Victoria D. Alexander — A delicate balance: museums and the market-place
Currently financed by a mix of government, corporate, foundation, and individual
grants, American museums have a funding history quite different from that of most
European museums in that they have traditionally been philanthropic endeavours
supported by elite individuals, sometimes aided by the local municipal government.
Most government funds, whether at the state or federal level, are given through an
`arms length' system
(an independent intermediary agency is allocated funds directly from the government
budget and then passes these on to the arts organizations), and are usually not
available for operating expenses. Most of the support comes in the form of grants for
specific projects.
Although individual contributors remained important, museums came to rely on a
broad range of financial aid and as a result they have had a few decades of
experience in cobbling together support from a variety of sources. How do sponsors
affect exhibitions? The answer is, more indirectly than directly. Although funding itself
often makes an exhibition possible, which would not have been so otherwise ±
clearly a direct effect - backers rarely meddle with the contents or format. Critics
assert that business firms distort exhibitions by requiring museums to include pieces
of questionable merit or to exclude works that might be controversial or place the
sponsor in a bad light.
Both government and corporate sponsors prefer exhibitions that draw large
audiences, although for different reasons: government wishes to bring a social good
to the many (and reach taxpayers and voters), while business firms hope to increase
them advertising potential of the philanthropic dollar. Put together, this means that
popular exhibitions are easier to finance and their number thus increases as a
proportion of the total. Blockbuster shows, displays of Impressionist art, trevelling
exhibitions and those based on a theme (e.g. the window in art), to mention several
popular types, become more common.
Another more subtle and troublesome way in which funding might affect exhibitions
is that museum people must keep potential sponsors in mind from the earliest stages
of the planning process. As a consequence, it is possible that museums constrain
themselves in order to win support. As Philippe de Montebello, Director of the
Metropolitan Museum, has stated: corporate funding is `an inherent, insidious,
hidden form of censorship . . . but corporations aren't censoring us - we're censoring
ourselves'.
A change of mission
First, the general ethos of the late 1960s led to attacks on many types of institution
thought to be too exclusive.
Second, as museums became more reliant on external resources, they needed to
attend to their sponsors' interests, notably the desire to attract a broader audience.
Third, as American museums successfully courted a variety of funding sources, they
began to hire new kinds of staff - fundraisers, accountants, and others with
specialities outside of art history. These people changed the balance of power,
bringing in a more businesslike approach to running museums.
Needless to say, these changes in mission have exacerbated tensions in museums ±
notably between the business and the curatorial sides.
, Nevertheless, as a proportion of the total number of activities found in museums,
conservation and scholarship take a smaller part than before. This is a key source of
conflict. Curators have, in fact, lost power and autonomy and this is very difficult for
them, as it would be for any professional in similar circumstances. Pointing to the
sums of money spent to set up and run the commercial services and to the projects
cancelled for lack of funds, they argue that art history and preservation are suffering.
The story of American art museums in the last few decades can be briefly
summarized: less elitism, more populism; more attention to development, fund-
raising and revenue generation; more vibrant exhibitions and programmes; more
scholarship and conservation (but not as a proportion of the whole range of museum
activities); and more internal conflict.
The `American model' in the United Kingdom
The turn of museums into a more market-driven system. Though they have met this
challenge with some success, museums struggle to find funding. They must rely on a
wide variety of sources, from project grants and private sponsors to admission fees,
collection boxes, shops, and cafes. Many grants by national or local government for
projects must be matched by external partners. But there are too many museums
(not to mention other cultural, educational, and charitable organizations) seeking out
too few potential sponsors. The same large corporations, known to be active in
cultural philanthropy, are approached by numerous worthy organizations. It is clear
that matching grants work best when a pool of partners exists, but in the United
Kingdom the pool is only half full. One innovative scheme seems to help with
matching grants: a museum's auxiliary activities are incorporated into a separate
organization which can then provide funds as an external partner.
Charging for admission or establishing `voluntary contributions' collected at the door
(by an employee who is trained to stare gorgon-like when wallets do not open) is a
contentious issue in the United Kingdom.
In lieu of the charges, however, many museums have set up collection boxes to tap
the visitor's generosity. The trick is to educate the public as to the high costs of
running museums and the great importance of contributing a few pounds. In the
United Kingdom, museums can apply for lottery money (on a matching basis), which
can be used for capital expenditures only
Management challenges
Current political climates as well as demands from more needy sectors, such as
education and health care, will make it difficult to resist the move toward less
government support The challenge to management is to keep in view the importance
of the traditional roles of museums while at the same time taking on newer ones
such as attracting audiences and selling products.
Heilbrun & Gray (2001) The Economics of Art & Culture, Chapter 12
Public and/or private support for the arts in the United States, Australia, Canada, and
Western Europe
TRADITIONAL OPPOSITION TO PUBLIC SUPPORT IN THE UNITED STATES
Until the early 1960s, the federal and state governments in the United States offered
virtually no continuous, direct financial support to cultural sector.
