city.
So, I can’t imagine that there were too many cheers of joy from artists at the news that David H. Koch has given $100 million to the capital campaign for the State Theater (soon to be known as the David H. Koch - pronounced “Coke” - Theater).
I gave Counter Critic $100 million for the rights to this photo.
I wasn’t either - great, another gaudy gift from a so-called arts patron who gets to have his name on a high-profile chunk of real estate and be applauded during the next round of New York City Opera and New York City Ballet galas. I’m sure the artists who can afford the nosebleed tickets will be really impressed with the renovations, especially when they compare them to their dire living and work situations.
Of course, buildings need to be maintained. It’s not cheap, and the money has to come from somewhere, and people like to have their egos stroked. I’m less bothered by the naming game than Counter Critic, who wrote an interesting post about the leasing of identity; he wonders “if there isn’t something ultimately fatal about naming a venue to the highest bidder.”
I take his point that tacky corporate dealings can inhibit how communities relate to their arts institutions. But I’m more concerned with the (often terribly safe) quality of the work that happens in the big institutions, and the reflexive, too-prevalent, totally wrongheaded attitude that the bigger an institution, the more important it is. I wish the term “world class” could be banned from the arts lexicon.
And I wish that generous people like David H. Koch might think, next time, of putting $100 million directly toward artists. Maybe the recipients could tattoo his name on their arms or something …
“We want to keep New York City’s status as the place where the best and brightest from all over the world come to live and work, and this campaign helps extend the State Theater’s ability to serve artists and audiences for the 21st century,” Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg was quoted as saying in the press release. Yes, we do - and so far we’re not putting our money where our mouths are nearly often enough.
Comments
Comment from Claudia La Rocco
Date: July 14, 2008, 9:57 am
I should mention that there are some organizations and individuals who are working to right the philanthropic balance. I’ll be writing about one of them a bit later in the summer.
Comment from Doug Fox
Date: July 14, 2008, 6:18 pm
What would the real response to this be:
“And I wish that generous people like David H. Koch might think, next time, of putting $100 million directly toward artists. Maybe the recipients could tattoo his name on their arms or something …”
Of course, it would be great if this huge chunk of money flowed directly to artists. But why should a donor realistically consider this possibility?
If a collective of artists can’t offer real estate naming rights, than what concrete benefits can artists deliver?
The Field is in beginning stages of exploring new biz models for artists - I think this will be interesting initiative. More about “Economic Revitalization for Performing Artists (ERPA)” here.
Comment from brian rogers
Date: July 14, 2008, 7:14 pm
to my mind it’s less about the distinction between artist and institution (though it’s certainly a valid point for argument) and more to do with the distinction between big and small institutions. It’s no secret that reductions in arts funding (both public and private) skew exponentially to the detriment of smaller/younger groups. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. Just like real life. It’s true that the State theater comes jam packed with big ticket marquee value, and serves many thousands of people (not all of them rich) but that’s almost beside the point as I see it. The taxpayer, and the ordinary citizen, are subsidizing these huge cultural behemoths, even though it’s been proven that the smaller places provide the real economic impact, which as benefits go is pretty darn concrete. And what is the return? Taken together, individual artists and small cultural groups create more jobs, and contribute to economic growth on a local level, in a way that the larger institutions could ever hope to do. Someone please correct me if you feel that I’m wrong on this. If the State theater can secure $100m from David Koch, maybe they shouldn’t be getting public funds.
Comment from Counter Critic
Date: July 15, 2008, 10:26 am
I actually like the term “world-class.” Does that make me a bourgie?
Comment from Claudia La Rocco
Date: July 15, 2008, 10:29 am
Hey Doug, I agree with you 100 percent that artists need to be looking at different business models. Sustainability is a wonderful thing, and if artists can find ways to do it on their own, all power to them.
But many simply can’t. And isn’t that the idea behind philanthropy - to give because people are in need, because the cause is worthy and because it’s the right thing to do, not because we get something out of it? Maybe it sounds hopelessly Pollyanna-ish to suggest that Koch give so much money simply because he believes in something, but anonymous donors do it all the time, and keep in mind that, according to the NYT, $100 million represents only half of one percent of his wealth. I’m always giving money to the performers I see on the subway - a dollar or two is nothing for me, it’s half of a coffee (sadly, less than half sometimes). I do it because they’re working hard but also because they do deliver concrete benefits to me: they delight, they entertain, they make me think, they make my subway ride go a hell of a lot faster.
There’s such a disconnect in arts giving, and in the way we think about arts in America, often. Remember that 2003 Urban Institute survey which found that “While 96% of Americans value art in their communities and lives only 27% value artists.” Huh??
The United States Artists organization mentions it: http://www.unitedstatesartists.org/Public/AboutUnitedStatesArtists/index.cfm
More about USA later…
Comment from Claudia La Rocco
Date: July 15, 2008, 10:31 am
CC! Say it ain’t so …
I don’t have a problem with the term, except when people talk about needing an outdated, behemoth performing arts center in order to make their city “world-class” - see the Arsht Center down in Miami, for example … a city that takes care of its people, including its artists, seems a lot classier to me.
