Motivations for Patronage

Donors who give of their time, funds, and treasures (art, equipment, musical instruments, etc.) are as varied as the rest of the population. As a group of development officers (DOs) I interviewed told me, for the most part, giving is all about the programs that donors find interesting. Most people tend to give to the person

Page 293

or persons who represent the “face” of a specific program. We open our wallets, donate our art, and give our time when we find these individuals trustworthy, believe they make a genuine effort on behalf of their program, and provide strong leadership. By associating with people we admire, our donations serve as a proxy for approval of them while simultaneously representing approval of ourselves.

For example, a retired attorney in North Carolina mentioned that he supports the law school at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, because it trains students to assist in DNA studies of prisoners who may have been wrongly imprisoned. The dean of the law school, alerted to this individual’s desire, has visited twice to encourage the significant gift. His previous donations were based on his professional interest and general belief in a just society. If the dean proves to be someone that this individual admires and trusts, then he will more likely be convinced to provide a more substantial gift.

Giving can be based purely on friendship. An individual may become involved with a specific charity or institution because of a close friend’s involvement. In this case, it is the relationship with the friend that is valued. The donation shows approval for the relationship more than the specific work or action of the organization. Giving amplifies our strongest values.

In our case, my wife and I give almost exclusively to persons who represent programs we consider meaningful to our mountain community and our former employer, Appalachian State University. We ask how the program or project will benefit students (particularly first-generation students from low-income families), support faculty and staff, or address a local community need. We withhold support when a program director or administrator seems more interested in self-aggrandizement than in the ones being served. We have a rule regarding requests for money over the phone; we always say no if we do not know the caller.

Another perspective is this: a group of individuals who serve together on a board of a certain institution may at first have no other interest than supporting the institution’s mission, but with time some of them may become genuine friends. My wife and I have made several of our best friends in this fashion. Most donors do not call on others to give money or needed items; that approach is left to professionals. However, donors can highlight our favorite

Page 294

programs to friends, engage them in volunteer activities, or allow the use of our names to inspire others. We don’t call asking someone for money or a donation by what it is; we rather call it “friend building,” “friend raising,” or that “we create opportunities for giving.” Thus we are creating a community environment for giving or not giving.

History of Patronage

Realistically though, patronage is at least as ancient as the first urban cultures in the Middle East. Then, from the ancient Egyptian dynasties to the Roman aristocrats and emperors to the Indian and Chinese nobles and rulers to the modern era, patronage

Page 295

has been part of civilization. The motivations were often deeply religious and public. A pharaoh may have wanted to assure his well-being in the afterlife at the same time that he created a memorable pyramid.

Some recent patrons had purely worldly motives. In the early 18^th century, for example, Louis XIV collected art and thus became a patron without having a particular affinity to art. But he endeavored to demonstrate and enhance his enormous power and to gain a reputation for exquisite taste. Then there was Catherine the Great of Russia in the latter part of the century. She employed agents all across Europe to buy art. Unlike today with instantaneous communications, a scout was in a more tenuous position; although one can assume that competition between such services is even fiercer today (Nick Glass, “The People Who are Making Million-Dollar Art Deals for the Super Rich,” CNN Style, October 7, 2019). We may still admire the art Catherine had collected in the Hermitage in St. Petersburg and applaud her sensibilities for culture. Nevertheless, in her case and that of Louis XIV, we can make at least two points. One, they wanted to show their power and taste. Two, they had a deep psychological need to be appreciated, if not admired. Today we realize as well that it did not matter to them that these donations to their self-esteem came on the bent backs of starving peasants.

There is a distinct difference between collector/patrons like Catherine II and, say, the Rockefellers and men of the 1930s and 1940s who knowingly collected what the Nazis called “degenerate art” and art that been confiscated or outright stolen from Jews by members of the Nazi regime. “Collectors” like Hermann Göring, Hildebrand Gurlitt, and Bruno Lohse, who knowingly bought art that was unacceptable to the regime or looted, must be considered criminals. Yet, we know they collected because they “loved art” and they had powerful motivations to own it, not the least of which was to “show off” their collections The fact that we may still enjoy some of the fruits of their acquisitions is no excuse for their corrupt behavior.

Patronage Preserving Art and Music

I am connecting collecting art with patronage and patronage in turn with preserving art, even if the original purpose was no more than to enhance one’s prestige by displaying the art in a palace or a home. Few collectors are fully aware that the art they own is theirs in perpetuity; part of their drive is to own it indefinitely.

Page 296

As one major patron told me, “If I see a piece I love, I have to have it. It is like a major disease.” Yet he, and many others, make art available to the public before their demise or in their wills and in doing so are donating future understanding of their time.

It may seem far-fetched to describe a similar sort of behavior to patrons of music. Great composers like Johann Sebastian Bach, who composed one cantata after the other for his patrons—the churches—can also be seen as giving his music to churches and they, in turn, made it available to the persons who attended their services at the time. This allowed the music to be passed on to future generations as well; more than 200 years later, we still play Bach’s music.

