Morning:
8°c
MICHAEL LYNCH is right to slate the City. I sit on two arts bodies - the board of Kingston Theatre and the development board of The Sixteen, the English choral ensemble - and I know how tough it is to persuade the high-rollers to part with their cash.
But it's not as black and white as he suggests. In order for the bankers and financiers to give more we need to create an environment in which such generosity is seen as the rule, not the exception. For that to occur, there must be a shift in our attitude towards philanthropy.
In America, every business person who makes it is expected as a matter of duty to put something back. Virtually every town can point to an arts centre, hospital, library, that bears the name of a single individual and their foundation.
Here, we've come to rely on the state to do our work and that has applied to the arts as much as health and education, where the Arts Council is still regarded as the primary source of funding. The tendency to sit back and do nothing is paramount. When, occasionally, someone does break the mould, their donation will be welcomed, naturally, but will also be greeted by a sneer elsewhere. Our first reaction as a society is to say "thank you" - our second is to wonder, "what are they after?"
In some cases, the latter even comes before the former - so riven are we as a country with envy, so cynical are we that the rich are trying to buy honours (which sadly, sometimes they are). Instead of celebrating and enjoying their success, as is the case in the US, we want to knock them down.
To help them, and to indicate our national willingness for them to dip into their pockets, tax breaks have to be increased. The Government should take more of a lead and enthuse about giving to the arts, making it clear cultural events are not the preserve of an elite few.
Despite what Lynch says, there had been a marked improvement in firms and individuals writing significant cheques for the arts - but the recession and, with it, the onslaught against the banks, has slowed that process right down.
From the ashes of City greed there is talk of a softer, system emerging, what is being described as "moral capitalism". Let's hope so - in the arts and in the charitable sector as a whole, cash cannot come soon enough.
Reader views (2)
Why should anyone be surprised that those who "earned" in the City more than they know how to spend should have no understanding or appreciation of the arts or of the importance of supporting high culture? Their legacy is dust.
- Bloke, London, 16/04/2009 14:48
Report abuse
People who want to see "arts" should pay for it. I have no interest whatsoever in contributing to them. So far as I am concerned, Opera is fat people singing in foreign and ballet is just men in tights and women wondering around on their toes - very impressive from an athletic point of view, but only likely to hold me attention for about 10 seconds. I don't ask you to subsidise my pop concerts or movies so don't expect me to subsidise your "noise" or art like Josie Emin's bed or that monstrosity that sat in the corner of Trafalgar Square for some months. You, and your ilk, have got a cheek Michael Lynch - exactly how much of your readies did you give to the arts anyway?
- Andrew Taylor, Sevenoaks, UK, 16/04/2009 12:58
Report abuse
