By Calum Carmichael.
The arts affect us in many ways. They console or confront, inspire or incense. They can engage us, amaze us, instruct and enlighten. And they have the potential either to bring people together or to separate and exclude.
Effective altruism vs. the new philanthropy
Around the world, contemporary Canadian culture is recognized as the look, sound and feel of Black Canada. Musicians like Kardinal Offishall, Drake, and Kaytranada, and producers like WondaGurl, have made defining contributions to global popular culture in the last decade. Despite these and other cultural and economic contributions, Black communities continue to see a reluctance from institutions to invest in Black Canadian artistic production. Toronto-based Nia Centre for the Arts is changing that. Borne out of the recognition that communities thrive when you invest in their creativity, Nia Centre is investing in Black artists and, in 2020, announced that it’s building Canada’s first, multi-disciplinary, professional art facility (located in Little Jamaica, a historically Caribbean neighborhood in Toronto). The Centre features a 150-seat theater, studio space, a digital media lab and a youth hub. In this photo, a class at Toronto’s Etobicoke School of the Arts participates in the “Ears, Eyes, Voice” exhibit. Photo credit: Nia Centre.
At least for the last two centuries, questions about the role of the arts have pivoted around the contested idea of “art for art’s sake” – the claim that the arts shouldn’t be judged on their practical contributions to the social, economic, political or moral needs of the day. Instead, they should be judged on their own terms, whether those be their aesthetic merits or their capacity to satisfy the expressive priorities and self-fulfillment of artists.
To a degree, this debate around the purpose of the arts parallels the debate around the purpose and justification of philanthropy. Should the use of private resources for public purposes be assessed according to the nature and extent of the good social outcomes generated for the recipients and beneficiaries – as argued, say, by the “effective altruism” movement? Or should it be assessed according to the ability to satisfy the passions, entrepreneurial instincts and self-fulfillment of the donor – as argued, say, by the “new philanthropy” outlook?
The Metcalf Foundation has three areas of focus: poverty reduction, the environment, and the performing arts. While the first two operate within areas of explicit social concern, the Foundation is seeing an increase in social priorities within the performing arts as well. In its support of organizations and communities, the Foundation seeks to enable rather than direct, and its increased focus on social issues within its performing arts program comes directly from the sector itself.
For example, as a progenitor of effective altruism, philosopher Peter Singer downplays the worth of philanthropy that would support culture and the arts rather than relieve poverty and its afflictions. He does so with reference to the choice between improving a museum or preventing blindness. In his example, “a donation to prevent trachoma offers at least 10 times the value of giving to the museum.”
In contrast, as a proponent of new philanthropy, businessman Charles Bronfman (on page 44 of The Art of Giving), advises donors that “in philanthropy, there are no wrong answers…. You might want to fund an antigravity machine or a museum of dust mites. There may be more constructive uses for your money, and these objectives may sound crazy, but there is nothing wrong with them. In philanthropy, the choices are not between right and wrong, but between right and right.”
The role of the arts
Museum London, in Ontario, addresses social issues through exhibitions, programs, acquisitions and policies. Since 2017, the museum has mounted 15 art and material culture exhibitions concerned with colonial history and Indigenous knowledge, Black culture and systemic racism, community voice, and climate change. “Black Lives Matter, London” (above) was an installation at Museum London from Aug. 13/20 to Feb. 28/21. Photo credit: Museum London.
In these examples, whether used to question the relative worth of philanthropy for the arts or to defend it, both Singer and Bronfman implicitly assume that such philanthropy has little effect on human need or deprivation or suffering. Their common assumption is that the arts (including museums of dust mites) exist primarily for their own sake – a stumbling block for Singer, but a matter of indifference for Bronfman.
But is that assumption valid – particularly given the capacity of the arts to affect us individually and collectively in such varied and powerful ways?
Recent initiatives by Canadian arts organizations suggest that it’s not valid. While not dismissing the importance of aesthetic achievement or artistic expression, many of these charitable organizations and the artists themselves have recognized and acted on the capacity of the arts to address human deprivation or exclusion by bringing to the fore the social, political, ecological or moral needs of the day, and by giving voice to otherwise marginalized peoples. In their hands, the arts can serve, among other things, as vehicles for social justice, environmental healing and the survival and flourishing of communities.
A new series about the arts and social issues
PANL Perspectives presents a series of articles (below) by Canadian arts organizations that have been tackling social issues over the past few years. We hope that you’ll follow this series and join us in learning more about what and how these arts organizations are doing in terms of social issues.
Photo of detail from sculpture by Manolo Valdes is courtesy of Creative Commons.
