Philanthropy and finding your own space

[artist]

I think that it is about time the government stopped propping up the failing and waining businesses that call themselves the cultural sector...cut all funding to the arts council and develop a purer and healther model of private sector cultural aspiration.  The arts exist in the private sector as advertising and corporate rewards...Let them start to pay for this properly instead of pretending to be givers and creaming the support from the small tax payer.

 

I once asked what was in it for the local and community artist when they were building a new gallery near where I live...This gallery was paid for from Lottery monies, tickets mainly bought by the low waged tax payer, some of those are local and community artists...I was told that there was no provision in their vision for that sector of the broader cultural industries and that it was more for the international arena and that which is governed by Tate Galleries circuit, again supported and proped up by the tax payer.

 

Now it has been brought to my attention that those who are in the firing line for developing the possibilities of philanthropy are asking for more tax incentives...those in line for big reductions in their funding are crying for a fairer approach and more leaniencey...They have had the opportunity to develop their own practice and lives through funded and supported posts year in, yet they have not developed their practice to be profitable enough to carry their business forward without this support...complacency and a blind belief their product is worth that much.

 

Philanthropy...I understand that the education of people in the value of the cultural sector is important and where the government take something away the people will fight for it if they think it is neccessary for their children and so the arts in education will get it's bit back without a doubt...But artists like Anish Kapour and Antony Gormley should look to the private sector to deliver the public art remit.  The private sector are the public sector, Tescos can leave a site abandonded for months, scruffy and down trodden creating a negative outlook to an area when they should have the responsibility to the area and the community they are essentially investing in. 

 

As a small business and one the opperates in the cultural sector I would like to compare my Philanthropy with that of any corporate company like for like.

One person opperation...expected working time 60 hours per week...How much of this time is unpaid work that benefits someone else directly, indirectly etc...

Between 2005-2009 I worked unpaid for phoenix art group for 16 hours a week; this benefited the group members as they got support from a professional artist, it benefited PCT and NHS as they could say that there was arts support in the area for people with mental health issues, it benefited the loacl authority as they could tick their boxes that there was provision in their boundaries.

I also mentored three Iranians who were interested in the arts, two of which benefited from personal tuition of three hours a week and went on to University.  This benefited two local Authorities in being able to say that they gave services to refugees and asylum seekers that was of value.

I help set up a multi cultural group of artists...

To cut this short I gave a third of my possible weekly productivity to the cultural sector in philanthropy, but I didn't just give it to the cultural sector I gave it to the public and private sectors too.  By engaging with people I reduced their feelings of negativity, angst, apprehension and increased their feelings of achievement, conectivity and positive outlook. 

 

But as a local and community artist I still am disconnected from engaging in an artistic dialogue with the gallery paid for by the lower paid and I am stll asked to find my own space.  So come on stop yer wingin and get on with it...take the cuts...put more into the sector by volunteering...Listening to radio 4 the other day: a politician was asking of the community to spend more time helping and supporting each other through volunteering, when asked what he did for his community he said I am doing it by being a politician; seeming to forget he was being paid to do what little he did.

 

The answer to more funding is to change legislation so that companies have to take corporate responsibility seriously.  The answer to better management of what funding there is available is to get shot of the Arts Council and for local government or local art development agencies to manage arts investment in their area through private sector investment.  The answer to beter arts is to leave every artist to find their own space, and therefore their own connection to private sector investment.  The answer to better arts education is for undergraduates to be able to measure their training against opportunity instead of a charities bank and if the university hasn't given them the tools then don't pay them or pay them pro rata to the value of the tools.

[Patrick Hussey]

So my feeling is from blogs like this and a mood on twitter, is that actual artists feel under represented by the cultural machinery. In this case the answer to that is cut the machinery...less is better.

Do other people feel like that?

I feel that individual artist feeling better represented may be very tough to solve or even address, but I think it would be interesting to hear more about it and how it might be helped.

[Megan Vaughan]

It would be fantastic if the corporate world took responsibility for the wellbeing of society, and invested in arts that would serve communities rather than their corporate image and potential profit. If that were the case, then the compete dissolution of the Arts Council wouldn't be a problem. I doubt many people would consider this a likely scenario, now or in the future, so we need organisations like the Arts Council to prioritise the cultural requirements of everyday people.

[Chantal Guevara]

Also, building a philanthropic culture in this country is something that will take some time to implement; we cannot expect people and organisations to start feeling generous towards the arts overnight. Should government funding cease, then the arts would be looking at a few years without any funding whatsoever.

This country also does not have a strong volunteer culture, therefore it is a hard sell to expect people to start donating their time and services if they do not already do so. It's great that some of us do, but we are in a definite minority.

Although philanthropy and volunteering are models which are part of the norm in other countries, for example the States, it will be a slow process to implement them over here.

