Visual Art and Corporate Collections
3 The Business Perspective on Visual Art
3.1.4 Corporate social responsibility; philanthropy and human values An important objective of collecting art is to display the corporation’s emphasis An important objective of collecting art is to display the corporation’s emphasis
on human values. Due to the supportive aspect of collecting or sponsoring art, it may also be seen in light of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate giving based on philanthropic traditions, although it is not necessarily considered as giving. As claimed by Jacobson;
Philanthropy is a charitable act, an act of mercy. Patronage and sponsorship of the arts are, in their purest forms, a kind of educational stock with a high-yield cultural return. (Jacobson 1993)201
It is a distinction between sponsoring art by supporting art activities and art education economically and art patronage. While some corporations collect art accidentally or by purchasing high quality art from various artists, some become patrons collecting art mainly from a limited number of selected artists. As described below, in chapter 3.1.4.1, Becker claims that corporations have become the new patrons of the art world today. (Becker 1984) Others do both, and supporting art by giving is still a significant practice among corporations.
Martorella describes how corporate gift-giving in the US increased in the 1930s, by a new belief in “corporate responsibility”, after the social and industrial crisis in the beginning of the century. To contribute to a healthy society was in the self-interest of corporations, and insured the corporate profit. (Martorella 1990) Due to this many US corporations today support and collect art as a part of their philanthropic program.
The tradition of corporate giving also varies in different countries. While philanthropy and corporate giving rests upon old traditions in the US, it has been practically none-existent in Norway up to the present. The difference between Norway and USA in respect of corporate giving can be explained by different political systems. In Norway almost all education, culture, health services and social welfare are mainly financed by the state, while many of these services in the US to a great extent are financed by private means and donations. In the latest years however, the attention in respect of more philanthropic activity has
increased also among Norwegian corporations, not at least in the case of supporting the arts. But Norwegian corporations still have a long way to go to reach the value of donations and support provided by US corporations. On the
201 Page 9
other hand, the Norwegian state is among the most distinguished supporters in respect of long term giving and emergency aid to developing countries and on occasions of natural disasters.
Unlike Norway, where most art museums are financed by the state, many of the famous art museums in the US are founded and supported by corporate founders and corporations. Jacobson describes that in the nineteen thirties particularly two corporations set the precedence for others to get involved in visual arts: “The Rockefeller Center real estate development group”, and “International Business Machines”, IBM, both located in New York. (Jacobson 1993) As mentioned above, Jacobson rejected that supporting art should be regarded as a
philanthropic matter, as she claims that patronage and sponsorship of the arts are more to be considered as a kind of educational investment, giving a high-yield cultural return. (Jacobson 1993) Others claim that corporate supporting of art is a considerable part of corporate philanthropy. As described by the American economist Charles Clotfelter, the current President of the Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts in New York, Reynold Levy,202 claims that no one contributes as much to the arts as the committed American corporations. In addition to grants and economic support they lead other like-minded firms, foundations and suppliers to join the case with their support. They can invite colleagues to performances and openings, and respond to invitations to fundraising events such as dinners, sports events and theatre parties. They can also arrange corporate meetings in art spaces and invite to art events and advertise the event or their associations with an art organization in the media and on billboards, and thus promote “the bona fides” of both the corporation and its cultural partner.
(Clotfelter 1999)
The corporate part of the private support of arts in the US has grown remarkable.
In 1964 about $16 - $21 million, or only 5% or less of the corporate contributions was allocated to the arts. In 1977 the contribution had grown to $100 million, or 6, 5% of the total corporate gifts. In 1994 companies had given $875 million to the arts, which represented 12% of the total gifts. It was also observed by the Business Committee for the Arts that about 55% of all US businesses offered cash donations to arts organizations in 1994. (Clotfelter 1999) Also Martorella points out the quantity of philanthropic support of the arts in the US, as many corporations believe that supporting the arts gains the business, by
communicating their human values. The corporate gift-giving to the arts was
$350 million by 1981, or approximately 12% of corporate gifts, and by 1987 the corporate support had reached $500 millions. (Martorella 1990) Based on
202 http://bigthink.com/reynoldlevy (05.12.2011) Levy was formerly the head of the AT&T Foundation.
numbers provided by Martorella and Clotfelder, the increase of the corporate support for the arts in the US from 1964 to 1994 seems to be:
Matrix 5
1964 $16-21 millions 5% of corporate giving 1977 $100 millions 6,5% of corporate giving 1981 $350 millions 12% of corporate giving 1987 $500 millions
1994 $875 millions 12% of corporate giving
According to Martorella the significant growth of corporate support to the arts in the nineteen eighties, can be addressed partly to the continuing construction of new headquarters in the US during the post-war period, and partly to the boom of the financial services industry between 1974 and 1986. The boom occurred coincidently with an increasing awareness of art, particularly post World War II and Contemporary American art, within the corporate art world. (Martorella 1990) The boom is also reflected in the growth rate of the GDP in the US which is at its highest peak in 1984.203 As mentioned above, also the corporate interest in collecting art declined after 1990, which is supported by the table. Although the table lacks information on the art quantity of corporate art giving in 1987, the table does indicate that the percentage of giving in respect of supporting art has stagnated in 1994.
