Why Are Artists Poor? Part 7

Chapter 8

The Power and the Duty to Give

Why Give to the Arts?

Serving Art The other day Alex had a discussion with Robert. Robert makes installa-tions. As far as their reputation in the art world is concerned, Alex and Robert are more or less on the same level. But as far as his career goes, Robert has chosen a different path from the one Alex has chosen. Robert has chosen a path with fewer .nancial rewards. He operates on the periph-ery of the 'avant-garde' circuit. Every so often an artist from this circuit is invited into the established avant-garde circuit and gains renown in the general art world as well. Although this happens only to a select few, Robert, without ever admitting as much, seems to be waiting for the call. When they talk, Robert justi.es his actions by personifying art. He 'gives his time to art'. He 'serves art'. He sets himself apart from other artists, whom in his view are 'betraying art'. 'Their solutions are super.cial and cheap. They're not interested in art, so much as pleasing the art world.' (In Robert's circle pleasing the art world is an even bigger sin than pursuing money.) Alex asks him if art has interests. Robert says it does. Alex believes he is being sincere. According to Robert the interests stem from the legacy of art. Robert mentions some famous artists from the past he admires and who inspire him. At this stage in their discussions Alex always begins to feel a bit inferior and guilty, because he's not as familiar with the works of these famous artists as Robert is. Moreover, Alex has a dif.cult time seeing the relationship between these artists' works and Robert's work. But Robert thinks the relationship is evident. (Robert makes installations and sculp-tures primarily out of mud.) Nevertheless, Alex is impressed by Robert's willingness to sacri.ce himself to art.

Earning Less by Spending More Time Working as an Artist When Alex is employed as an economist, he earns about four times as much per hour as he does working as an artist. If he wanted to, he could easily spend more time working in economics, but he usually doesn't. And so it can be said that he gives to art what he could have earned had he spent more time in economics.

Although Alex would love to see himself as a sel.ess donor to the arts, Alex cannot deceive himself. He knows that if he spent more work hours in eco-nomics, he'd start feeling forlorn and end up paying up a price that out-weighs the extra income. Moreover, sometimes Alex notices something else that shocks him. A reward he seems to get out of earning so little stems from how he exploits the very fact of his low income in relation to others. He casually makes people aware of his dif.cult .nancial situation and they usually respond with something like 'Gee, he must be a real artist; he seems to sacri.ce everything for his art.' Alex realizes that his gift to the arts is certainly not a pure sel.ess gift.

Helping the Poor Artist Alex likes selling his work out of his studio. (Of course, whenever he does he makes sure to tell his gallery owner about it well, most of the time, anyway.) Alex likes doing it even though some buyers seem to need end-less amounts of time to make a choice, they drink too much tea, discuss their personal problems, and insult him by wickedly praising his work to the sky, etc. There is only one kind of situation Alex can't stand. That's when well-meaning friends and family members come to his studio. He usually does not sell a thing, and afterwards he feels depressed. Personal feelings not only matter in dealing with family and friends but also with other buyers. For instance, Mr. R. is gay and he likes certain kinds of drawings of male nudes that Alex makes. Alex suspects that Mr. R. likes him as well. Meanwhile, Mrs. V. likes Alex's photographs, but she likes sup-porting artists like Alex even more. These types of situations are easy to handle. Both parties know the unwritten rules. Therefore, it's not dif.cult to close a deal. With family members and friends it's quite different. Within Alex's social group there are no established rules for combining commerce and sup-port. The old rules have disappeared and no new ones have taken their place yet. And this is why they get stuck. Most of Alex's friends and relatives think that openly supporting him would be insulting and in the back of his mind Alex agrees. Moreover, an open acknowledgement of the fact that they earn a lot more money than Alex does would only lead to unpleasant feelings of guilt. Both parties want to avert this situation at all costs. And so whenever they want to support him, Alex is not supposed to notice it or he has to pretend not to notice. This puts Alex and his family and friends in an impossible situation. Family and friends think that Alex will misinterpret any hesitance about buying an artwork as a sign that they're not really interested in his work and more interested in sup-porting him, which is patronizing and an insult. Therefore, they try to play a complicated game of charades that almost always goes wrong. In the end, no deal is closed and family and friends leave Alex's studio frustrated, while Alex is left behind feeling just as miserable.

Why is it that Alex's family and friends, but also private citizens, corpo-rations, foundations, and government agencies feel so compelled to sup-port art and artists? And why do artists like Robert and Alex give so much to art? Do they make sacri.ces? Or is it more proper to say that they pay dues (or duties) and are ultimately sacri.ced?

In order to answer these questions it might be useful to look at gift-giving in the arts from the perspective of power and duty. I use the term 'duty' to emphasize that many 'gifts' are not free, but imposed by the own conscience, or by conventions. This chapter tries to establish the notion that donations and subsidies primarily rest on issues of power. But we will also look into the phenomenon that the obligation to give can restrict a donor's power to the point that donors can even begin to be per-ceived as victims. A continuum exists that extends from pure gift to pure duty. The gift is freely offered while the latter implies an obligation to pay, not unlike duties paid at national borders. Because the term 'duty' has a number of nuances such as one's 'duty to help', I shall apply this term to situations where the giving is not totally a matter of free choice.

Chapter 2 already made the point that the art world relies heavily on gifts. Gifts, including subsidies, are as important in the us as in Europe.1 The present chapter's a.n.a.lysis of the gift, including an a.n.a.lysis of the bene.ts of gift-giving and the obligations to give, goes a long way toward explaining why there is such a large gift-sphere in the arts.

As an artist I believe that gifts to the arts are sel.ess and spontaneous. This applies not only to the sacri.ces made by artists, but also to the gifts from donors. As a social scientist, however, I emphasize the interests that are involved in the process of gift-giving. Generally, gifts are not all that sel.ess. They are a complex transaction characterized by various con-ventions through which the donors receive various bene.ts.

Donors Receive Respect There is extensive available literature regarding the gift.2 By formulating and then answering some questions about gift-giving in the arts, I try to apply some of this literature's .ndings to the arts. I begin with some pre-liminary questions.

