In Defense of Cultural Philanthropy

            Many of our class discussions have focused on what types of philanthropy use resources most efficiently and create the greatest impact. While discussing collective impact, strategic and emergent philanthropy, impact investing, and meaningful giving, we make judgments about the best way to give time and money. After all, we are all trying to find out how to make our $10,000 do as much good as it can. So, we discount strategies that we deem less useful/efficient and defend the ones that we believe create more good. This is probably why on Tuesday, we quickly dismissed what Doris Buffet calls “S.O.B.” (symphony, opera and ballet) donations as selfish, ego-seeking, or ignoring greater problems. However, I think we may have jumped the gun when talking about donations to arts and culture.

            It’s hard to argue that donating a new museum wing or Velasquez masterpiece is more important than giving money to stop preventable diseases and save thousands of lives. As Gilda pointed out in her post last week, these art gallery donations do more to feed ego and perception than help society. Bill Gates agrees; in a 2013 Financial Times interview, he referenced Peter Singer’s philosophy and questioned why billionaires would want to put their name on an art gallery rather than preventing illnesses that lead to blindness. It seems clear that those who have money should put aside their egos and donate to causes that have a positive impact on those who are suffering, not those who want to view art. The logic behind this argument is compelling, yet its moral absolutism makes it too easy to discount the true benefits of cultural institutions.

            If we accept this argument as complete absolutists, we are essentially saying that any resources we have should be donated only to the most efficient causes. In this case, the money you just spent on that milkshake could have helped provide clean water to an impoverished child. You’re selfish to buy that new shirt, vacation to Mexico, have an extravagant wedding ceremony, or build a huge new campus for your charitable foundation. You could have worn an old shirt, stayed home and visited a cough local museum, had a small ceremony, or bought a smaller yet efficient complex. There are people dying! For most of us, that ascetic lifestyle sounds absurd – or at the least very difficult. While we are aware of global suffering and would like to fix all the problems in the world, it is simply not how we live or think. We will still buy that Taylor Swift album even though we know that our money could help people dying of preventable diseases. Most people have already accepted that they’re not renouncing earthly pleasures because they can prevent others’ problems. Therefore, we should not look down upon giving to arts and culture just because there are worthier causes. In my worldview, it is okay to partake in less urgent causes as long as you also devote time to the more urgent ones.

            However, the argument for giving to culture and artistic institutions extends much further that the fact that it’s not an either/or scenario. In fact, cultural and artistic institutions are an essential part of our lives because they provide a positive impact on our society and humanity as a whole. Museums and archives provide invaluable records of human achievement and culture. Art and artifacts show us what a culture valued, how they struggled and what mistakes they made. The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City celebrates art from cultures all around the world and throughout time. A child who spends a day being exposed to art of Africa, Asia, and pre-European America may leave the museum with a greater appreciation of the culture of her peers, growing up to be a more tolerant person. Similarly, the National Holocaust museum in DC serves as a memorial and archive for knowledge and items from one of humanity’s worst eras. It brings people in direct contact with pictures and belongings of those killed in concentration camps. A few hours spent in that museum may change one’s views on humanity, perhaps inspiring them to do more to stop current genocides and human rights abuses. According to the New York Times piece “Art Makes You Smart,” social scientists have found that museum field trips lead to “stronger critical thinking skills, displayed higher levels of social tolerance, exhibited greater historical empathy and developed a taste for art museums and cultural institutions.” Cultural organizations and museums rely on donations from private individuals and government funding to continue to preserve culture. By not funding these institutions, we risk losing diversity in culture and thought, which would only position us towards intolerance and repeating the mistakes of our past.

            It is also important to remember that art and culture institutions are not simply passive entities, they are dynamic organizations that engage their communities and can provide opportunities to underprivileged people. Many institutions have educational programs and provide scholarships to schools that cannot afford their normal rates. They provide jobs, tourism, and community gathering places. The system is not perfect though; a 2011 report from the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy shows that only 10% of grant making for cultural institutions has a goal of benefitting underprivileged community and only 4% directly targets social justice goals (the report also offers great arguments for why art institutions are important.) Nevertheless, these institutions have an opportunity to provide positive social and economic growth for their communities. For example, an afterschool program that gives underprivileged young adults a chance to experience different cultures and express their own through the arts would have many benefits. It would enlighten and educate them while keeping them away from illicit activities (similar to how community centers are built to combat heroin problems) and providing them with experience for a college resumé.

Institutions like these are different than what Doris Buffet probably meant when she was referring to symphonies, operas and ballets, a favorite pastime of the rich. Likewise, I don’t doubt that Gates and Gilda recognize the importance of cultural institutions. They rightfully point out the greed and hypocrisy behind big ego-boosting donations of wealthy individuals who ignore more important issues. Yet to stop the conversation there is to shortchange the vast good that these institutions do.

Moving forward, I think we should consider multifaceted programs that could simultaneously benefit more abstract needs like culture and more concrete needs like homelessness and hunger. What do you think? Do you agree that cultural institutions can be similarly important to social needs ones? Does doing the most good with our $10,000 mean focusing on concrete needs rather than more abstract cultural ones?

Caleb Django Schwartz