A little while back I gave a talk to the regional Italian Circle on the experience of art in Italy during the fascist period. Unlike Nazi Germany, where there were extremely strict controls over what kind of art the state would tolerate, in Italy the Mussolini regime was surprisingly generous with state support for art, and remarkably open with respect to the extent to which a diversity of styles would be acceptable. It isn’t surprising that direct attacks on the state we not permissible. Even so, an avowedly left-wing painter such as Renato Guttuso was awarded a prestigious prize.
Towards the end of my talk I was reflecting on the possible significance of this, and ended with a question. Which was better or worse for art: the patronage of the state or reliance for patronage on the market and on individual wealth? At that time I had in mind the rather controversial importance in Britain of figures such as Charles Saatchi. Today I has cause to return to this question, after reading an article by the American academic and critic Hal Foster, in the London Review of Books. *
Foster was writing about the recent enlargement of MoMa in New York, and commenting on its enormous significance as a custodian of modern art and a resource for its study. I understand that the American system of patronage is much different from the British, especially in relation to the working of the tax regime, with the result that in the USA private patronage is substantially more important than it is in this country. Especially in recent years, during which the British government has been committed to a policy of “austerity”, and the arts have been squeezed hard for cash, there have been vocal demands for a move towards the American system, with more generous taxation provision for the endowment of public institutions.
It was interesting to read Foster’s comment, as an American, in which he reviews some of the problems that this brings with it. I was gratified, I suppose, to read his words of caution about some of the less-desirable effects of the dependence of the arts upon some very large private donors. The National Gallery here, for example, has been facing vigorous criticism recently for its dependence on the energy company BP, on the grounds that its support for art somehow distracts attention from the role of fossil fuels in the process of global warming. BP is buying, in effect, the argument goes, a great deal of favourable publicity through its patronage. Short of funds as it is, the gallery has little choice but to accept this “tainted” largesse, and collaborate in this “rebranding” of an oil company.
I’m still not sure what the balance of my opinions is in this debate, but I am sure that it is an important issue of which artists, art institutions and the public at large should be more greatly aware.
Incidentally, I have been out of contact for the past few days, doing grand-parental child care duty in Sheffield. The time was not entirely lost to art, however, as I had a good session with my 5-year-old grandson drawing dragons.
*Edition of 7 November 2019, pp. 13-14.