Who are the main bene.ciaries of gifts to the arts? It seems apparent that art consumers and art producers both pro.t from these gifts. When an orchestra survives because of certain donations or subsidies, it's con-sidered a gift to those who can now continue to enjoy the concerts as well as to the musicians who can hold on to their jobs. But by calling it 'gifts to the arts' I also suggest that art itself can be a bene.ciary. Thanks to particular gifts art can continue to .ourish. As noted earlier, art itself cannot actually receive gifts; only people can. But in line with the way people think and speak metaphorically, these donations can also be con-sidered gifts to art.

Who are the benefactors of the gifts? Government agencies, founda-tions and corporations, private donors, the families and friends of artists, and last but not least artists themselves give substantially to art.

How important are gifts in the arts? Earlier, in chapter 2, I estimated that the arts receive approximately half of their income in the form of gifts, which includes subsidies. The contributions from artists, their families and their friends was not included in that estimate. When these gifts are added, the percentage is probably much higher. Gifts are anyway very important in the arts.

Do gifts replace one another? Gifts from various sources usually sub-st.i.tute and sometimes complement one another. In the us, government gifts comprise a much smaller proportion of overall gifts than they do in Europe. But private gift-giving is much more prevalent. This means that private gift-giving is a subst.i.tute for government gift-giving or vice versa. This also applies to gift-giving by artists. Artists' gifts are often a substi-tute for government subsidies and other donations. The average income of artists working in alternative sectors that receive little or no subsidies or donations tends to be much lower than in sectors that receive ample donations and subsidies.3 By working for low incomes artists subsidize themselves and so give to art. This implies that government subsidies not only replace market income and donations, but also so-called 'self-subsi-dies'.

Sometimes, however, gifts tend to complement one another. This is the case, at least in the short term, in the so-called matching schemes. For instance, the government agrees to give to artistic endeavors by matching the funds that corporations and private donors agree to give. Or, in cer-tain countries, subsidies from the central government depend on subsi-dies pledged by local governments or vice versa.

Is there a sharp line between gifts, market exchange, and forced trans-fers? These three forms of transfer, which were discussed in chapter 2, can be said to represent the corners of an imaginary triangle. Many of these transfers appear somewhere in between the three corners. For instance, a continuum exists between gifts and forced transfers. Donors are often compelled to give. When there is a distinct feeling of obligation, a donation stops being a gift and turns into a duty.4 A similar continuum exists between gifts and market exchange. Although gift-giving and trade are both voluntary, they differ in other aspects. Of the differences mentioned in chapter 2 the following are rele-vant in the present context. 1 Gift-giving is less of a quid pro quo than commerce. 2 Gifts are not based on a contract. 3 The bene.ts of gifts often derive from third parties rather than from the recipient of the gift. 4 There is usually more personal contact between donor and recipient.5 These are relative differences. None of the above characteristics is condi-tion enough to warrant gift-giving or commerce. Only when the charac-teristics are combined can a transaction be seen as either closer to the gift-corner of the triangle or the market-exchange corner.

For instance, the presence of personal contact does not necessarily convert a transaction into a gift. On the one hand, when merchants make deals, personal contact sometimes plays a vital role. On the other hand, when large foundations give small grants to individual artists, it is usu-ally based on details supplied on an application and there is often no per-sonal contact involved. The aforementioned foundation grants are nev-ertheless gifts, because the gift characteristics on the whole are more evident than the market-exchange characteristics.6 Are gifts sel.ess? The existing literature on gift-giving generally emphasizes the element of reciprocity.7 Gifts generate returns. In this respect, it should be noted that gifts do ultimately change the world. Without the gift the world would be a little bit different. For instance, when a rich patron donates an important painting to a museum it's char-acter is altered. First, the patron usually enjoys the new situation and thus it represents a return for the gift-giver. Second, because of the gift people often have more respect for the donor which means another important return to the donor.

In the existing literature on the gift it is a common a.s.sumption that a gift's bene.ts suf.ciently explain gift-giving. In this sense then, gift-giving is sel.sh rather than sel.ess. Therefore, viewed from the tenth .oor, the behavior of donors can to some purpose be a.n.a.lyzed from the a.s.sumption that they seek rewards. This is the approach taken in this chapter. (If we look more closely however, many donors do not seem to be deliberately seeking rewards. Because of the habitus of donors, sel.ess and sel.sh behavior cannot be easily separated. According to the conclu-sions in chapter 4, the same can be said about artists.) Donors Have In.uence and are Necessarily Paternalistic Do gifts depend on power? Just as everyone's purchasing power is not the same, there are also a variety of capacities to give or 'powers to give'. Some people simply have more resources and thus effectively wield more power to in.uence the world around them through their buying and donating patterns than others have. (Because the term 'power' is often a.s.sociated with the abuse of power, the term probably carries a negative connotation for some readers. But wherever people differ, in s.e.x, physi-cal strength, wealth, cultural or social capital, power-differentials nec-essarily exist as well. This means that the possession of power is not nec-essarily a good or bad thing, and so the term 'power' can also be used in a neutral sense.) Trading and giving both presume the possession of the means or power to trade or give and therefore. Somebody, who has nothing, has nothing to give and therefore no means to in.uence the world. This does not imply that all donors in the art world are rich. On the contrary, some-times donors do not need much to be able to give part of it away. For instance, poor volunteers and poor artists evidently have enough time to give some of it to art.

Like consumers operating in the marketplace, donors can choose whether to give or not, how much to give and to whom. What they give to one, they do not give to another. If Bill Gates had decided to donate large sums of money to arts training instead of to an IT education program, it would have had dramatic repercussions for many people. Therefore, the wealthy donor's in.uence is much larger than a poor donor's. Metaphorically speaking, the former has far more votes than the latter. The same applies to the wealthy consumer who has more in.uence in the market than a poor consumer does.

Nevertheless, the c.u.mulative power of the ma.s.ses to give can be just as in.uential as the power of the rich to give, not unlike the purchasing power of the many can be more in.uential than the purchasing power of the rich as discussed in Chapter 3. In the us, the bulk of cla.s.sical music and theatre donations comes from a broad cross-section of not particu-larly wealthy private donors. Similarly, the impact of the c.u.mulative gifts of many artists with extraordinarily low incomes may well exceed the total received from other private sources. In other words, large numbers of small donors add up.

