It seems...easy for America to inspire...
[an] expansive and humane spirit; new-born,
free, healthful, strong, the land of the laborer,
of the democrat, of the philanthropist,
of the believer, of the saint—
she speak[s] for the human race.
—Ralph Waldo Emerson,
The Young American, 1844
Following common practice and the social sciences, we understand “culture” to include both arts (including crafts) and education (including knowledge, teaching, and research); a standard (Oxford American) dictionary definition is “the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement, regarded collectively.”
Each of us has a personal culture and cultural interests. Philanthropy offers us a continual opportunity for self-development — a form of continuing education — by exercising our values, in charitable giving and volunteering. In finding charities we would enjoy supporting, we identify our values. By supporting them, we strengthen our values. By judging results of our investments and learning from the experience, we refine our values. Cultural investments are an essential part of a well-balanced philanthropic portfolio, defining and expressing who we are culturally, as individuals and as a society.
In Massachusetts especially there are ample opportunities for our cultural self-expression. Last year we found that in addition to the largest institutions everyone knows, Massachusetts has about 900 cultural charities of general philanthropic interest with budgets below $3 million — about 35% of all charities that size, representing 29% of their total income of just over $475 million. Arts organizations include about 384 (42%) of those, while about 523 (58%) are educational institutions. As we might expect, income favors education — 32% for the arts, 68% for education.
What this imbalance means is that arts organizations rely more on personal philanthropy, because government, corporations and foundations are always going to invest more in education. The past decade has seen a number of media discussions and special studies on whether Boston or Massachusetts has a “crisis” of funding in the arts; some have even suggested that we have “too many” arts organizations—we see this as a variant on the theme of “blame the victim.” A better response is simply to increase charitable giving—it’s not hard, and very gratifying for both patrons and the arts.
In 10 years the Catalogue has presented over 235 cultural charities, statewide — 26% of the entire field — 97 (25%) arts organizations, 137 (26%) formal and informal educational institutions. Massachusetts has an extraordinarily long and distinguished tradition of cultural leadership, both nationally and internationally, so this has been a marvelous display of our cultural resources. It is inspiring to see how these institutions, and the people in them, are working so hard, so energetically, intelligently and creatively, to outdo themselves and to bring us the best in all their rich variety of fields. They deserve our increased support.
