|
|
| THE ART OF CORPORATE SPONSORSHIP
Does corporate sponsorship undermine the integrity of cultural exhibits? February 6, 1998 |
|---|
Questions asked
in this forum:
Have you experienced situations which explain the concern over corporate sponsorship? Do corporations fund more than mainstream art? Why shouldn't art be subject to market forces? Doesn't government funding also come with restrictions and requirements as well? Is the public distrust of large corporations fueling the suspicion over corporate sponsorship? To receive government funding, don't galleries and artists have to face just as many restrictions, requirements and concerns over content?
Roberto Bedoya, executive director of the National Association of Artists' Organizations, responds:
The answer to the first part of this question is yes. The answer to the second question is also yes. The question not asked here is the question of the relationship of the patron to the artist and how does that affect what's produced. Patronage is linked to artistic taste. One supports what one likes artistically. In the case of corporate sponsorship their artistic tastes can be characterized as the aesthetics of happy face or trill- the "it's a small world" or roller-coaster rides that mass audiences enjoy. In the case of federal funding of the arts, aesthetic taste are folded into the mandate to serve the public, so patronage ranges from supporting Native-American basket weavers, the block-buster art exhibitions, and avant-garde practices, and their respective audiences, these publics that are both large and small. With the market place, it is mercurial and supports a wide range of aesthetics, yet does not have a significant role in supporting the incubation of artistic ideas.
What one needs to be understood here is the value of all these forms of patronage and not allow one system to dominate. The art world needs many pools of patronage systems and efforts to eliminate these pools are efforts to limit the creative possibilities that can manifest themselves in a creative America
Ben Cameron, manager of community relations for Target Stores, responds:
Clearly, there is often suspicion from many who approach corporations for support. In my mind, the best corporate support programs represent a fit between an arts institution's needs and a corporation's objectives. We would never ask an art group to alter its artistic format or content. If we were concerned over the suitability of an event for our typical Target guest, we would be far more likely to say, "This particular project isn't really an ideal fit for us. Do you have another project that we might be able to partner together on that would be more suitable for us?" This kind of dialogue places responsibility on both sides of the funding table: for each side to be clear and candid about its objectives and aims in a project, for corporations to be respectful in the integrity of an arts project and not seek to redesign it in a corporate image, and for an arts institution to remain firm in its dedication to the integrity of the art, even if it is at the expense of a particular contribution. The real earmark of successful corporate arts support is in appropriately matching arts institution/project to corporation. It is difficult to imagine any arts project that every corporate funding program would support; at the same time, it is equally difficult to imagine a worthwhile arts project that would not be seriously considered for funding somewhere in the total landscape of corporate philanthropy.
Kathy Halbreich, director of the Walker Arts Center responds:
No. I don't really have suspicions about corporate sponsorship, and I'm not certain the public does either. Enlightened self-interest is natural when you have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. The truth is that in the past the government -- both federal and state -- set far fewer restrictions on content than corporate sponsors would. After all, we are ALL stakeholders in the country's collective culture. That being said, I also recognize these are increasingly conservative and divisive times when it comes to supporting voices outside the mainstream. And that worries me a lot.
Gary O. Larson, freelance writer, responds:
I'm not sure how deeply that "public distrust of large corporations" actually runs in America. No one seems to be complaining too loudly about the growing concentration of ownership in the mass media, and judging from the mood of Congress of late, it's not inconceivable that the Nike "swoosh" will replace the stars on Old Glory one of these days. Offered a choice among an artist, a politician, and a Fortune 500 CEO, in fact, I wonder which would be considered the most trustworthy by the American public. In a 1995 Gallop Poll, at least, Big Government was regarded as a far bigger threat to the future of America than Big Business, by a 64 to 24 percent count. (Big Museums, presumably, don't pose much of a threat at all.)
The "suspicion over corporate sponsorship," I'd suggest, is actually a hold-over from an earlier era. "He who pays the piper calls the tune," or so the old saying goes. But surely that old saw has more to do with Old-World, sole-source patronage of the Church, the Court, or the State, than it does with the intricate, multi-layered financial arrangements on which most U.S. nonprofits are perched. In the StageBill that I picked up at the Kennedy Center last week (to cite one admittedly extreme example), there were literally pages of fine-print acknowledgments of foundations, corporations, and individuals. And while some of these donors no doubt attached conditions to their generosity ("use this money for educational projects," or "this grant is in support of community-outreach activities"), the ultimate impact of that kind of leverage is surely more administrative than aesthetic. It's unlikely that the investment bank or the distillery that underwrites what is certainly no more than a fraction of the National Symphony Orchestra's season, after all, is going to have any luck telling Maestro Slatkin what to perform. And even more unlikely that they'd attempt such meddling.
What really matters to the Texacos and the Hallmarks is the prestige of being associated with high-profile organizations like the NSO (and there are a handful of such bellwether institutions in every city). The motivation behind corporate philanthropy assumes many guises--from "enlightened self-interest" to "reminder advertising," from "community relations" to "corporate good citizenship"--but the PR function is probably the strongest factor. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Conspiracy theories aside, I'd wager that there are actually fewer strings (and less rigorous reporting requirements) attached to corporate dollars than to foundation or government money. And the eclipse of free expression in arts funding at the federal level, if not generally acknowledged in polite circles, has been all too well established in recent years.
One trend in corporate philanthropy that does bear watching, however, is the shift of corporate giving from a company's contributions budget to its advertising and marketing department. On the one hand, admittedly, money is money, regardless of the source, and arts organizations can use all of the support they can get. On the other hand, there's a disturbing tendency of advertising money to find its way into ancillary activities rather than supporting the arts themselves. A recent tour of independent film and video sponsored by The Gap, for example, reportedly allocated far more money to opening night festivities and similar press events than to the films or the film makers themselves.
The danger, quite simply, is the transformation of arts institutions into the cultural equivalents of the Goodyear blimp. That may be a great way to advertise, but as a means of supporting nonprofit organizations devoted to the preservation and advancement of our culture, it simply won't fly.
Dr. Evan Maurer, director and CEO of the Minneapolis Institute of Arts, responds:
The American public historically looks at large corporations as, powerful entities who often influence events and affairs beyond the immediate scope of their product. However, in my experience questions about corporate funding have been limited to the appropriateness of the business the corporation is in vis a vis support of the arts. The best example of it is Philip Morris Company's strong support of the arts even though their product, i.e. tobacco, has been deemed to be a health hazard. Therefore, people might not want their artistic product to be associated with something as controversial as tobacco. The same thing could be said about companies that deal in alcoholic beverages and, to some degree, companies that have been criticized in the public domain for possible adverse effects to the natural environment. Museums are always very sensitive to public opinion and, therefore, many are reluctant to associate themselves with a group which they feel might be controversial. The same thing can be said with associating with various countries whose policies might not be popular. What we need in terms of financial support for the effective presentation of our artistic goals must be balanced by the ethical values of our institutions and of the communities we serve.
Malcolm Richardson, deputy director of the President's Committee on the Arts and Humanities, responds:
Every source of funding brings its own set of conditions or terms. As a former administrator of a government funding program, I'm probably too biased to tackle this question. I'll be very interested to see how the museum directors and artists see this one.
Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. PBS Online Privacy Policy
Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved.