Donors in the arts can be said to have in.uence. Among other things, they in.uence the outcome of the various art world disputes. This becomes particularly obvious in the case of large donors. One example is how the Dutch government in.uenced the outcome of the dispute between the traditional and avant-garde branches of the visual arts.8 Meanwhile, in the us, the cia has used its power in the past to promote American abstract art abroad as a symbol of American freedom.9 Both trade and gifts have an effect on the state of the world. For instance, in the production of concerts, orchestras manage to 'change the world' by 'buying' a certain kind of behavior from their musicians. Or art consumers can 'change the world', by purchasing certain cds and not others or by purchasing tickets to speci.c events. Moreover, conspicuous consumption also changes the world by evoking respect in onlookers. Nevertheless, donations often garners more respect than consumption does. And so when donors enable musicians to go on performing or enable a local museum to purchase a certain painting, they not only directly change the world, but they also indirectly change the world by generating a certain amount of respect for their generous behavior. Donors receive attention, respect, and distinction.10 The act of gift-giving makes people behave slightly differently towards the 'Maecenas'; they pay a little more attention and show a little more respect toward the donor. But attention, respect, and distinction are not qualities one can just buy directly. It is an indirect result of conspicuous consumption and even more so of conspicuous gift-giving.

Do gifts involve display? Respect for donors is a possible result but not necessarily a de.nite manifestation of gift-giving. In this respect, gift-giving sometimes resembles advertising. Advertising also supposedly alters behavior. Someone buys advertising with the hope that consumers will buy more of the advertised product. The way that advertising in.u-ences the compet.i.tion between products and .rms is not unlike how donors compete with one another, albeit in a less obvious and deliberate manner.

Gift-giving, like advertising, often depends on display. Whether a gift is displayed intentionally or not, gifts usually gets noticed, by the bene.-ciary but also by various observers. Therefore, gifts produce so-called external effects, just like advertising does. Observers cannot ignore the outward signs of gifts whether they be large or small. Observers respond to gift-giving like they respond to advertising. I call this a reciprocal effect because the effect is returned to the producer of the external effect.11 The response to an advert is most likely increased sales, while the response to a gift is attention, respect, and distinction.

Both advertising and public gifts involve a certain degree of compul-sion. People cannot always avoid their effects. (From the observer's point of view, some effects of both advertising and gift-giving are involuntary and thus more like forced transfers than like gifts. They can also be seen as compulsory collective goods, comparable to a sculpture in a public s.p.a.ce that cannot be ignored by the pa.s.sersby.) Are gifts paternalistic? Donors choose the destinations of their dona-tions. In the arts, donors never spread their donations around evenly over the full spectrum of artistic endeavors. They pick and choose. Private donors in the us, for instance, give far more to traditional cla.s.sical music and traditional theatre than they do to modern music and modern the-atre. They have the power to do as they wish and it is in this way that these donors express their in.uence on American culture.

Sometimes the in.uence of a single donor has broad implications. The example of the Dutchman Joop van den Ende demonstrates the in.uence that a single donor can have. After Van den Ende sold off his television production company in 1999, he started to use the pro.ts to support both 'serious' and 'popular' unsubsidized theatre in the Netherlands. The incomes of the lead actors and directors immediately began to rise, which consequently meant that the costs of publicly .nanced theatre also began to rise. Because the funds of public corporations did not rise, it became more dif.cult for them to pay lead actors and to continue to make .ne theatre. Naturally, theatre makers began to think in terms of accommodating Van den Ende's wishes at the expense of heeding to gov-ernment in.uence. Gift-giving had changed the Dutch theatre world.

Because of their selective in.uence, donors are necessarily paternalis-tic. Sometimes paternalism takes the form of a concern for groups of people who are thought to be unable to adequately take care of them-selves.12 For instance, some donors are convinced that certain people underestimate the bene.cial effects of .ne art consumption. As such, .ne art is a so-called 'merit good', a good whose merits are supposedly underestimated. By gift-giving art prices are lowered, and so donors attempt to persuade people to consume more art. If their paternalistic strategy manages to successfully alter the public's tastes then this is a another return for the donors.

Donors receive returns in the form of in.uence; they in.uence other people's artistic taste or their in.uence leads to respect and distinction (thesis 70). Donations and subsidies to the arts are necessarily paternal-istic (thesis 71). The more powerful donors are the more chance they have of in.uencing other people's artistic tastes (thesis 72).

Art Sublimates Power and Legitimizes the Donor's Activities The respect that recipients and onlookers can offer donors is not without its limits. Therefore, whether donors are aware of it or not, they compete for a .nite amount of attention, respect, and distinction, not unlike the way .rms compete for consumer demand. Sooner or later more distinc-tion for one donor means less distinction for other donors. Therefore, by giving, but also by buying and other forms of public behavior, people with power display their symbols of power hoping to contribute to the maintenance and improvement of their position on the social ladder.

The sailor shows off his strong arms, the business executive drives a fast car, and the government parades its army. These are symbols, which refer to possible uses; the sailor can actually punch out an opponent while a government can kill its enemies. The messages are easy to com-prehend. Most of the time however, power is symbolized in more indirect ways. Apparently, indirect messages are often more effective than direct messages. This applies particularly to gift-giving. More respect is usually accorded the more indirectly a gift displays the donor's power. Usually the indirect display of power is well served by art.

Art has always been a useful vehicle for the indirect symbolization of messages. This applies most obviously to the visual arts. The murals in palaces, churches, and town halls as well as the paintings in the mansions of the wealthy, which now inhabit our museums, all indirectly convey the power of the Maecenas who often commissioned them to donate to the church. These paintings often do so by alluding to situations from the past, to sagas or to myths. (Our modern art is thought to contain fewer messages, but I expect that in .fty years time people will have discovered that our modern art contained far more messages than we are aware of at present.) Usually art does not symbolize power directly. Most of the time it sym-bolizes power in a sublimated form. Power is sublimated and the desire to wield power is often totally denied. In Christian iconography, a beggar may well refer to the powerful commissioner who donated the painting. Moreover, art itself including modern art is often an expression of sublimated power. On the one hand, it re.ects power, because only wealthy individuals and inst.i.tutions can afford to commission this kind of work and then donate it. On the other hand, art transcends power. Music, theatre, architecture and visual art will certainly not win any war, or dominate any stock market. Therefore, it is the ultimate expres-sion of power, when the high and mighty can afford to say: 'I do not need to exhibit my army or my fast car; I have art.' Through art, patron, spon-sor, and government can a.s.sociate themselves with the sacred. Art's halo of sacredness shines upon them and, paradoxically, reveals their invinci-bility. Art merely suggests actual power like military power, taxation power, or .nancial power.

