September 21, 2007 | Read Time: 1 minute
Charitable giving giving to arts groups and museums is not, as one critic has charged, a frivolous exercise in comparison with giving to global health causes, argues Caroline Heine in a posting on the PhilanthroMedia blog.
Ms. Heine answers a recent opinion aired by William H. Gross, a billionaire investor, in The New York Times.
“When millions of people are dying of AIDS and malaria in Africa, it is hard to justify the umpteenth society gala held for the benefit of a performing arts center or an art museum,” Mr. Gross told the newspaper. “A $30-million gift to a concert hall is not philanthropy, it is a Napoleonic coronation.”
But Ms. Heine cites a new study by Americans for the Arts that shows how strong arts institutions can have a ripple effect in their surrounding communities.
“The nonprofit arts and culture industry generates $166.2 billion in economic activity every year—$63.1 billion in spending by organizations and an additional $103.1 billion in event-related spending by their audiences,” a report on the study declares.
“Does that look like a Napoleonic coronation to you?” Ms. Heine asks, adding, “Mr. Gross might know a lot about investing in the stock market, but he is way off base with regard to the philanthropic investment needed for a community to truly thrive. Investment in the arts is good for everyone.”
Should giving to the arts be given a lower priority by big donors? Or is such giving essential to the economic health of communities? Join the debate by clicking on the comments link below.