Then as today, whether a donor is known or anonymous, he, she, or they have created access to a broader audience. By access, I mean that they became members of a certain group or organization whose stance or plans they supported or support. Even the person or group that gives anonymously and whose name is not affixed at a certain building or on a wall is known to the entity to which the gift was given.

Showing that One Has Arrived

One of the most fascinating groups of patrons was the Jewish merchants and professionals of the last decades of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. Their sponsorship and support of someone like the artist Gustav Klimt illustrate their desire to be recognized as having arrived in society. Their motivation was similar to that of other patrons: through their patronage, they showed their wealth and sophistication. That is not to say that they did not admire the art itself; more than that, they loved it, why else spend fortunes on it? Despite the National Socialists’ perverse drive to sideline degenerate art and thus to destroy the work of Jewish artists and patrons, the creative effort survived. One visit to the Neue Galerie in New York City will more than hint at this exceptional output.

The reasons for a person or group of persons’ patronage are sometimes difficult to discover. For several years now, Russian oligarchs have given generously of their time, funds, and art to American museums and other venues. The usual assumption is that they did so for political reasons (Graham Bowley, The New York Times, Section A, 1, October 7, 2019). But simply because the wealthiest of these oligarchs are close to Vladimir Putin, one ought not to assume that they are mainly interested in creating a positive

Page 297

image of Russia. These men may simply seek the company of others with the same level of wealth and interests outside of Russia or to let the world know that they are personages of influence and lovers of art. But an equally powerful motive may be an effort to build contacts in the West, in case they run afoul with Putin, as has happened in the past. Additionally, because two or more of the major players are of Jewish descent, they have good reason to think strategically; think of the Imperial pogroms, Stalin’s doctors’ plot, and the general disdain of Jews in Russia. It pays to be doubly concerned and prepared for the worst.

Another important point is this: we have become acutely aware in the West of the unacceptable political and scandalous backgrounds of some donors. In rare cases, museums feel the need, or pressure, to disassociate themselves from these individuals and groups and have thus moved beyond the Roman emperor Vespasian’s idea that pecunia non olet (“money does not smell”). Recently, there is an example of the very public decision by several prestigious organizations to return money to the Sackler family because the family made its money off of the drug OxyContin, which fueled the opioid crisis in America. Carried too far, such consciousness about raising funds and art donations may denude all too many museums of their best inventories. At the same time, it will deny, albeit retrospectively, the access donors sought with their gifts for themselves and others.

One of the greatest threats to the arts is the children of those who create, sponsor, and collect it. Children may or may not share the interests of their parents when it comes to collecting, sharing, and giving. If their interests are different it may mean a loss to one set of artists, programs, schools, churches, and museums while acting as the gain of another.

There is still another side to giving; honorable men and women, aware of humanity’s darker side, have tried to regulate giving to restrain untoward behavior. Specifically, they have endeavored to hold back men (and a few women) in power who seek to force their employees to contribute to their causes. Employees of local, state, and/or federal governmental entities should not be asked to contribute to the election or reelection campaigns of a potential or established office holder. This is also the reason political contributions are not tax-deductible.

Conclusion

Page 298

There is a distinct difference between patronage/support of the arts, universities, schools, and churches and that of politicians and political parties. While occasionally the two overlap and are difficult to sort out, patronage of art generally enhances the environment and well-being of individuals and groups. Gifts of art and music tend to have a positive effect on the original donors as well as the recipients and the future generations, who can view the work and hear the melodies. Erik Erickson identified this as generativity, the ability to have concern for others as well as a need to nurture younger people to contribute to the next generation.

Unrestrained donations to political entities can and have, however, led to astonishing abuses. Donations to organizations can create labels that may not fully represent who the donor is. It is particularly important to consider how identifying with a specific political party makes an individual automatically “anti-something” else. A gift to the arts or an educational institution is a unifying action rather than a divisive one.

One final point. In the U.S., giving or patronage has become a profession and tax deduction. Because the U.S. governments rarely nor sufficiently support public institutions such as universities and museums, in contrast to most other industrial societies, an alternative approach to financing has developed. For example, many state legislatures and governors have cut funding to such a degree that the institutions cannot continue to function without fundraising. As the lead developer for the University of Heidelberg in Germany wrote to me this spring, “We are not used to fundraising because our federal and state governments support our institutions, but we now realize that extra funds do help some programs.”

Fundraising is a uniquely American approach to supporting various causes, institutions, and actions. My fear, expressed already many decades ago, is that the more funds we raise or art we give, the more government entities feel disinclined to provide support. But this rarely articulated threat should not become a reason not to give or become a patron. By being a donor or patron, one can determine a program’s success. Further, our support reflects our inner desire to be the caretakers and sponsors of the cultural artifacts of our time—evidence of our existence for future generations to know us.

Page 299