The fact that art is perceived as super.uous and useless serves to enhance this sublimation of power, which is not only manifested through gifts to the arts, but also through art purchases and the conspicuous con-sumption of art products.13 For instance, banks buy considerable amounts of visual art. The Dutch government spends almost as much money on the buying visual art as on subsidies for the visual arts.14 (There appears to be a large difference between buying and donating. When governments or corporations buy art, capital is not spent, how-ever, when they donate art they become poorer, at least in the short run. But the status of art can be so exalted that in the long run gifts may well contribute more to the prestige of the donor, therefore increasing rather than decreasing the donor's capital.) Chapter 2 argued that the arts, in the form of objects, ma.n.u.scripts, scores, etc., function as bearers of some of society's most important beliefs and values. Modern people worship the artwork made by their ancestors, the way other people worship their ancestors. Art stands for the acc.u.mulated past. It stands for the nation and for civilization.15 Through art, donors can a.s.sociate with the world of art and culture. It gives them prestige.

Art not only offers prestige; it also legitimizes. Consumers legitimize .rms and voters legitimize governments, but only to a limited extent. A true proof of legitimacy often comes from a higher authority. Emperors and kings needed G.o.d's blessing. Since art has to some extent superseded religion, monarchies, governments, and corporations increasingly need art to legitimize their own existence.

Inst.i.tutions facing little compet.i.tion derive relatively little legitimiza-tion from buyers or voters. Therefore, they're often the ones trying the hardest to get legitimized by a 'higher' inst.i.tution. The remaining royal families, state organizations, nationalized corporations, and private (near) monopoly corporations, all spend a relatively large amount of money purchasing and supporting art.16 For instance, in 1998 the Dutch central bank paid an extremely high price for a Mondrian painting that was to be a gift to the Dutch people.17 The extravagance of this gift corre-sponds with the notion of a monopolist who is seeking legitimization.

In the search for legitimacy, size and continuity seem to be of some importance. Older and bigger corporations do relatively more for art than new and smaller corporations. Usually the latter only recently gained their right to exist in the market and they therefore have less need for supplementary legitimization. In this respect, it would not surprise me if people who inherit money do considerably more for the arts than people who worked hard to reach their present level of wealth.18 The .rst, who are born into wealth, need to legitimize their money more.

Also corporations, whose policies are criticized, are continuously searching for ways to strengthen their integrity. The fact that most major tobacco corporations are larger collectors and supporters of art than other food industry corporations con.rms the notion that art can strengthen legitimacy. Even well established banks, which do not appear to lack integrity, compensate for their involvement in the 'vulgar money business' by af.liating themselves with the .ne arts.

Giving to the arts and giving art const.i.tutes a display of power. This display often appears in a sublimated form (thesis 73.) Moreover, gifts to the arts legitimize donors (thesis 74).

Gifts Turn into Duties In the preceding sections, I have emphasized the power of donors. Never-theless, the power of donors can be limited by obligations, as I intend to show in this and the next section. Donors often feel obliged to give. When the power of donors becomes limited, bene.ciaries often gain some power in exchange. This means that bene.ciaries can then apply pressure on the donor. If this pressure is persuasive, then transfers can evolve into something totally involuntary; they stop being gifts and turn into forced transfer like duties, taxes, or even bribes. This type of forced transfer is quite rare in the arts. Nevertheless, gifts that are rooted in obli-gations are common. These obligations to give can either be weak or strong. Where gifts appear on the continuum that runs from free gifts to forced transfers depends on the degree of obligation.

When gifts are exchanged between people of equal power, customs usually prescribe giving. People have a duty to give. In this context, it is worth noting that the largest percentage of private giving does not .ow from rich to poor, but occurs between people from the same income brackets.19 Within these groups, the continuous giving of presents and a.s.sistance is rooted in important conventions that fuse gifts with duties. The donor, like the bene.ciary, in this case, is neither powerful nor pow-erless.

In the arts, individual bene.ciaries have seldom wielded much power, especially when compared to that of large donors. Nevertheless, the con-ventions of giving can be an effective force and the obligation to give can signi.cantly limit a donor's power.

In the cases of duties and obligations, the threat of retribution always looms in the background, but actual punishment is rare. If any punish-ment is meted out, it usually originates with the donors themselves. In other words, they are self-imposed as shows from the following example. Often representatives of a local elite may feel personally responsible for the course of society and thus feel compelled to give to local art inst.i.tu-tions. The bene.ts they receive in return, like prestige, are usually not reserved exclusively for the donors, however. A community of donors, and non-donors among the elite all share in the bene.ts in the form of respect. Therefore, at .rst sight, it seems as if individual donors would be better off if they just stopped supporting the arts, and save their money, because they could still easily bene.t from the continued donations by others. Nevertheless, considering prevailing social conventions, not giving can often end up being more expensive than giving. These conven-tions do not offer much leeway for those who prefer not to donate.

Conventions result from the collective internalization of values and rules with respect to giving. When conventions are effective, negative internal rewards a bad conscience, for instance are usually enough to control behavior. It's only in exceptional situations where social control and external penalties, such as ostracism from one's social cla.s.s, come into play. This mechanism not only applies to private donors but also to administrators at corporations and government agencies.

Internalized rules are often pa.s.sed on within a particular inst.i.tution. Because the process of internalization at each organization and inst.i.tu-tion acquires its own character, each inst.i.tution can be said to have a spe-ci.c 'culture' or 'ident.i.ty'. For instance, the character of a .nancial insti-tution is quite different from that of a construction company. Unlike construction companies, banks have developed a predilection of gener-ous giving to the arts. At the same time however, individual banks have each developed their own speci.c preferences in who they give money to based on subtle differences in their corporate ident.i.ties. For instance, while most banks in the Netherlands collect so-called avant-garde visual art, the ing Bank (part of the ing Group) has for a long time now pre-ferred to collect .gurative modern art, even during a period when the bank received nothing but gripes for the choices it was making. To a degree, the collection re.ects the ident.i.ty of the bank and vice versa.

