Museums in America depend heavily on contributions from wealthy members, but they also court corporations and private contributors to help sustain a museums collections. By contrast, European museums are given large government subsidies that help them to procure expensive pieces of art from auctions or private collections. That is, they did. Now, European museums are beginning to also court corporate donors to not only help with acquisitions, but to also finance security and conservation of existing pieces.

So has the time come for European museums to look beyond entrance charges, restaurants and gift shops for much-needed extra cash? Is this the moment when corporate sponsorship of major arts institutions finally becomes respectable in Europe? The answers seem obvious. How else can museums remain vigorous?

And yet what is being proposed is not universally welcomed. In fact, in much of Europe, the issue is meshed in ideology. As with health care and education, culture is seen as a public right that governments have a duty to satisfy. Further, corporate sponsorship of the arts motivated by public relations, not altruism, is viewed as somehow tainted, especially to cultural officials raised in a statist tradition.

But the article suggests two different views of the differences between European and American cultural tradition: traditionally, American museums have more liberty to procure different collections so long as they have the corporate backing but European museums still have access to large quantities of cash.

Yet even in France, where governments have long jealously controlled culture, change is under way. A 2003 law offering tax breaks to companies buying art treasures for national museums is already bringing results. Last month, the Carrefour retail group donated 130 Italian Renaissance drawings, 25 destined for the Louvre. The Louvre's director, Henri Loyrette, noted that the value of recent donations had already exceeded his annual acquisitions budget. He has also begun looking abroad for financial assistance: earlier this year, he created a nonprofit group, American Friends of the Louvre, for this purpose.

Mona Lisa, sponsored by BP.

stockula

Anchorage, AK

May 2003

NOV 15, 2004 01:53 AM

Eh. The renaissance was largely funded by ultra-wealthy capitalists. Not sure why you'd be upset upkeep of those works are reverting back to the old way.

Ayin

Chicago, IL

January 2003

NOV 15, 2004 03:09 AM

I'd love to go on a rant here about "damn the man" or something...but, um...Stock's right; as long as great art is being kept open to the public, I don't particularly care where the money comes from...

Vampirate

Durham, NC

October 2004

NOV 15, 2004 05:58 AM

And honestly... the French government is pretty authoritarian when it comes to enforcing its cultural "purity." Not that the French don't have a long, fine history, but I think it's high time they relaxed their sphincters a little bit.

pabbott_03301

Auburn, ME

February 2004

NOV 15, 2004 07:00 AM

And at least some private art patrons have taste; which is more than one can say about government bureaucrats.

dem_z

United Kingdom

June 2004

NOV 15, 2004 08:02 AM

So long as the stuff is being kept available to the public, but that's the point, eh? How much stuff is hidden away because it's in a private collection?

BOARDS:

TOPICS:

NEWS: European Museums Increase Corporate Dependence

Christopher

Portland, OR

November 2002

NOV 14, 2004 07:34 PM