Comment from Claudia La Rocco
Date: July 15, 2008, 10:37 am
That’s a great point, Brian. Since the State Theater is cutting its language-ties to the public, perhaps the purse strings should also be snipped.
Yeah, right. That’s going to happen.
Do you have a link to numbers on what kind of economic growth is spurred by smaller institutions vs. bigger ones?
For most people, the taxpayer return isn’t much - it always amazes me to see ushers kicking people out of the good State Theater seats (that theater, in my experience, is the worst) when they’ve snuck down from the nosebleeds, even on nights when the place is all but empty. I remember one time the people around a kid (a teenage boy! the holy grail for arts marketers!!) complained on his behalf that he be allowed to stay. Nothing doing.
Comment from Claudia La Rocco
Date: July 15, 2008, 10:37 am
Although, in fairness, a lot of people are served by free programs at LC
Comment from Erik
Date: July 15, 2008, 11:05 am
How original, take a stand against the rich guy and defend the struggling artists. While I agree that this really isn’t a good time for artists in New York, I find it offensive and small minded to take a stand against someone donating $100 million to the arts. It is incredibly expensive to run organizations the size of NYCO and NYCB. Don’t know if you have been lately but the State Theater is in desperate need of renovations and the operating budgets of the institutions can not afford to pay for them since first and foremost they must pay artists and administrators. State money in the US doesn’t come close to covering costs and institutions must court private dollars to stay alive. A renovated theater attracts ticket buyers and donors which allows institutions to pay artists. And to your concern about the “terribly safe quality of the work that happens in the big institutions” have you read about the appointment of Gerard Mortier, the so-called “bad boy of opera” to head NYCO? Your diatribe shows a dire lack of understanding of how cultural institutions survive in this country.
Comment from Claudia La Rocco
Date: July 15, 2008, 11:27 am
Hey Erik,
Well, I don’t think it was quite a diatribe, but I can see how the tone of my post could be taken as offensive, and I appreciate your thoughts.
And I certainly wasn’t claiming originality, but there is a terrible imbalance in how art is supported, and it’s worth repeating from time to time.
I am waiting with breath held, like many people in NYC, to see what Mortier does, and I am thrilled that the State Theater’s resident companies have agreed on a plan to improve the acoustics (finally!). But work at the bigger houses, by and large, is terribly safe, and artists in New York (I’m not talking about the relatively privileged artists who work at big companies) are in dire need of support. Everyone knows how difficult it is to get patrons to give to artists, or to the creation of work - capital campaigns are much easier, because people get to see their names writ large. I’m not suggesting that people stop giving in this manner (and apologies if that’s how I came across) just that there be more equity in how people give to the arts. I did say “next time” after all …
Comment from anonymous
Date: July 16, 2008, 1:46 pm
Doug
It is frightening to me that we seem to live in a world that cannot see outside of the context of commodification - artists need a new business model. Mayor Koch (a Koch of a different sort!) noticed that the theater in NY was imperiled and built actors a place to live to keep them here, knowing it was good for the city. No arts are something of a different nature - and necessary to the maintenance of our humanity, if only because they balance our culture’s grasping ways with time spent “in the right lobe”.
Comment from Counter Critic
Date: July 16, 2008, 3:16 pm
Doug wrote: “Of course, it would be great if this huge chunk of money flowed directly to artists. But why should a donor realistically consider this possibility?”
This used to be called patronage. It still happens. A person of means giving money directly to an artist he or she believes in. Tchaikovsky and Wagner had them, as did countless artists throughout history.
With modern taxes, it becomes a much more thorny issue. Mr. Koch wouldn’t be able to write off a gift he made directly to an individual. He has to give it to a non-profit organization in order to make the gift worth his while.
Now, yes, there are places like The Field. In that case, I think this speaks to a general timidness expressed by philanthropists to really put their money behind artists. It’s safer to give the money to the institution who will then be responsible for taking the fall if something goes terribly awry with the art.
I think, also, people are generally uncomfortable with the idea of subsidizing the life of an artist. But many great artists were only allowed to achieve greatness because of–essentially–handouts from wealthy people.
We have to resuscitate this idea, especially with so much individual wealth out there, and so few beneficiaries of direct patronage.
Comment from Claudia La Rocco
Date: July 16, 2008, 4:35 pm
Good points all, CC - do you have any strategies mapped out?
And what do you think is behind this discomfort? It seems to me that when status is involved (when, for example, the artist being subsidized is a famous ballerina, and you get your name in a program for sponsoring her), discomfort miraculously dissipates …
Comment from Doug Fox
Date: July 18, 2008, 11:45 am
Follow-up to cc’s “resuscitate this idea” of subsidizing the lives/work of artists:
I think it would be very worthwhile if dance/arts orgs. took-up this idea (or a group of people got together) and addressed it in concrete manner.
Although we’re talking about subsidizing artists, there still has to be biz/marketing component of such an initiative. What would this type of artist subsidy look like? Would artists share their creations/research/findings/work via the Internet? What would patrons get out of this?
How would likely objections such as discomfort be addressed?
Are there funding organizations that are essentially doing this already?
Write a comment