The situation of private individual and government agency giving in the us and in Europe is that in the us private individuals give more gener-ously to the arts than they do in Europe. In Europe, government agencies 'give' more in the form of direct subsidies than in the us. The difference is an enduring one. Thus, we have the existence of different effective con-ventions and traditions of giving. Recent attempts in Europe to boost pri-vate and corporate giving have not been very successful at bridging the difference with the us.

Gifts to the arts can be duties, because failing to give can be punished (thesis 75). Conventions explain an att.i.tude of giving among private individuals, corporations and government agencies. Such att.i.tudes can be contrary to individual interests (thesis 76). Conventions explain the differences in giving between corporations as well as between countries (thesis 77).

Donations and Subsidies are Embedded in Rituals Conventions serve a purpose. Collective experience helps establish the notion that the bene.ts of certain conventions outweigh their costs. Therefore, when behavior stems from such conventions, costs and bene-.ts are taken for granted. They do not need to be pointed out or veri.ed. For instance: 'giving to art is good for banks and not giving is bad'. More-over, this kind of conviction can turn into a self-ful.lling prophecy, pro-ducing its own bene.ts and penalties.

Why is it that in the Netherlands all the major banks support art and maintain substantial collections of modern and contemporary art? Does a bank undermine its standing in the industry by not collecting art? From the tenth .oor, a bank's behavior can be explained in terms of a fear of appearing contrary, or as particularly uninterested in culture. This could be detrimental because all banks must compete and try to lure quali.ed higher personnel. An uncultivated ident.i.ty that comes with not support-ing the arts might make it an uphill battle to attract the proper personnel. Costs would certainly rise as a consequence of this image. Government agencies engage in similar compet.i.tive behavior. But it is doubtful whether bank management and government decision-makers really think this way. Meaning that it's much more likely that conventions regarding simple notions of good and bad are internalized, which basi-cally compels managers and decision-maker to promote art as a neces-sity.

When costs and bene.ts are taken for granted and when it's consid-ered taboo to question the rationale of donating to the arts or the ration-ale of punishing defectors, then donations and subsidies represent a form of ritual giving, accompanied by ritual punishment of defectors. In prim-itive societies, rituals almost always govern giving, and our society may not be that different.

In both primitive and modern society, those who do not abide by the rituals and conventions face inevitable social ostracism. In modern soci-ety, offenders are usually punished in a discreet manner within their own circle. When public .gures 'go astray' however, they may face public pil-lorying and humiliation. In the seventies, there was the case of mr. Drees Jr., a slightly nave Dutch economist and politician, who managed to draw some attention to himself.20 He was an intense and sincere art lover. He was also a man of integrity with strong princ.i.p.als. He thought that the poor were paying too much for the cultural consumption of the rich. When, as a politician he had made it clear that he meant to do some-thing about this, no open discussion, but a kind of gossip with the description of him as some kind of 'cultural barbarian' arose. This not only killed his plans for cutting subsidies it also killed his political career. What is striking here is the power of just one phrase. No arguments were employed; his opponents used only this one phrase. In rituals, words often represent or conjure up basic irrational powers. This man was por-trayed as cultural pariah, an enemy of art, comparable to being against Christianity in previous centuries.

Nevertheless, donors and governments do not support the arts out of fear of punishment. Giving comes naturally. Donors feel a sense of responsibility; gift and duty fuse. Giving is rooted in conventions and embedded in rituals. Although individual bene.ciaries do not possess the power to extract 'gifts', they ride the waves of conventions and rituals. In this sense, the art world is often less defenseless and at the mercy of the givers than it presents itself. People believe that the sacred world, which art represents, is extremely vulnerable, that it needs protection and gifts to survive. But without any deliberate organization a lot of power has been invested in the conventions and rituals surrounding the arts.

Giving to the arts often follows from conventions and is embedded in rituals (thesis 78). Because the arts are fostered by the power of conven-tions and rituals, they are not as vulnerable as they sometimes appear to be. Society gives to art and art 'takes' from society (thesis 79).

Artists Give and Pay Tribute Thus far, I have only treated some general aspects of giving in the arts. I have thus far ignored the essential differences in giving of the various types of donors. In the remaining sections, I will look at the distinguish-ing characteristics of giving to the arts by the various groups such as artists, family and friends of artists, other private donors, corporations, and private foundations respectively. I will discuss giving by govern-ments in chapters 9 and 10.

Artists subsidize the arts. They do so by being prepared to work for low incomes and by transferring money from savings, inheritances, social bene.ts, social insurance payments, or non-arts or arts-related incomes to their 'art-business'. This scenario is comparable to a pub-lisher who shuf.es money from a pro.table science .ction imprint into its unpro.table .ne literature department.

Self-subsidization or internal subsidization can be substantial elements of the total subsidy picture. For example, non-applied visual artists in the Netherlands earn some 27% of their income from govern-ment subsidies and 73% from the market.21 Subsidization therefore appears to be less than in the case of an actor who works in a structurally subsidized theatre company that receives 85% of its income from the government. But the picture changes however, if one acknowledges that Dutch visual artists supplement their (very low) average annual net incomes of 1200 Euro (in 1998) via self-subsidization.22 If they supple-mented it to the level earned in comparable professions, the 'gift' part of the income of visual artists could be as much as 95% or more and the market portion less than 5%.

It is doubtful however, whether all self-subsidies can be considered 'gifts'. In the common notion of giving, self-subsidies would not be con-sidered gifts. Gifts involve an exchange between distinct ent.i.ties, whether it be individuals or inst.i.tutions, which basically means that artists cannot give to themselves, even if it is for the purpose of 'serving art'. The concept of the gift, then, needs to be broadened. On the one hand, this notion of expanding the de.nition would seem logical consid-ering that the motivation of self-employed artists subsidizing themselves through low hourly incomes is basically identical to the artists who indis-putably give to art companies through volunteering their time or work-ing for low wages. On the other hand, because self-subsidies by self-employed artists are sometimes sound investments in future successes, it is more logical to treat them like any other business investment.

In order to resolve this issue, I follow the logic previously expressed in chapter 6 and divide self-subsidies into compensated and uncompensated categories. The compensated portion is an investment, not a gift. The portion not immediately compensated by non-monetary rewards and whose future monetary and non-monetary compensation is more uncer-tain than is common practice in business investments, I call 'donations' and I characterize as gifts. (After all, many undisputed gifts also generate uncertain future returns.) In my approach, these gifts remain part of the gift sphere and are added to the already large gift sphere in the arts. At the same time, it must be acknowledged that the line between donations and compensated self-subsidization is extremely unclear in the case of artists. Therefore, it is hard to a.s.sess the relative importance of these artist donations. As I made clear in section 6.13, I believe that an impor-tant part of internal subsidization, however, is not compensated and can be treated as gift giving.

