report from the field:

a “need” for small cultural charities

Last month former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich suggested in the Los Angeles Times (1 October) that donations to “arts organizations and universities… aren’t really charitable contributions.” Referring (inaccurately) to a major study published last spring, he said that “only 10 percent of charitable donations actually go to help poor people.” So, he concluded, we should reform the tax code: “If the donation goes to an institution or agency set up to help the poor, the donor gets a full deduction. If the donation goes somewhere else—to an art palace, a university, a symphony, or any other nonprofit [Catalogue’s emphasis]—the donor gets to deduct only half of the contribution.” This proposal is based on conceptual and factual errors, and would damage philanthropy by eliminating tax incentives to almost all small charities, which are over 90% of all philanthropic institutions.

Cultural donations and institutions are certainly philanthropy: “private initiatives for public good, focusing on quality of life.” Supporting them is evidently in the public interest, especially now. Support for culture is the essence of philanthropy.

How do we try to understand human nature—to know ourselves? Historically, mainly through religion and the arts, with help from (until very recently) the “humanities”—history, language and literature, ethics, and the fine arts. Today we have turned away from this Classical Western tradition. The importance of arts in our culture and in education has declined. We provide few formal creative outlets for people, especially our young, to explore both the meaning of life and self-expression. At the same time, it is argued within philanthropy that there are “too many” small, struggling, cultural charities—that they are struggling, it is said, shows that there are too many.

The opposite might well be true. That there are many, and that they are struggling for survival, might mean that for some people, art is a necessity, not a luxury—that they keep creating new arts organizations to fill “needs,” solve problems, and pursue opportunities for self-development.

Dancers performing a traditional dance at a Puerto Rican festival (p. 50) are personally rewarded by celebrating their cultural identity, with camaraderie and physical exercise. Ballet dancers (previous page), video projection artists (p. 22), and teen mural painters (p. 30), the “public art” movement itself—all are evidence that art is “needed,” and that all of us benefit from it. Supporting these organizations can have tremendous impact, now more than ever. If you believe that cultural charities improve the quality of life for their participants, communities, and ultimately the quality of life in Massachusetts, invest in them. You can make a difference.

Carl Mastandrea
Managing Editor
(former Executive Director, Boston Photo Collaborative)