• Brooks Kelley

    Be careful of what you wish for. If you are following the Detroit bankruptcy, you will realize that one of the big debates right now is whether the art work for the Detroit Institute of Arts should be sold to pay off the creditors. It turns out that a lot of the art work belongs to the City of Detroit due to the level of support that came from the public sector and the way evdrything is owned. It turns out that the DIA, the nonprofit, does not own the artwork. A few donors had the stipulation in their donations that if the artwork was sold it would have to go to other museums but most did not worry about it or think about the possibility that the City of Detroit could one day face bankruptcy. The other side of the equation is that the regional governments voted in a millage to support the arts but if the art work is disposed of that support also may be pulled. Probably big problem is that the system was not set up so that the non-profit owned the artwork.

  • lisa robb

    This is a refreshing perspective and makes for strong casemaking for investments of public funds in arts, culture and heritage activities as a compelling part of a good governance portfolio.
    Cultural Data Project jobs data for the 2,008 organizations with NYS reports on file is 303,000 jobs are associated with these organizations – not ancillary jobs but direct employment.
    Buffalo , NY certainly has supported the sector as part of a smart growth strategy and a community vitality indicator. This does not even touch the for profit creative economy piece of the pie. Thanks Paul.

  • Beth

    This is not a new thing, the DIA has been publicly owned since 1919. City-funded acquisitions essentially stopped with the Great Depression, and entirely halted in 1953. Yes, those works purchased with city funds before that time are the most “vulnerable” to possible sale, but the DIA is and has been in a unique situation even before the city declared bankruptcy. Compared to other arts institutions in major cities, the DIA is under-endowed regardless of who owns the art. Does the bankruptcy hurt? Probably. Is the taxpayer base of the city inadequate to support the institution? Almost certainly. But the DIA is definitely not a representative case to hold up against the argument presented in this article.

  • Andi

    Perhaps the cultural institions would find tax payers more amenable to paying for them, if the museums, galleries and orchestras, ect were more amenable to adults. I am tired of being viewed as a wallet for institutions that really have gone out of their way to tell me I am not welcome unless I am handing them money, merely because I am over 18 and single.
    While single members of any of them museums I have ever been a member of are charged significantly more than families per person we gear next to nothing in programming that is not geared towards fundraising.yet there are children’s programs galore even at the so called community days that museums here offer once a season, I pay the$10 fee to get in…the same $10 that my sister can take her two children for..and forget my participation ….I am expected to step aside and let the families go first, and if there are left overs I might be able to participate from their leavings . Time and time again I am asked to help fund these same institutions ~~~why would I want to fund something that offers me nothing but an. Opportunity to fund programming that I am not welcome at? Cultural institutions need to stop whining about budget shortfalls and how they need money and start cultivating relationships with the people who will be paying the bills and overwhelmingly taxpayers are adults.

    I’ll continue voting against funding for institutions that only view me as a wallet.