|
|
 |
THE ART OF CORPORATE SPONSORSHIP
Does corporate sponsorship undermine the integrity of cultural exhibits? February 6, 1998 |
|---|
[Editor's note: Malcolm Richardson's comments reflect his own opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of the President's Committee.]
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?
NewsHour Backgrounders
July 23, 1997
The House and Senate argue whether to halt additional funding to the NEA.
March 10, 1997
Arts advocates gather in Washington to lobby for preserving federal support for the NEA.
January 1, 1998
Two Congressmen talk about the record number of federal judges whose nominations have been delayed.
September 3, 1997:
A look at criminal law in France.
Browse the NewsHour's coverage of law.
Outside Links
National Endowment for the Arts
Walker Art Center
Minneapolis Institute of ArtsFunding of the arts, is in itself, a delicate art.
The Smithsonian Institution recently postponed a lecture series to celebrate Israel's 50th anniversary because its principal financial partner, a liberal philanthropic organization called the New Israel Fund, was helping to develop a program critics said was dominated by opponents of the current conservative Israeli government.
The Museum of American History also faced harsh criticism when Alyeska, the company that built the Alaska pipeline, sponsored an exhibit on its creation at the museum.
In recent years, the partnership of private dollars and public museums has sparked concern that marketing and public relations strategies could damage the integrity of cultural institutions.
Ever since Congress began cutting back on its allocation to the National Endowment for the Arts - most recently by 39 percent in 1996, museums have had to rely on millions of dollars donated by the business community. The Business Committee for the Arts estimates that corporate donations hit an all time high of $875 million in 1995, and that these donations make or break an exhibit or show.
Such trends arouse concern that an increasing dependence on business dollars might force cultural institutions to play by the rules of the business world, either by changing the content of a show, or overwhelming an exhibit with marketing and promotional material.
Is corporate sponsorship and the arts a problematic partnership? Can corporate sponsorship affect the content of an exhibit? Will corporate sponsorship produce a wealth of "blockbuster" exhibits and leave smaller, experimental works out in the cold? Or does corporate sponsorship offer benefits federal funding cannot provide?
This forum will gather a roundtable of guests:
Roberto Bedoya, executive director of the National Association of Artists' Organizations Ben Cameron, manager of community relations for Target Stores. Kathy Halbreich, director of the Walker Arts Center Gary O. Larson, former researcher and writer for the National Endowment for the Arts Dr. Evan M. Maurer, director and CEO of the Minneapolis Institute of Arts Malcolm Richardson deputy director of the President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities
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?
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.