Currently financed by a mix of government, corporate, foundation, and individual
grants, American museums have a funding history quite different from that of most
European museums in that they have traditionally been philanthropic endeavours
supported by elite individuals, sometimes aided by the local municipal government.
Most government funds, whether at the state or federal level, are given through an
`arms length' system
(an independent intermediary agency is allocated funds directly from the government
budget and then passes these on to the arts organizations), and are usually not
available for operating expenses. Most of the support comes in the form of grants for
specific projects.
Although individual contributors remained important, museums came to rely on a
broad range of financial aid and as a result they have had a few decades of
experience in cobbling together support from a variety of sources. How do sponsors
affect exhibitions? The answer is, more indirectly than directly. Although funding itself
often makes an exhibition possible, which would not have been so otherwise ±
clearly a direct effect - backers rarely meddle with the contents or format. Critics
assert that business firms distort exhibitions by requiring museums to include pieces
of questionable merit or to exclude works that might be controversial or place the
sponsor in a bad light.
Both government and corporate sponsors prefer exhibitions that draw large
audiences, although for different reasons: government wishes to bring a social good
to the many (and reach taxpayers and voters), while business firms hope to increase
them advertising potential of the philanthropic dollar. Put together, this means that
popular exhibitions are easier to finance and their number thus increases as a
proportion of the total. Blockbuster shows, displays of Impressionist art, trevelling
exhibitions and those based on a theme (e.g. the window in art), to mention several
popular types, become more common.
Another more subtle and troublesome way in which funding might affect exhibitions
is that museum people must keep potential sponsors in mind from the earliest stages
of the planning process. As a consequence, it is possible that museums constrain
themselves in order to win support. As Philippe de Montebello, Director of the
Metropolitan Museum, has stated: corporate funding is `an inherent, insidious,
hidden form of censorship . . . but corporations aren't censoring us - we're censoring
ourselves'.
A change of mission
First, the general ethos of the late 1960s led to attacks on many types of institution
thought to be too exclusive.
Second, as museums became more reliant on external resources, they needed to
attend to their sponsors' interests, notably the desire to attract a broader audience.
Third, as American museums successfully courted a variety of funding sources, they
began to hire new kinds of staff - fundraisers, accountants, and others with
specialities outside of art history. These people changed the balance of power,
bringing in a more businesslike approach to running museums.
Needless to say, these changes in mission have exacerbated tensions in museums ±
notably between the business and the curatorial sides.
, Nevertheless, as a proportion of the total number of activities found in museums,
conservation and scholarship take a smaller part than before. This is a key source of
conflict. Curators have, in fact, lost power and autonomy and this is very difficult for
them, as it would be for any professional in similar circumstances. Pointing to the
sums of money spent to set up and run the commercial services and to the projects
cancelled for lack of funds, they argue that art history and preservation are suffering.
The story of American art museums in the last few decades can be briefly
summarized: less elitism, more populism; more attention to development, fund-
raising and revenue generation; more vibrant exhibitions and programmes; more
scholarship and conservation (but not as a proportion of the whole range of museum
activities); and more internal conflict.
The `American model' in the United Kingdom
The turn of museums into a more market-driven system. Though they have met this
challenge with some success, museums struggle to find funding. They must rely on a
wide variety of sources, from project grants and private sponsors to admission fees,
collection boxes, shops, and cafes. Many grants by national or local government for
projects must be matched by external partners. But there are too many museums
(not to mention other cultural, educational, and charitable organizations) seeking out
too few potential sponsors. The same large corporations, known to be active in
cultural philanthropy, are approached by numerous worthy organizations. It is clear
that matching grants work best when a pool of partners exists, but in the United
Kingdom the pool is only half full. One innovative scheme seems to help with
matching grants: a museum's auxiliary activities are incorporated into a separate
organization which can then provide funds as an external partner.
Charging for admission or establishing `voluntary contributions' collected at the door
(by an employee who is trained to stare gorgon-like when wallets do not open) is a
contentious issue in the United Kingdom.
In lieu of the charges, however, many museums have set up collection boxes to tap
the visitor's generosity. The trick is to educate the public as to the high costs of
running museums and the great importance of contributing a few pounds. In the
United Kingdom, museums can apply for lottery money (on a matching basis), which
can be used for capital expenditures only
Management challenges
Current political climates as well as demands from more needy sectors, such as
education and health care, will make it difficult to resist the move toward less
government support The challenge to management is to keep in view the importance
of the traditional roles of museums while at the same time taking on newer ones
such as attracting audiences and selling products.
Heilbrun & Gray (2001) The Economics of Art & Culture, Chapter 12
Public and/or private support for the arts in the United States, Australia, Canada, and
Western Europe
TRADITIONAL OPPOSITION TO PUBLIC SUPPORT IN THE UNITED STATES
Until the early 1960s, the federal and state governments in the United States offered
virtually no continuous, direct financial support to cultural sector.