3.1.4.1 Corporate patrons
Corporate patronage represents an interesting field between supporting art and corporate giving, which also enlightens the antagonism between art and business.
On the one hand, corporate support may be a welcoming contribution for a “poor artist”. On the other hand patronage can contribute to the development of some selected artists, and neglect others. Thus corporations today may have a crucial impact on the development of the art world. (Becker 1984) Unlike Europe the USA had no aristocracy or a single religious institution such as the Roman Catholic Church that could figure as patrons like those in Europe before the entrance of Modernism. Until the beginning of the twentieth century the nation was weak, and the support of cultural institutions and museums was controlled by the local elites. According to Zolberg the tradition of supporting art did not appear in the US before the country had become a strong state and a major world power in the beginning of the twentieth century. (Zolberg 1990) But because of the tradition of corporate patronage in the US that developed through the 1900s, it may also be a connection between corporate patronage and the internationally dominating position of Contemporary American art today, as it appears in the
203 http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/gdp_real_growth_rate.html (02.02.2011)
most important international art galleries and art fairs such as Art Basel and Frieze Art Fair in London, as showed by Alain Quemin (Quemin 2008) and Femke van Hest, (van Hest 2008) and discussed in chapter 2.1.7.2.
Becker describes how corporations have become the new patrons, developed in a similar way as the patronage of the church and the sovereigns. When the Italian and French merchants and business men began to collect art in the 17-1800s, the Paris Salon arranged art exhibitions to present artists who they could consider for economic support. The aim was to show the appropriate cultivation and taste for their social positions. (Becker 1984) According to Veblen, this appropriate cultivation and taste was also a “mark of the master”. (Veblen and Mills 1994) With the entry of modernism in the late 1800s, and the new parole “Art for the sake of art”, which came with the Impressionism and the following new styles the former patronage system broke down and was replaced by a new system of dealers, galleries and critics. (Becker 1984) Today the galleries are often specialized within certain styles, and support new artists that show enough talent to be part of their stable of artists. Each gallery has its own circle of buyers and collectors, who recommends the gallery’s exhibitions to other potential buyers.
The gallery then tries to convince new buyers to become art collectors by appealing to the acknowledgement they will get by showing their good taste and art connoisseurship to others. (Becker 1984) According to Becker, the motives of the art collector spans from art snobbery and economic speculation, to a genuine interest and engagement with art; or it may also be motivated by a collect-mania.
(Becker 1984)
Due to the essential antagonism between art and business, there are several interesting paradoxes related to art and art patronage. By collecting art corporate collectors also contribute to the sustainability of the art world. Corporate collectors as well as art museums which are often founded and supported by corporations or corporate founders, are playing a significant role for the maintenance of the production and development of visual art. The founder of MoMA, the Museum of Modern Art in New York; one of the most important museums of modern art in the world, which opened in 1929, was Abbey Aldrich Rockefeller, the wife of John D. Rockefeller jr., who was the director of Standard Oil and J.P. Morgan US Steel Company in the early nineteen hundreds,204 and the developer of the Rockefeller Centre.
204 John D. Rockefeller jr. was also affiliated to several other companies, as GE, RCA, NBC, RKO, Associated press, Times Inc. and Chase National bank, now J.P. Morgan Chase.
One photo removed
MIH Photo: 88 (left) Eksterior, Museum of Modern Art, New York, Mars 2007 MIH Photo: 89 (right) Interior, Museum of Modern Art, New York, Mars, 2007
Abbey Rockefeller was also the mother of Nelson Rockefeller, who became Governor of New York and Vice-President in the USA, and David Rockefeller, Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of the Chase Manhattan Bank N.A. and Chase Corporation, and Chairman of the Rockefeller Group Inc.205 Both of the brothers were members of MoMA’s board of trustees, where Nelson Rockefeller was president from 1939-1941 and 1946-1953, and David Rockefeller was an active leader from 1962-1972, and 1987-1993.206 By collecting and supporting art to the extent of the corporations affiliated to the Rockefeller family, these corporations are significant patrons of our time.