When artists give, they in.uence the outside world, be it ever so slightly. As I've already noted, even poor artists have some capacity to give. Their talents, training, and experience enable them to make sacri.ces, most essential of which is, of course, the sacri.ce of becoming an artist. In this context, 'being poor' may in itself represent a form of power. Their very poverty enables poor artists to make relatively large sacri.ces in order to continue their work as artists. Moreover, whether it's intentional or not, when they display this gift, as Alex does in the second ill.u.s.tration, they end up impressing people with their self-sacri-.cing behavior. As is the case with any gift that is not totally hidden, its display can lead to respect.

In the case of poor artists who have been unsuccessful for a long time, however, such returns are limited and often gradually vanish. Pity a negative reward to most people begins complementing and eventually replacing respect. Successful artists obviously have a greater capacity to give. And although most successful artists do not sacri.ce themselves, they usually continue to give to art. Their gifts, in fact, generate respect and self-esteem.

It is likely that in making sacri.ces artists have some vague notion of future returns in the back of their minds. Meaning that their sacri.ces might eventually reap returns in terms of money, fame, recognition and personal satisfaction. The majority of artists, who possess little chance of ever being compensated, continue to nurture these expectations. Future compensation however, is so uncertain that the donations or sac-ri.ces by the majority of artists cannot possibly be considered normal business investments. Moreover, because of the prevailing myths about the arts that continue to operate in our society, artists are for the most part, ill-informed. Artists give on the basis of misinformation. If this available information wasn't so misleading, artists would probably give less.

Looking at all this from the tenth .oor, misinformation has the effect of turning donations into duties. By allowing themselves to be misled, artists do not end up sacri.cing themselves, so much as being sacri.ced at the altar of art. Nevertheless, given the habitus of artists, it is safe to say that sacri.ce and being sacri.ced amount to about the same thing. In this respect, the term 'tribute' is more .tting than 'duty'; artists pay trib-ute. Tribute implies the fusion of donation and duty and is experienced simultaneously as an homage and an obligation. By giving their time and money to art, artists pay tribute to art and more speci.cally to the accu-mulated body of work of their predecessors in the arts the collective cul-tural capital of their profession. Because of their habitus, paying respect, as well as donating time and money, represent a 'gift' that comes natu-rally for most artists. (All this does not apply to the occasional rebel, however. For the rebel paying respect represents a clear duty.) Most monitoring of donors in the arts occurs extremely indirectly.

This certainly is the case with artists paying tributes. Formal codes are unimportant.23 Given their habitus, artists just 'naturally' stay in line. Behavior is based on a mythology that has become part of the habitus. Because of the myths mentioned in table 1 in section 1.8, behavior takes on ritualistic characteristics. For instance, the continuous sacri.ce of the unsuccessful artist looks a lot like a ritual sacri.ce. Viewed from the out-side, it seems to be irrational. The ritual, however, imbues the sacri.ce with a 'natural' rationale, which does not need to be veri.ed. Moreover, when an artist becomes derelict in her duties to art, it seldom leads to punishment, because defectors are already so effective at punishing themselves.

This a.n.a.lysis of donating by artists also applies to art entrepreneurs and what I call semi-artistic personnel. For instance, small art book pub-lishers are renowned for their internal subsidization; the same can be said of many of the other art intermediaries such as small impresarios, dealers, people who run alternative theatres, art s.p.a.ces, etc. A whole world of people exists who spend an unreasonable amount of time and money on the arts, and in doing so, give to art in much the same way as artists do.

Self-subsidies and gifts by artists, semi-artistic personnel and small art companies help contribute to the already large gift sphere in the arts (thesis 80).

Family and Friends Subsidize Artists Although the legal ties between artists and their partners, relatives, and friends have become less stringent, the presence of a personal union still matters when it comes to giving, and therefore it is useful to distinguish them from other private donors.24 When partners, relatives, or friends give to artists, idiosyncrasy usually plays a role. The returns these people expect from giving often depend more on the relationship they have with the artist than on their relationship to art. Meaning that they support their partner, friend, son or daughter, and probably would not support another artist whom they didn't have close personal ties to.

As we observed earlier, a surprising number of artists still come from well-to-do families.25 Parents, brothers or sisters support them, just like Theo supported Vincent Van Gogh. In the .rst place, family money can serve as a form of insurance. Youngsters are more likely to choose art and the prospect of extreme uncertainty, if they know in the back of their minds that there will always be someone with the means to rescue them if things go wrong. Moreover, many artists live off an inheritance. Or they have parents who ended up paying far more for their children's art edu-cation than they would have paid for another kind of education. And after their children graduate, they often continue to cover their off-spring's losses for many years thereafter.

Nowadays an immense amount of the total subsidies comes from part-ners. The practice of the well-to-do husband who pays for his wife's arts activities, which oscillates somewhere between career and hobby, has not altogether disappeared, but other arrangements have become even more important. Breadwinners, both male and female, now often .nance the serious art careers of their partners. These include not just artists, but gallery owners, impresarios, and other intermediaries as well. Because in today's world direct .nancial a.s.sistance is sometimes a humiliating experience, as seen in the last ill.u.s.tration above, artists' partners often .nd less conspicuous ways of supporting them. For instance, they often basically inst.i.tutionalize their a.s.sistance by auto-matically paying certain shared costs such as rent or holiday costs.

Friends and colleagues, along with family members and partners, also give to art by buying art and going to performances, which they would not have done had they not had a personal relationship with the artist in question. As everyone familiar with the major Western art scenes knows, there are huge areas of unpro.table art activities, which are primarily frequented by colleagues and prospective artists and even more so by friends, partners, and families. Of the, say, twenty people present at any particular contemporary or experimental art performance or opening, most are certainly personally related to the artist in some way. The social costs and bene.ts of this circus of self-fertilization do not concern us in this chapter, but one way or another the bills do get paid. The de.cit, after of.cial subsidies have been incorporated, is paid by internal sources. Friends, colleagues, partners, and family members pay a consid-erable part of it.

