Is ballet an art or an entertainment?

[Meliss]

2 hours ago, Helene said:

there was a worldwide financial crisis in 2008, and donations went down significantly

I suppose, the entertainment industry may depend on private donations, but the arts need government support.

8 minutes ago, Helene said:

And there was a world-wide financial crisis in 2008.

Thank you for the explanations.

[Helene]

The entertainment industry is a broad term, but, for the most part is for-profit, and, generally does not ask anyone for donations, which would not be tax-deductible.  There are exceptions, like public television, but for the most part, broadcast networks, which include television, are one of the largest industries in the US, and, like the Hollywood film industry, are multi-billion-dollar business.    They make money on the whole -- profitable ventures subsidizing those that aren't -- , or they don't, and if they can't survive, they close down and/or go bankrupt or get sold, not an option for charitable organizations.  Some independent films, especially documentaries, qualify for grants but are also largely funded by financial investors, including smaller, crowd-sourced ones, but for smaller films, the standard story from the filmmakers is "I borrowed every dime I could from family and friends, and maxxed out my credit cards to make this film." Similarly for the publishing industry, which is mainly for-profit and many part of larger media conglomerates.   A big exception in the performing arts is in theater, with r is Broadway/linked touring companies, where individual investor group fund the show, and close it, if it doesn't enough money.  These are investments, not donations, just like putting up money for a steel mill or a pet food store or a McDonald's franchise is.

While there are privately-owned art collections.in general, the plastic and performing arts are non-for-profit with charitable status.  Break-even is a blessing, and when there's a surplus to use, that's a rare and extraordinary year.  In ballet, that's usually tied to The Nutcracker, which often subsidizes the rest of the season.

[On Pointe]

One of the biggest privately owned art collections in the world,  possibly the biggest,  is the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City.  I worked there a number of years ago,  and nearly every day,  some tiresome British tourist would complain about having to pay when the big museums in London are free to American tourists.  (Mind you,  you could pay whatever you wanted to get in in those days,  even just a penny.).   The city leases it the land in Central Park that the Met sits on for one dollar per year.  As the most visited attraction in the city,  the Met generates tremendous income for the city of New York and its tourist-dependent businesses.  And rich people get a safe and secure place to park their art collections,  so it works out all around.  

For a brief shining moment,  taxpayers who don't itemize got to take a small charitable deduction on their taxes.  But most people who pay a mortgage do itemize and their charitable deduction is good from the first dollar.  Depending on your situation,  you can give a pretty good chunk of change to the organization of your choice without negatively impacting your take home income,  for example LDS members who tithe.  It's interesting that the LDS church (the Mormons) are enthusiastic supporters of the arts,  including ballet.  And they have a sense of humor - they run a full page ad in the Playbill for the Broadway show The Book of Mormon.

[Meliss]

28 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

One of the biggest privately owned art collections in the world,  possibly the biggest,  is the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. 

I'm afraid not all private art collections are available for public viewing.

[volcanohunter]

46 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

It's interesting that the LDS church (the Mormons) are enthusiastic supporters of the arts,  including ballet.  And they have a sense of humor - they run a full page ad in the Playbill for the Broadway show The Book of Mormon.

That's great.  The Book of Mormon (I mean the text) has a very corporeal conception of the Almighty, hence the religion is very pro-body and pro-dance. The Christensen brothers emerged from that community, and, of course, their contribution to American ballet was immense. 

[Petra]

5 hours ago, Meliss said:

I'm afraid not all private art collections are available for public viewing.

Are you suggesting that all private art collections be nationalised? 

It's true that Roman Abramovich and Dmitry Rybolovlev's art collections are not available for public viewing but the Frick Collection and the Neue Gallerie (owned by Ronald Lauder) are, and they are amazing.

[On Pointe]

8 hours ago, Meliss said:

I'm afraid not all private art collections are available for public viewing.

The Met is a huge commercial enterprise that welcomes the general public.  Of course some significant art collections are in the homes of rich people,  and the public will never see them. But many private art collections in the US can be visited if you make a formal request.

[Meliss]

20 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

many private art collections in the US can be visited if you make a formal request.

Oh, really? Are there any catalogs that everyone can see?

[Meliss]

3 hours ago, Petra said:

Are you suggesting that all private art collections be nationalised? 

Well, why so radically). But in principle, I am in favor of making art a national treasure.

[Helene]

If a private collector wants to publish a catalogue, print and/or online, they will.  They aren’t obligated to.

Just as they are not obligated to share what they buy or turn over ownership, unless they lose a legal battle because it was obtained illegally, including through money-laundering, where it’s subject to seized asset law, or an incorrect inheritance allocation, in which case it’s a matter of private, institutional, or trust ownership.

 

 

[Meliss]

16 minutes ago, Helene said:

If a private collector wants to publish a catalogue, print and/or online, they will.  They aren’t obligated to.

Just as they are not obligated to share what they buy or turn over ownership, unless they lose a legal battle because it was obtained illegally, including through money-laundering, where it’s subject to seized asset law, or an incorrect inheritance allocation, in which case it’s a matter of private, institutional, or trust ownership.

 

 

I see, thank you.

[volcanohunter]

In the United States there is a long tradition of philanthropy in the arts. @Petra has already mentioned the Frick Collection. Henry Clay Frick desired that his art collection and home be turned into a museum after the death of his widow. Indeed, his mansion in Manhattan was built with the idea that it would eventually become a museum. And it became a totally marvellous place, one if my favorite places to be. It's not nearly as large as the Metropolitan Museum of Art up the street, but it is of a more manageable size, where each painting can be enjoyed in depth.

https://www.frick.org/about/history

The National Gallery of Art in Washington was built on the donation of the private art collection of Andrew Mellon, who also paid for the construction of the museum itself, the largest marble building in the world, at the time. He encouraged others to join him, and they did. The museum expanded to include donated collections from, particularly, Mellon's children, the Kress brothers, the Widener family, Lessing Rosenwald, Chester Dale, and also Edgar and Bernice Garbisch. Happily, they had varied taste in art, which accounts for the breadth of the collection. The government pays for the operation and maintenance of the museum, but all acquisitions by the museum have been donated or paid for by private funds.

https://www.nga.gov/features/slideshows/founding-benefactors-of-the-national-gallery-of-art.html 

Edited October 8 by volcanohunter

[California]

1 hour ago, Helene said:

If a private collector wants to publish a catalogue, print and/or online, they will.  They aren’t obligated to.

Just as they are not obligated to share what they buy or turn over ownership, unless they lose a legal battle because it was obtained illegally, including through money-laundering, where it’s subject to seized asset law, or an incorrect inheritance allocation, in which case it’s a matter of private, institutional, or trust ownership.

 

 

When I visit a show at any museum, I like to look at the labels to see the source of the work. Many are loaned from private collections -- sometimes named, sometimes not. Many others are loaned from other museums. 

And another way the US Government helps support the arts: through the Arts & Artifacts Indemnity Program, started when insurance costs for many shows became prohibitive. It was established in 1975 for international exhibits and expanded to domestic in 2007.  As I remember, the King Tut exhibit (funded by NEH) which toured in the US beginning in 1977 was the initial impetus for establishing this.  

https://www.arts.gov/impact/arts-and-artifacts-indemnity-program/international-indemnity#:~:text=The Indemnity Program was created,exhibition in the United States.