By John Karoly
Chicago, IL, USA

---

When J.S. Bach dedicated his six concertos to the Margrave of Brandenburg on 24 March 1721, the aristocrat had no idea what this dedication meant to his name. The concertos were placed into his library and sold, after his death a few years later, for the equivalent of about $25. They were never performed by his orchestra. They were too difficult for them to play. He never heard the concertos and he did not pay Bach for the works. These works became some of the most loved works in the classical music literature. The name "Brandenburg," while it is the name of a German State, is probably much better known outside of Germany by millions, made famous by the music of J.S. Bach. It was a much-undeserved dedication.

Great art has been short-changed throughout history. We read with teary eyes of great artists, whose works we enjoy immensely, of how they struggled to survive, often without food on their table. We seem to think that these were the problems of the past, it could not happen today. Not quite.

Most countries of Europe support the arts by providing funds to orchestras, museums, etc. out of the State coffers. Europeans believe that the support of the arts is a matter of pride, tradition and obligation. They realize the problems of the past more than perhaps anyone else. After all, most happened on European soil and they believe it should not happen again. Nice and pleasant thoughts, but there are a few problems when it comes to the realization. Problem number one is: who decides; number two: to whom are funds allocated; number three: how much; and last, but not least, how much total funds should be allocated to the Fine Arts. To start with the last issue, obviously in good times, when a country feels rich, when the revenues are ample, the allocation is generous. During those times the art world only has to worry about the first three problems. Of course in times of fiscal curtailments, the available funds are cut, at times severely. Now the fight of who gets what and why becomes much more severe. But even in good times these problems are serious. The decision about who gets and how much is left to government officials nominally advised by experts from the art world. The fight for funds is inversely proportional to the availability of these funds. The process is extremely political. Infighting is constant. Who gets shortchanged? What great artist is not recognized?  We might say the system does not really solve the problems.

The American system depends on donations. A large number of donors, usually members of the audience or supporters of an institution, make various sums of tax-deductible donations. As these are tax-deductible, the U.S. Government is a participant in the donations; that is, taxpayer's money is used in part to support the various organizations. But the judgment of how much money to give and to what organization and for what purpose is left to a large number of people rather than to a few government officials. On the other hand, if the donations are not coming in, the organization is in trouble. And today charitable donations are down, way down. Many old, established organizations are temporarily or permanently shut. Others are struggling to keep their heads above water. One might wonder, why is the situation so bad in segments of the art world?

Well, firstly, the economy is bad, that is obvious. When the donors are not doing well, and here "well" is relative only to the extent that some are better or much better off than others, they are all worse off relative to their prior income and wealth and they all feel the need to tighten their belts. Unfortunately charitable donations are the first place everyone can cut, and most do. The wealthy panic even more when they are losing money. There are plenty of anecdotal references to the almost irrational fear and panic actions of the wealthy when their finances turn significantly negative.

Furthermore, it is common knowledge that endowments are mishandled by many, if not most, organizations and donors feel offended when they are asked to donate to inept management. This adds insult to injury especially when the donors begin to feel that the ineptitude is combined with negligence and at times arrogance on the part of the Board of Directors or Trustees.

Organizations supported by the wealth of single donors are the exception. These, like the Getty Museum in Los Angeles, are well endowed for posterity. They can serve the public without the burden of soliciting donors' or taxpayers' money. Getty's name is and will be remembered not only as a founder of an oil company but also by his vision and donation to his museum. He, no doubt, knew the story of Christian Ludwig and/or others and wanted to be sure that it is he who is remembered by the institution he created, not only through the art in his museum.

It is good news that the very wealthy worldwide enjoy donating their money to establish institutions named after themselves, and endow these institutions with sufficient funds to enable them to sustain themselves. Then we, ordinary folks, can visit and enjoy the works in these museums. Unfortunately, this principle does not apply to all forms of art. Large privately maintained municipal museums get plenty of high value donations named after the donor. These donations, while high in value create a tax deduction for the donor, but do nothing to help fund the museums to pay their expenses. Large donations are not the same as donor-funded institutions that are provided with endowments to run them in perpetuity.

Classical music has to sustain itself as it goes, except for the concert halls in which the music is performed. Theses halls may be built by and named after a wealthy donor, but running an orchestra or an opera company is expensive. Ticket sales to performances provide only 40 to 50% of the operating costs. When the support is not there, these old and well-established organizations get into trouble. Should the U.S. government ever decide to take away the charitable deduction provision in the tax code, charitable donations could collapse. The new budget plans, we understand, contemplate reducing or eliminating the deductibility of charitable donations and it appears to have the support of both political parties. If this happens, musicians will lose their hard earned jobs and communities will have to do without the music and the halls they had the pleasure to spend some or many of their evenings in. It is a loss which will be hard to replace for those whose life centered around these institutions. Without the arts, our society would not be the same. Music and the visual arts have been part of human society as far back as these societies existed. Music is and was part of each human being's make-up; cave drawings dating back to the Stone Age and before testify to our need and desire to express ourselves artistically. We have a choice, either turn the support of the arts over to the government on the European model or keep it as it is but don't burden it with eliminating tax deductibility. That it could not tolerate.* (It should be noted that the existing American model is preferable as it is the least political and the most widely spread decision-making process.)

Further, we should note that our society educates many good musicians and artists of all disciplines, most of whom cannot get a job or have a sustainable means of support. The disciplines needed today are tradesmen, like welders, pipe fitters, technicians educated to run sophisticated machinery, computer programmers, robotics specialist, process engineers and the likes. Seeing to it that we educate individuals for these trades does not make us barbarians, only a more practical society. If we train and employ people in fields in demand for good wages, they will be able to join the rank of donors who enjoy and support the arts while bringing the country out of its economic malaise and helping to reestablish our cultural institutions.

 

*See Robert J. Shiller  "Please Don't Mess with the Charitable Deduction," New York Times, Dec 16, 2012

All opinions expressed by John Karoly are solely his own and do not reflect the opinions of Stay Thirsty Media, Inc.