Column, 598 words

The Art of Inequality

Monumental gifts to museums are coinciding with the erosion of arts programs at the nation's public schools.

Sam Pizzigati

Thomas Campbell directs the Metropolitan Museum of Art in Manhattan. He’s smiling a great deal these days. Why? Campbell has just received something museum directors only dream about: a donation of paintings, drawings, and sculptures worth over $1 billion.

The donor: cosmetics magnate Leonard Lauder. His gift? Seventy-eight masterpieces, including 33 Picassos and dozens of works by other prominent members of the Cubist movement.

Forbes estimates Lauder’s overall net worth at more than $8 billion. He’s been donating hefty chunks of these billions to the art world for some time now. In 2008 alone, Lauder gave $131 million to New York’s Whitney Museum.

pizzigati-arts-Navy Hale Keiki School

Navy Hale Keiki School/Flickr

Philanthropy this bold thrills apologists for inequality. Immense concentrations of private wealth, these cheerleaders for grand fortune claim, enrich our civilization’s culture.

“The rich make life more interesting,” the prominent business editor William Davis gushed in the early 1980s.

“Being rich doesn’t make you evil,” a New York Post editorial proclaimed after the new Lauder gift. “And the accumulation of wealth can enrich others — in countless ways.”

Subjecting the rich to “millionaire taxes” meant to “share the wealth,” the editorial board fumed, only discourages gifts as generous as Lauder’s.

In reality, we’re seeing precious little wealth-sharing. The Lauder family and their fellow billionaires have watched tax rates on their incomes plummet. And the resulting squeeze on the public purse is having a substantial — and troubling — artistic impact, especially in America’s schools.

In New York City, as one local arts group relates, budget cuts have painted a “grim picture for arts education.” Nearly a quarter of the city’s schools have no certified arts instructor.

New York hardly stands alone. In Los Angeles, an arts activist noted last fall, more than half the city’s elementary-age kids are getting no exposure to arts instruction. In Detroit, 60 percent of schools “lack art education as part of the curriculum.”

Nationwide, the same pattern. The U.S. Department of Education reported last spring that 4 million elementary school students are going without visual arts instruction. Adds Dan Domenech, the executive director of the American Association of School Administrators: “We haven’t hit bottom yet.”

The “top” for arts education came back in America’s share-the-wealth golden age in the mid-20th century, the years when America’s wealthiest faced federal income tax rates as high as 91 percent, over double the top current rate.

In 1960, lawmakers in Albany okayed the creation of the New York State Council on the Arts. Five years later, Congress established the National Endowment of the Arts. The federal government became, for the first time ever, a major player in arts funding. In community after community, federal dollars began leveraging a vital partnership of nonprofits and public agencies. The arts flourished.

We can’t, of course, totally blame the demise of this golden age on shrinking billionaire top-bracket tax rates. Other factors have been at play, most particularly the rising pressure on school systems to narrow the curriculum to subjects that lend themselves to endless rounds of standardized testing.

But who’s bankrolling this intensely market-driven approach to education that has no patience for “frills” like art? America’s billionaires, through the vast network of think tanks and foundations they’ve so lavishly underwritten.

So let’s keep in mind what really happens to the arts when we let wealth concentrate. Museums get paintings from the awesomely affluent. These donors get plaques in the museums attesting to their generosity — and lucrative deductions on their tax returns.

And the rest of us? We pay our $25 admission to enter museums like New York’s Met as art education fades away from our schools.

OtherWords columnist Sam Pizzigati is an Institute for Policy Studies associate fellow. His latest book is The Rich Don’t Always Win: The Forgotten Triumph over Plutocracy that Created the American Middle Class. OtherWords.org

  • http://www.facebook.com/lalnaper Lori Lathrop

    Sam – wishing you all the best – will no longer be reading your articles…. good luck hope all your dreams come true and you can make the world a better place…

  • http://www.facebook.com/lalnaper Lori Lathrop

    I can not believe you are blaming the reduction in art classes in some public schools on a few filthy rich people – I can not even understand how you can make such a huge LEAP from one to the other – I am so glad those paintings were donated to a public art museum for EVERYONE to enjoy! Thank you Mr. Lauder and thank you to the millions of women who buy and love Este Lauder cosmetics who make such an endowment possible…… it is really the millions of women’s fault who buy the cosmetic’s that art is not being taught in some public schools – because they are the source of Lauder money – YA we should blame the women who wear cosmetics…. yaaaaa it’s their fault it has nothing to do with the states mismanaging their money – or schools having to cut back because of state budget cuts…. or because of Federal subsidies – no it’s Mr. Lauder’s fault we should all write him a strongly worded letter telling him how mad we are at him for ruining art classes in our public schools……

  • http://www.facebook.com/lalnaper Lori Lathrop

    Mr. Lauder was screwed either way no matter what he did. He was screwed in the first place because he had enough money to buy the art, he was screwed because he “donated it to a museum” and got a tax break – which bothers you. He would have been screwed if he sold the art privately and made more money because art almost always goes up in value he could have kept the money – and you would have thought he was a bad guy for amassing more wealth, maybe he should have just kept the art and then nobody would know and be able to criticize him…. Maybe this man just wanted to do something lovely and leave behind something of value for the public to enjoy when he is gone – and you turned him into some kind of Art Class destruction-monster. How much money do you make Sam? You are doing better than some people who are out of work – how much of your income are you willing to give to people who are out of work so that you will both be equal? Writing about equality is all well and good, and it’s a nice idea, but when it effects your pocketbook I wonder how much you will be cheering for it! Easier to cheer for something from the side line then actually participate in the game!