C105 article

WHY NY? Money for Something?

Americans are in the habit of giving money to the arts. How does that work? Rob Alexis reports.

In Ireland it seems that the majority of art spaces elect for nonprofit status, and while they may sell work, the Arts Council is regarded as the obvious route for core funding. I don't know how that changes the art made and shown, but faced with a similar choice in New York, I have always thought twice about going for grant-in-aid.

Opposite page: Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum; © Susana Pashko/NYC & Company, Inc.;

Why, if the money is out there, wouldn't you want to apply for it? Well, firstly, I never wanted to spend all my time networking in that area, researching, and then writing grants. When I was in New York, most nonprofits I knew used to make anywhere from twenty-five to 200 grant applications a year. And I also didn't want to be pressured into putting on shows that could be 'fundable' - like pluralism and diversity shows, educational shows, public-access shows.

Further, as a nonprofit you have to have a board of directors, a stated mission and books open to the IRS - in fact open to the entire public, and while I never cared who knew that I never made any money, or how small the overheads were, I just didn't want to invite this kind of public scrutiny - not to mention being answerable to a board and a stated mission (beyond that of a commitment to artists, and to contemporary art in general).

My feeling is that many nonprofit spaces can end up showing work of a compromising nature. You come across it again and again in applications, where inclusivity replaces innovation, excellence and risk-taking as a criterion for funding. That said, there are amazing nonprofit spaces out there in New York that actually lead the contemporary-art scene - like apexart in Tribeca, Momenta Art in Brooklyn, Exit Art, The Drawing Center, White Columns, Artists Space and so on...

Public money doesn't come with any guarantees, however, and it's always a struggle to stay afloat - particularly for the 'newer' galleries in this group. The others have years of reputation behind them, and still have to rely on generous boards for when the going gets tough. And sometimes even that doesn't help: Thread Waxing Space was in existence for ten years, showing great cutting-edge work before it closed its doors in 2001, and another example of a nonprofit that didn't make it despite critical acclaim (and a huge donation of space - 35,000 square feet) is Gale Gates in DUMBO, which just closed its doors last month.

above: Metropolitan Museum of Art; © NYC & Company, Inc.;

At the other end of the scale, MoMA is a nonprofit, so is the Guggenheim, and so is the Whitney. MoMA had a 2002 operating budget of just over $55 million. Out of that, 34% was earned income, 65% was nongovernment support (foundations, individual contributions etc) and 1% came from the government (federal, state and city combined). At the Guggenheim: the 2002 operating budget was $33 million (down some 50% from the year before!), with 46% earned income, 53% nongovernment support and 1% coming from all three sources of government. The Whitney: 2002 $22 million, 48% earned income, 51% nongovernment and 1% government support. These organisations incorporate their earned incomes into their expenses: salaries, purchases, etc., so technically they are nonprofits, even if they generate the bucks (not so easy any more).

Foundations are actually an excellent source of income for the cash-starved not-for-profit space. The tax system in America means that the mega-wealthy can dump their money into a Foundation (which has to have charitable / cultural / educational objectives), and then benefit from enormous tax incentives and advantages. One of these advantages is that the Foundation can then employ family members, and so recycle the tax-free cash back into the fold. I don't actually have a problem with that, the arts benefit, we all benefit - and it's the American way - harness greed to public good, and everyone's happy.

Whitney Museum of American Art; © Jeff Goldberg/Esto for the Whitney Museum of American Art

This way of contributing has also entered the New York psyche on another level. You've done well, and you want to give something back. Cultural giving is something New Yorkers do - while in Ireland, I suspect, it's probably generally left up to the Arts Council. And as a cultural-giver (on a grand scale) in New York, you also benefit from having galleries named after you, cocktail parties thrown in your honor, and an entrée into a brand new social world. Some Foundations of course are better than others at working with their benefactors. The Dia (I think) is exemplary, while on the other hand the mixed-up halls and rooms of the Met make me think more of Ozymandias than art.

That said, it's hard for everyone these days - whether you're writing grant applications, or trying to bring the collectors in. While I miss the excitement and the buzz of getting exhibitions and events together, it's a relief to have nothing to think about but making my own work - for the next while at least.

Rob Alexis is an artist and curator, formerly based in New York and now living in Germany.

Do you have an opinion on this article? If so, please click here for our comments form.

Back to top of page