As described by Becker, patrons have different objectives for collecting art. The German conceptual artist Hans Haacke showed how corporate leaders describe their relationship with collecting art in his exhibition; “On Social Grease” at the John Weber Gallery in New York in 1975. The exhibited installation consisted of a series of 6 text-based photo-engraved magnesium plates mounted on 76 x 76 cm aluminum plates, each with a quotation from newspaper interviews and speeches on art made by six corporate leaders and celebrities. (Grasskamp, Nesbit et al. 2004) Among other the following statements which are also quoted in Becker; (Becker 1984)207
Nelson Rockefeller:208
My appreciation and enjoyment of art are aesthetic rather than intellectual. I am not really concerned with what the artist means; it is not an intellectual operation – it is what I feel. (Haacke 1975)209
205 Wikipedia, (06.27.2008)
206 D. H. Stapleton and K. Rose, 2004, Rockefeller Archive Center.
207 Page 105-106
208 Museum of Modern Art, Trustee. In 1975 Vice President of the USA
Frank Stanton (CBS):
But the significant thing is that increasing recognition in the business world that the arts are not a thing apart that they have to do with all aspects of life, including business – that they are, in fact essential to business. (Haacke 1975)210
Robert Kingsley (EXXON):
EXXON’s support of the arts serves the arts as a social lubricant. And if business is to continue in big cities, it needs a lubricated environment.
(Haacke 1975)211
As mentioned above, the degree of corporate patronage varies in different countries. According to Martorella, the rapid growth of corporate art patronage in the US which increased heavily in the 1980s occurred simultaneously with the retrenchment of government institutions and museums, the boom of the financial services industry, and the growing consciousness of corporate art, and because of this, many corporations in the US today rival art museums. In respect of
patronage, Martorella claims that art can be seen as an interdependent process between the artist and the corporation as a patron. Thus she is questioning the interdependence between modern corporations and contemporary art, and the influence of corporations on the development of art and art styles. (Martorella 1990) In the case of the American art world, Crane describes how a major element in respect of the expansion of the art market from the middle of the nineteen sixties, was an infusion of government and corporate funds. While only three corporate collections were registered between 1900 and 1919, 16 were registered between 1940 and 1959, and 76 corporate collections were registered between 1960 and 1979. (Crane 1987)
According to Martorella, corporate art collections can be seen as “a social product”, and as a major concern for sociologists. Although an artwork is produced by an individual artist, both the production and dissemination needs consultants and managers who like it and buy it, for display in corporate buildings. This means that the art support system, including patrons and markets influences the content and the development of styles within visual art both by supporting selected styles and the careers of selected artists. As described by Martorella:
209 Page 116
210 Page 117
211 Page 120
The world of the marketplace, including critics, dealers, museum curators and patrons, affects career opportunities, genre and styles.
(Martorella 1990) 212
And further:
The marketplace, together with the collector, defines levels of taste and connoisseurship; these in turn encourage certain styles to emerge and proliferate. (Martorella 1990) 213
As discussed in chapter 2.1.5.1 the development of art styles may also be political, as described by Braadland, who claims that encouraging the development of Abstract Expressionism in the USA in the post World War II period was a consequence of denying figurative art encouraged by the Soviet Union, and formerly the Nazis. (Braadland 2008) Also corporate collections may be influenced by public politics, as the managers affiliated to art investments sometimes are politicians, for instance Nelson Rockefeller, who as mentioned above was the Governor of New York from 1959-1973, and Vice President in the US from 1974-1977.214 In Norway several major corporations are partly owned by the Norwegian state, which means that politicians may influence the acquisition of art in these corporations indirectly, for example the art collection of Telenor that was established to decorate the new headquarters of the corporation, where a former Norwegian minister of culture was engaged in the planning process. This means that corporate support of art on some occasions may be intertwined with governmental politics or political parties.
3 . 2 A N A L Y Z I N G O B J E C T I V E S O F C O L L E C T I N G A R T
3.2.1 Introduction
In the following, I examine the business perspective of corporate art in Norway, the USA, Japan and France, which means the objectives of collecting art as this is expressed by some of the corporations included in my study. However, as the amount of information I have on each corporation varies, and some do not consider their art as a collection, while others seemingly have no pronounced objectives for purchasing art, I make explicit that I focus mainly on corporations for which I have enough information to include in an analysis of the objectives of purchasing art. This means that not all of the collections are equally included in the following analysis. As discussed above, it seems to be three common main
212 Page 10
213 Page 6
214 http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Rockefeller (02.03.2011)
objectives for collecting art. To repeat, these objectives are; 1) to create a desirable work environment for employees. This objective includes comfort, creativity, innovation and education. 2) The brand factor, art collections integrated in the corporate brand, for the sake of public relations, and 3) collecting and supporting art as a part of corporate social responsibility (CSR).
This objective includes giving, sponsorship and patronage.