The a.s.sistance offered by family and friends represents a clear case of how gifts are based on power as well as on duty. On the one hand, it's a matter of power, like in the past when powerful families had the resources to support artist family members, which, in turn, enhanced the family's prestige.26 On the other hand, giving can also be seen as obliga-tory, because there are conventions in well-to-do families that convert support into a duty. While donors remain the more powerful party, ben-e.ciaries are not powerless.

Although there are no accurate estimates, because of the large number of people involved it is plausible that giving by families and friends to artists contributes considerably to the large size of the gift sphere in the arts (thesis 81).

Private Donors Give to Street Artists as well as to Prestigious Art Inst.i.tutions Private donors operate on all levels and in all areas of the arts. For instance, a donor gives a nickel to a street artist as he or she walks by. Another donor works as a volunteer in a local theater. And a third donates an entire new wing to a museum. It is a pity that there are no accurate estimates of how much people give to street artists, but if we take into account the number of street artists who can make a living from their art, the total amount must be substantial. The same applies to vol-unteerism as a gift.27 Even when we omit these two forms of giving, pri-vate American and European giving is far more important than corpo-rate and private foundation giving.28 (That is if we ignore corporate sponsorship, which is more of a market transaction than a gift.) The gift of private donors to the arts adds substantially to the importance of the gift sphere in the arts (thesis 82).

For the person who gives to the street artist the main return is probably the artistic product itself.29 If donors like the product, they appear to give 'spontaneously' to support that product. Nevertheless, it is more appro-priate to say that conventions help dictate that they give naturally.30 Gifts to street artists bring returns but so does any private gift to the arts. This does not mean that individuals or corporations are deliberately seeking returns. Just like artists, donors are neither sel.ess nor totally sel.shly interested in reaping rewards. (The sections in Chapter 4 that dealt with 'sel.ess' artists and their habitus also apply to 'sel.ess' donors.) Nevertheless, to simplify and reiterate a little, the behavior of donors, like that of artists, is oriented towards returns, which includes internal rewards.

For rich donors the rationale of giving to the arts is often embedded in philanthropy as a social inst.i.tution.31 Philanthropy often plays a role in more general notions of how society should be organized. In the us, one notion is that the government should not be overly in.uential, which means that citizens should a.s.sume as much responsibility as possible, which includes the act of giving. Moreover, philanthropy can be a way of life. It binds group members together and differentiates them from other social groups.32 Having a group ident.i.ty leads to distinction.

Anonymous philanthropy remains a rarity. Low pro.le giving is more common. The fact of one's donations to art are sometimes selectively announced.33 This often adds more to one's esteem than a messy display of one's wealth.

The returns for small donors are usually not limited to themselves. Small donors share many returns to their gifts with non-donors. But a small part of the returns is usually exclusive. As in a market transaction, donors often 'buy' some exclusive rights, like special mentions, free seats, vip treatment during performances, a journal only for donors, all bene.ts that are all especially geared toward 'The Friends of the opera, museum etc.'. Therefore the donation plan contains some aspect of market exchange and the largely symbolic exclusive returns seduce donors into continuing to give.34 Conventions that make gifts partly obligatory exist on all levels of a.s.sistance relationships. This applies as much to giving to street artists as to the philanthropy of the wealthy. 'People should do their share' is a convincing argument, in- and outside the arts. Therefore conventions make gifts fuse with duties.35 Corporations and Private Foundations Support Art The corporate .nancing of the arts receives a lot of publicity, to the point that it looks like the arts are almost totally beholden to it. In the us, how-ever, corporations give less than foundations and they in turn give con-siderably less than private individuals and far less than local, state and federal governments. In Europe these differences are even more extreme because corporate philanthropy is negligible.36 In Europe, government giving as well as private giving are most important. Given the publicity their generosity receives, corporations and foundations have managed to spotlight their generosity. This is hardly amazing. Because they are the most clearly oriented towards returns, they display or advertise their generosity more than other categories of donors.

As is the case with small private donors, corporate donations are a combination of market exchange and gift. Market exchange occurs when the donor receives exclusive returns, as stipulated in a contract. Sometimes the contractual returns as in, free tickets or other perks, for instance, are so important and so little of the donation remains that 'donors' are more consumers than they are gift-givers. This applies to almost all aspects of today's corporate sponsorship plans. Sponsorship means basically trading advertis.e.m.e.nt rights which makes the gift part inconsequential.37 In other words, there is no actual philanthropy involved. Nevertheless, because of the attractive status that is accorded the gift, such terms as 'sponsorship' and 'donation' are applied to veil the true nature of these commercial transactions.38 Corporatephilanthropyiscommoninthe us; in Europe it is almost nonexistent.39 Nevertheless, the motivation of corporations to give to thearts,tosponsorartortobuyartappearstobelargelythesame.40 The successofthepromotionofthenameorcorporatelogoisthemost important return.41 Non-monetary rewards are also signi.cant factors for the various ceos and upper levels of management. Surprisingly, per-sonal contact with the artists involved is often an important aspect of these rewards. The face lift of a bad corporate image was mentioned in an earlier section as a reward. The same applies to the goal of increasing thelegitimacy of one's organization through its a.s.sociation with the arts.

In the case of private foundations or funding agencies it seems that imago and prestige cannot be a driving force for .nancial support as the main benefactors, who could bene.t from them are long dead. But, as in corporations, prestige also goes to the present management and the higher employees. Moreover, foundations need the legitimization art donations can offer them, exactly because there are no living heirs (or shareholders or consumers) who these foundations can report to.

Most donors .nd advertising their generosity an essential ingredient of gift-giving. The details may be disseminated in a muted or digni.ed manner or they can be ostentatiously publicized on television and bill-boards. Either way corporations, foundations, and government agencies enhance their ident.i.ty and increase self-esteem and respect. In other words, it improves both their internal and the external imago.

The majority of rewards reaped by corporations or foundations do not come directly from the artist or art company bene.ciaries but, as was noted earlier, from an elaborate tangle of vague and indirect sources. Corporations, foundations, and government agencies, increase their status and image via their connection with sacred art. Moreover, in capi-talizing on the 'higher authority' aspect of art they also legitimize their own existence.

At the same time, as we showed in the .rst half of this chapter, corpo-rations can also feel compelled to give because of existing conventions and public pressure. It is often dif.cult to tell where gifts that reap pro.ts end and costly duties begin.

