Newsgroup: it.arti.musica.classica
Titolo: A proposito di finanziamenti alla cultura

Vi copio un interessante articolo del Financial Times di ieri
Arts cannot be funded by big donors alone
By Alan Davey
Published: August 5 2010 22:59 | Last updated: August 5 2010 22:59
The news that 40 of America's wealthiest individuals and families - led by
Warren Buffett and Bill Gates - are to pledge the majority of their fortunes
to charity will inevitably lead to questions in the UK about whether, in 
tough
financial times, more of Britain's arts sector can be supported by private
donors. It is not a bad idea - indeed I can think of no arts organisation 
that
would not want more funding from private sources. But, at the same time, we
must be clear that moving towards the American system is not a sustainable
or innovative way to solve present funding difficulties.
Jeremy Hunt, the culture secretary, has outlined plans to change the culture
of giving and sponsorship in this country so that more money can come to
the arts from private individuals or commercial companies. I disagree with
those who have interpreted this as a move to an American-style model. Such
a move would involve much more drastic reductions in public spending than
the cuts currently in prospect. Not only do I think this is not what Mr Hunt
intends, it would also destroy what makes the arts great in this country - a
mixed economy model that works.
British arts organisations are not layabouts waiting for handouts. Long ago
they sought new business models. Take the National Theatre - 15 years ago
public money accounted for 60 per cent of its income, now it is nearer 30 
per
cent. The average Arts Council-funded organisation receives a third of its
income from the public purse and generates the rest elsewhere.
By contrast, the concentration of wealth over many decades in America, and
a history of self-help and sense of public duty, has led to a culture of 
giving
and individual patronage. This sounds fine, but it has its downsides. The
dominant influence of wealthy donors creates a conservatism in artistic
programming that leads to a lack of exciting new work. It is perhaps no
coincidence that this year's Tony awards were dominated by new plays from
Britain, where our system of funding allows the original and cutting edge to
thrive.
A reliance on the goodwill of wealthy donors can provoke self-censorship,
too. In Chicago this year, a production of The Taming of the Shrew, by
exceptional British director Josie Rourke, ran into difficulties due to
apprehension over a benefactor's response to a scene portraying gay
characters. This fear was misplaced and ultimately no donor withdrew - but
the willingness to self-censor was real. Artists in England can create 
cuttingedge
work largely because of a mixed funding model, at arm's length from
government.
Sustainability is another problem. Donations from billionaires grab the
headlines, but a significant drop in US sponsorship and philanthropic giving
since the recession has seen opera houses, theatres, galleries and museums
close across the country. An estimated one in 10 American arts
organisations has been forced to make swingeing cuts or consider complete
closure. In England not a single one of our mixed-funded organisations has
gone out of business.
Rather than America, we might look to Canada for lessons on how to
increase philanthropy here. Canada also has a mixed arts economy, but one
with similar incentives to the US for individual giving and building
endowments. The proportion of public funding for big arts organisations is
now less than in England, while private sector support has grown by 53 per
cent in the last decade. The Canadian strategy - broadly maintaining levels
of public funding while increasing private - prevented an over-reliance on
either private donors or public funds and gave arts organisations stability 
to
work on plans to increase private giving.
Changing the culture of giving in this country will take time. While there 
are
measures we can take to encourage the shift - from allowing donors to
receive proper recognition from arts organisations by adjusting laws around
Gift Aid , to providing advice so that organisations can make the most of
current systems to incentivise giving - we must not lose sight of why we are
doing it. Our system of arts funding is a true public-private partnership to
which many countries aspire. Private giving should enhance public funding
not replace it. We must never forget that philanthropy is a gift that is 
freely
given, and can also be freely taken away.
The writer is chief executive of Arts Council England and current chair of 
the
International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010. You may share using our article 
tools.
Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to 
the web.

 the web.
oooopppps
SORRY!

The
dominant influence of wealthy donors creates a conservatism in
artistic
programming that leads to a lack of exciting new work.
lz

 ha scritto nel messaggio 
news:6c8ab0a9-e19a-4844...@s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

eh beh, mi pare palese