[artist]

Volunteering is difficult in this country because we have started the trends with state back patting, some young people don't know what they are interested in sometimes...If we look at the majority of the backgrounds of those supported by the BBC... a tv tax... to support some very dodgy managment. It is no different than saying to some young people...engage on this program and we will support your lifestyle or just claim a little less support for nothing. They have no interest in the bigger picture just themselves and this is fine...a good and natural survival mechanism.

I started supporting those I came into contact with because of a common interest; and the bigger part of that interest was my maturity in understanding that there is only ever going to be a place for me that I make, and no matter what I do the arts are only going to allow me to do stuff outside of theirs until I become bigger than them. That will be when they want me to support some fund they need to dress a desk.

I cannot condone the use of public money targeted to an area to support programmes outside of the area, the directing of the building of large consortiums to deliver that which can be delivered and have been delivered well enough locally. I will not support the actions of individuals that use equallity as a sound bite to build up their stock and then emphasise that some are and will always be more equal than others when it comes to delivery. This is not a rant from being under represented, I have always represented my self very well. If it ain't broke don't fix it...But if it is broke; don't DIY it, recycle it, skip it , chuck it...it's a burden.

Your so right...companies will not give tomorrow...Legislation can even the playing field by baring them their opportunity of making a big buck if they don't want to play the game; and they soon will because there is too much to lose against their competitors. Why not start to think of the future of a full belly for every day instead of your empty belly tonight. If those businesses that want to play the game are investing in the infrastructure of the community, the arts being just a small part of that, then we can plan the future of the arts and not what we might do tomorrow if there isn't any money. I am sure I can find something to do and someone who might supoport that with a sandwich.

Also I would like to clarify that I was not saying that the funding would cease entirly, note on education; I suggested get rid of one of the largest liabilities on that funding, the arts council. Each council has an arts development team and some also have an arts development agency...these deliver on the ground, including distributing arts council funding. They also distribute other lottery monies. SO. Government allocate straight to these to distribute the funding, get shot of ten regional offices with lots of arts administrators vying to find their own space. Somethings got to give...One reason this might not be allowed is that lottery monies was meant to be a replacement for statory public services like education and national health, fire and police, which is probably why the arts council et al are so well placed. As we all know a lot of the funding is used for exactly those things, arts in hospitals, 5 hours of the arts for schools, a priority with the arts council??

It's not under representation, I am involved in all the areas that are targeted, I may not get direct funding or have a space in my local gallery but I work with the deprived and uninterested, stigmatised etc...and people buy my work.

I just think it's all.......

[David Dixon]

There is no such thing as a philanthropic culture, this is a dangerous myth and an excuse for inactivity.

A couple of years ago the British Government sent Professor Thomas, the Vice-Chancellor of Bristol University, to report on how the UK could increase fundraising for higher education to the levels they have in the USA. He toured universities there and found that few colleges outside the Ivy League had done much fundraising before the 1970s and so had created this famous 'culture of giving' in a few short years. How? By actively fundraising! His conclusion (very summarised, it was a long report) was that

"There is no culture of giving in the USA, there is a culture of asking".

In other words, we get donations by asking for them - it's up to us in the arts to get our fundraising act together and not constantly look for excuses.

By the way, volunteering levels in the UK are high by international standards.

Chantal Guevara said:

Also, building a philanthropic culture in this country is something that will take some time to implement; we cannot expect people and organisations to start feeling generous towards the arts overnight. Should government funding cease, then the arts would be looking at a few years without any funding whatsoever.

This country also does not have a strong volunteer culture, therefore it is a hard sell to expect people to start donating their time and services if they do not already do so. It's great that some of us do, but we are in a definite minority.

Although philanthropy and volunteering are models which are part of the norm in other countries, for example the States, it will be a slow process to implement them over here.

[Rosalind Riley, Fresh Glory]

David, I think you have a point. Philanthropists are a diverse group of people - no, they are not even a group of people. They are a number of individuals. I feel there is a very deep misunderstanding of this fact generally, and possibly a wishful misunderstanding of it on the part of politicians. I am involved in philanthropy and in the arts and I believe that talk of philanthropy as a "sector" is completely misguided - philanthropists are only a "sector" in that they can have services marketed to them (eg training in trusteeship, accounts, how to run their charitable giving). They have little contact with each other and almost no coherent strategies between them; they have no obligation to adhere to any strategy at all nor to sustain funding to any cause that they have chosen (though they often do for a while, once involved). They cannot be led as a group, or persuaded as a group. We don't even know who they all are, as a lot of them are completely anonymous, and I don't blame them.

I think the way forward in arts is to enable the arts to ask. Somehow there needs to be an easier way found for arts organisations to connect with philanthropists, and I have a few ideas that I'm working on. We all know that one of the most time-consuming and heartbreaking jobs is to write endless applications and to stand with our hands out - this won't change with an increasing political reliance on philanthropy, but there may be ways to make it easier.

And for the record - anyone hoping that the Times Rich List might be a useful source of information: it's a farrago of guesswork, and almost everything we think we know about anybody's private wealth is likely to be inaccurate.