10 Conclusion Giving to the arts is an attractive feature for most donors; otherwise they would not do it. The aura of the arts shines upon them. Donors like cor-porations and government agencies, get attention and respect and their a.s.sociation with the arts legitimizes their power.

Although donations usually produce rewards, not-giving can also pro-duce negative rewards. The giving is then more or less obligatory where not-giving is a punishable offense. Because obligations are rooted in con-ventions, giving usually comes naturally. Otherwise, one's lack of gen-erosity is often a matter that is self-punishable through appropriate guilt tripping and having to deal with a bad conscience. Only very rarely pun-ishment comes from outside, as has been the case with politicians who after openly challenging the rationale of art subsidies have been stigma-tized as philistines. The taboo against publicly challenging the wisdom of subsidies demonstrates that giving to the arts is embedded in rituals.

Gifts are primarily a.s.sociated with donations that come from outside the arts, but a large part of giving in the arts takes the form of internal subsidization. Artists continuously donate money to their art careers. The money usually comes from a second job, savings, an inheritance, social bene.ts, insurance payments, or just living a Spartan lifestyle.

When artists, like Robert and Alex in the .rst two ill.u.s.trations of this chapter, give to art, do they sacri.ce themselves or are they sacri.ced at the altar of art? Robert and Alex do receive certain rewards for their gifts. At the same time they are obliged to give. Not giving is a punishable offense. However, given their habitus it is more accurate to note that artists are inclined to give. Existing myths maintain this status quo. In the case of artists like Robert and Alex, gift and a sense of duty, sacri.ce and being sacri.ced, all blend together.

The a.n.a.lysis of gift and duty in this chapter plausibly explains why there is this inclination among various social groups and inst.i.tutions to give to the arts, which in turn, helps explain why there is such a substan-tial gift sphere in the arts. Of these groups, governments certainly have a very strong inclination to give to the arts. Why however, governments give so much, is not immediately clear. The next two chapters will attempt to explain government subsidization from the power-duty per-spective.

Discussion 1 Could you defend the statement that donors are more sel.ess and less oriented towards rewards than we have suggested in this chapter? 2 On the one hand, it can be said that the support of art by a bank serves to enhance the bank's ident.i.ty and imago. In this sense, giving is an expression of power that may eventually lead to a compet.i.tive advan tage. On the other hand, it can be said that compet.i.tion forces a bank to support art. Support is evidently an obligation or a duty. A failure to support art can result in severe punishments as it may ultimately endanger the very existence of the bank. How should this apparent contradiction between power and powerlessness be interpreted?

Chapter 9

The Government Serves Art

Do Art Subsidies Serve the Public Interest or Group Interests?

Opinions on Government Support for the Arts Alex asked some friends why they think the government supports the arts. Paul, a composer of contemporary 'cla.s.sical' music, observes "I don't think there would be modern music without government aid". When I remind him of the existence of pop music he is embarra.s.sed. He probably wanted to say that pop music is not real music, but he doesn't. Instead he talks about the great cla.s.sical tradition. "I think it is absolutely necessary that it continues. And consistent renewal is the only way. I strongly believe that in the long run innovation is in everybody's interest. But even those who love cla.s.sical music do not seem to be that interested. I hate to say this, but people don't even know what's good for them. And so the government has to take responsibility. And not supporting or not supporting music enough is not only shortsighted; it's also extremely unfair. Even with subsidies I earn very little and so bear a large part of the costs of my own artistic work. With-out any support, artists like me would carry the full burden of the costs of the little innovation that still remains. I think it would be very unfair to stop subsidization." Peter is a visual artist who works in the 'fringe' avant-garde circuit. He just manages to eke out a living and continues to make his art because of the availability of all sorts of small subsidies. As long as he can do his own thing, he doesn't consider his low income as unfair. "It is the price I pay. But I do think society should also pay a price. Art comments on society and has values that are independent of market value. I think it's the duty of artists to offer critical commentaries through their art also on the in.uence of the market and the role of money in society. But one cannot expect people to pay for painful comments. Therefore, society should furnish a free haven for art outside the market." For Peter this is the raison d'etre of subsidiza-tion. "If subsidization were stopped, art would become overwhelmingly commercial and lose its sting. In the end, society would emerge as the real loser." Anna is an art administrator. As a civil servant she worked for a government body that issues subsidies to artists. Now she is running an art festival, which is almost solely funded by the government. "I must stress how disas-trous stopping subsidization would be for the arts and for society at large. Entire aspects of culture would just disappear. I think there would be no serious theatre and music left. This must never happen. It is in the interest of society that the arts .ourish. This applies to traditional art just as much as to modern art. It is my viewpoint that society's willingness to let the govern-ment support the arts re.ects the degree of it's civilization. And talking about civilized people, I must add two things. Firstly, the government has a duty to help poor artists, and, secondly, it must see to it that art is accessi-ble to the poorest of its citizens. High prices for performances and muse-ums are an a.s.sault on humanity. I really want to emphasize that subsidies should keep art affordable for everybody." Alex objects at this juncture and points out that low prices do not stimulate the attendance of low-income groups. "You are absolutely wrong," she says. "I personally know several people with little education and very little money, who attend cla.s.sical the-atre and music. And above all, it is the principle that counts.'' Martin owned a number of factories that produced a certain brand of dairy products. He retired early. Now he collects art and he goes to concerts. He loves the opera above all. "It's a pity I did not discover art earlier. I would loved to have set up a visual art collection owned by my company and bear-ing the company name. Modern art, of course. But paintings that could be appreciated by my employees. It is not impossible, you know. About your question: I've changed my mind about subsidies. I'm now on this commit-tee to recruit donors for the National Opera. Do you know how much a visit to the opera costs? At .rst I could not believe it myself. It's about twenty Euros per ticket. But actual costs would make the price around four hun-dred Euros.1 It could be even more if you consider the many free tickets I get free tickets, of course. So you can work it out; without subsidies, prices would have to be raised by about two thousand percent. n.o.body, well, hardly anybody could pay those kinds of prices. We are trying to get more private donations. But it is more dif.cult than I expected. We will increase our revenues by about one or two percent, but not more. Without subsi-dies, the opera would disappear or it would become an extremely elitist affair." Alex adds that in his opinion it is already an elitist affair. "Oh no, think of all the students who come. And you know who I saw there las