The golden age of museum philanthropy

At the heart of the Covid 19 pandemic and the unprecedented threats it poses to cultural institutions, suddenly deprived of visitors and income, the journalist and art critic Georgina Adam writes and publishes a work on the forms, meaning and issues of private cultural institutions, which she designates, for simplicity, as private museums, despite the difficulty in circumscribing the meaning of the term. She refers to them as “ a space open to the public, generally created and financed by a collector, or, sometimes, a company, as in the case of the Pinault museums in Venice and Paris » (p. 14). The definition makes it possible to account for the diversity of the statutes of the foundations on which these private museums rely, in the United States as in France.

A new form of philanthropy

According to the author, a new form of philanthropy, which she refers to as philanthrocapitalist, has appeared in recent decades, at the initiative of people who have accumulated colossal fortunes and which is expressed through the acquisition of works, the creation of institutions or support for public institutions. As Alain Quemin, recognized specialist in the art market, whose work is highlighted in the book, points out, the financial acquisition capacity of these philanthropists, as well as their capacity for pre-emption, is rapidly devitalizing institutions like the Réunion des Musées Nationaux in a context of competition (p.10 to 12). The balance of power is so unfavorable to public institutions that a transfer of choices in terms of art takes place in favor of private collectors who impose their views, even in the programming of public institutions (for example, the works of Martial Raysse and Jeff Koons, collected by François Pinault, benefited from personal exhibitions at the Center Pompidou, despite the reservations of the institution’s professionals) and thus promote, in all senses of the term, the works and artists they collect (p.84).

Without neglecting the criticisms to which private museums are subject, the author mobilizes first-hand knowledge of the founders of institutions and the workings of the art market. This knowledge allows him to adopt a global perspective of the subject, embracing Chinese, Indonesian and Bangladeshi examples, to go beyond a conventional and superficial approach.

The book proceeds in the manner of an overview. It begins by outlining the phenomenon by evoking the dominant statuses, the long history and the current affairs of this form of artistic patronage which has given rise to the creation of lasting and significant institutions such as the Frick collection from New York or Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum from Boston. Let us also mention the action of the Hoffmann family in Arles, the Maeght foundation and the Gianadda Foundation in Martigny, in French-speaking Switzerland. The author points out the predominance of contemporary art in these processes, to the extent that the agility and rapid decision-making investment capacity of philanthropic resources make it possible to follow developments in this market, in contrast to the relative and absolute weight of historical collections in public museums. This is also the case for sculpture gardens which design total architectural ensembles – buildings, collections, gardens and sculptures are part of the signature of the patrons. The installation of these museums in shopping centers to reach the public, if it shocks, can also contribute to the renewal of the cultural offer, like the example of MACAN of Jakarta, created by an Indonesian businessman, Haryanto Adikoesoemo, for whom commercial and tax considerations seem to take precedence.

Donor motivations

The author then focuses on the motivations of donors. This classic question in the sociology of philanthropy finds very rich and diverse material here, with philanthropists valuing the prestige they derive from the cultural institutions in which they invest. A profusion of discourses, intentions and interpretations cover their acts of creating institutions, donating works or endowment of capital. After having mentioned the overdetermining factor of wealth, classic sources are identified such as the desire to give back to society, but also legitimization on the part of outsiders entering the elite or the desire to share and introduce works and artists to a wider audience. The demonstration is innovative when it identifies the desire for control of donors over the purchase and sale, the arrangement and presentation of works, in connection with the wealth of professionals and people (who consider themselves) competent, as the major driving force behind the affirmation and maintenance of differentiation with public institutions.

Creating a private museum is obviously not without its setbacks. The most publicized point is that of the tax deductions and exemptions from which these donors benefit. This is particularly true in the United States where the Hatch report, from a finance committee of the United States Senate, in 2016 pointed out the abuses linked to these tax measures (flippingrapid resale with capital gain, tax shelter, proximity of the foundation to the home, or even empty shells which are pure and simple tax shelters). In France, it is the Aillagon law of 2003 which crystallizes criticism regarding the major tax deductions enjoyed by private institutions, to the detriment of public institutions on the one hand, and less encouraged individual philanthropy on the other. The progressive and sometimes problematic articulation of private initiative with public authorities once again highlights the donor’s desire for control over its resources, sometimes in the context of transfers or loans to public institutions.

This desire for control is expressed post-mortem, but is not always based on endowments as large as that demonstrated by Eli Broad for his Los Angeles institution, the Broadwhich benefited from a donation of 140 million dollars, in addition to its collection of works. France, through its corporate tax reduction schemes, is an exception due to the generosity of these schemes, in particular since the adoption of the Aillagon law which represents 1.7 billion euros of public money devoted to patronage in 2025, or a third of the budget of the Ministry of Culture. These deductions ensure a transfer of resources to private actors, accompanied by a limited base of constraints. They therefore organize, with strong public support, a conversion of private capital into social prestige, by lending to these private actors the capacity to convey a vision of culture – which is the subject of criticism, even within the philanthropic space, some not using the deductions which they could benefit from.

A new cultural policy

Cultural philanthropy, whose diversity of dimensions, including diplomatic, could be addressed, finds in the case of private museums a particularly relevant point of illustration. The question of philanthropic control appears, even beyond the question of the legitimization of wealth, as its central issue, because it is as much a question here of ensuring control over one’s heritage, over the meaning given to it, as much as of the control of serialization, of the collection as a driving force of enrichment and finally the capacity to define collective choices. One of the questions this book asks is to know, beyond the sustainability of these institutions, whether private museums are capable of integrating the critique of the power they embody, as the public authorities were able to do at a time when the initiative fell to them. And if so, in what form, to what degree, and with what issues and consequences for artists, advisors, commissioners and directors, donors and society ?

At a time when the Center Pompidou is being renovated and when many architectural and museographic questions weigh on public cultural institutions, the shift towards private initiative leads to a new way of asking questions concerning the social and cultural project that they initially carried. Can foundations propose utopias like public institutions? ? Do they have ambitions, if not social obligations, and if not, should they develop them, at the risk of endorsing their model? ? Can a real cultural policy emerge within the framework of competition between public and private institutions, with what it supposes (would be) the construction of relationships with the public, standards for the conservation and circulation of works, but also territorial planning and democratic access to the offer thus developed? ? Is the private necessarily destined to become public, or is the public to see its space shrink in favor of the private? ? So many questions that can be shifted to these new actors whose intentions, means and methods must be subject to examination, the very condition of their position at the heart of the democratic space.