Funding Contemporary Art Collections and Collecting in the
Regions: Models, Partnerships and International Comparisons
Wendy Law
Dr Tina Fiske
June 2008
Commissioned by Arts Council England
March 2008
1. Executive Summary
2. Research methods
3. Comparing Terminology
3.1. The ‘three spheres’
3.2. Sources of public subsidy
3.3. Private support and ‘privatisation’
3.4. Types of private sector support
3.5. Private funds for public services
3.6. Public private partnerships
3.7. Public collections and publicly accessible collections
4. Influencing Factors – UK
4.1. UK – ‘mixed funding economy’
4.2. Public subsidy – regional museums
4.3. Collections and collecting: the regions
4.4. UK tax system
4.5. Cultivating private support
5. Survey of International Models
5.1. Areas for international comparison
5.2. Models and partnerships
5.3. A note on the US
5.4. Germany
5.5. France
5.6. Italy
5.7. Spain
5.8. The Netherlands
5.9. Australia
6. UK Public Policy, Funding and Models – Collections
6.1. Public Funding and Selected models
6.2. Foundations and trusts: funding and selected models
6.3. Patrons and patron groups
6.4. Promoting philanthropy
6.5. The business sector
7. Proposed Funding Models and Partnerships
7.1. Proposed models
7.2. Proposed funding initiatives
8. Key International Findings and Trends
8.1. Building contemporary art collections in regional and local contexts
8.2. Funds for building contemporary collections
4
10
11
12
12
13
14
15
16
17
17
17
18
19
20
20
21
23
27
28
31
37
43
47
50
54
58
58
73
75
77
77
79
80
82
84
85
86
2
8.3. Public sector development
8.4. Encouraging philanthropy
8.5. Partnerships
8.6. Ways of acquiring
9. Recommendations
Acknowledgements
Sources
Glossary of selected UK organisations and initiatives
List of International websites
87
87
88
89
90
92
93
99
100
3
1. Executive Summary
1.1. This research was commissioned by the Director of Visual Arts Strategy,
Arts Council England. Arts Council England is the development agency for the arts
in England, providing strategic development and leadership for the sector.
It also funds a wide range of individuals, organisations and events, and gathers
intelligence and brokers strategic partnerships. This research has been
commissioned in tandem with other related briefs, including Professor Sara
Selwood’s research into relationships between local, regional and national
collections, which collectively aim to provide an informed picture in which to
implement Turning Point (2006), the Arts Council’s 10-year strategy for
visual arts.
1.2. The research brief entailed examining how funding partnerships and models
might be developed in regional contexts to promote contemporary art collecting
across England. The research was required to investigate public and private
sector opportunities as well as successful international funding models. The
resulting report synthesises two complementary strands of enquiry:
 it presents the results of a comprehensive consultation into the funding
landscape across the English regions, which directly supports collectionsbuilding and contemporary art acquisitions in particular. Those consulted were
drawn from museums, galleries, trusts, foundations, and development
agencies across eight of the English regions. Influencing factors drawn from
the wide body of literature, including recent key reports, are highlighted
 it outlines selected trends, partnerships and models in evidence in municipal
and regional museums across six international contexts: Germany, France,
The Netherlands, Italy, Spain and Australia. Those particular countries
represent a range of contexts that have well-established networks and
collections of contemporary art (France, Germany, The Netherlands), as well
as those that have experienced a rapid growth in public museums of
contemporary art, driven frequently by the cities and regions (Italy and Spain).
Although recent initiatives in co-acquiring and co-commissioning by museums
in the US are referred to in this report, studies in the incentives and motivations
behind US philanthropy, and possible models it might offer, have been
published elsewhere.
1.3. It is intended that the findings of this report will feed into further consultation
and strategy formation. The brief presupposes a level of ambition on the part of
4
museums and galleries in the regions to acquire and build collections of
contemporary art. The authors acknowledge that various levels of commitment,
ranging from singular acquisitions to building holdings in depth, are aspired to
within the sector. The authors also endorse the principle of local ownership vis-àvis contemporary art holdings, and have responded to the brief with that emphasis.
Broader questions pertaining to the necessity for local ownership, the role of
centralised collecting strategies, and of the relationships between the national
collections and those in the regions fall outside the remit of this report, although
they will have particular bearing upon next steps. The preliminary findings of this
report were presented at a seminar at INIVA in London on 28 March 2008.
1.4. There are collections of international, national and regional significance
across England. Anecdotal reference is occasionally made to the exceptional civic
and regional collections of contemporary art of international standing, which have
been built in countries such as The Netherlands and Germany, as compared with
those in the UK. This report shows that it is timely to examine the presence of
contemporary art in the regional collections afresh, particularly in light of the
ongoing development of the Arts Council Collection and the achievements and
legacy of the Contemporary Art Society’s Special Collection Scheme, and recent
major developments such as Art Fund International and the d’Offay Bequest to
National Galleries of Scotland and Tate. Those recent developments demonstrate
the clear commitment to addressing the issue of contemporary collections outside
London on the part of major public and private funders.
1.5. The evidence assembled at the level of consultation across the English
regions reveals that the use of plural funding to make acquisitions and build
collections is the rule, rather than the exception. Directors and curators within
museums typically juggle a menu of possible funding streams, and are well
practised in maximising their modest in-house resources to lever major funding
from elsewhere. Though many museums and galleries have recourse to their
Friends organisations, to whom they can turn occasionally for acquisitions support,
a large number of institutions approach the same grant-making bodies for match
funding, usually on a competitive basis in support of a particular acquisition. In
England, major funding comes from charitable trusts and foundations, and these
are now increasingly recognised as the mainstay of support for building up
collections in the regions. The manner in which those organisations are distributing
grants is evolving and becoming increasingly strategic, particularly in relation to
contemporary art and as evidenced by Art Fund International. Hitherto, major
5
support has come from the National Lottery. With the London Olympics 2012,
however, this stream will be considerably reduced for the foreseeable future. This
emphasises the need to generate alternative funding sources that institutions can
draw on, and to form new partnerships. In terms of forming partnerships beyond
their own institutions, the ability of museums and galleries to respond to clear and
concrete funding opportunities, and move quickly to create links that can lead to
partnerships, was demonstrated by the Art Fund International application process.
1.6. Several national-level funding models, which aim to be strategic and
developmental as well as embody the principles of sustainability and public-private
partnership, were proposed in the consultation process. These include a National
Endowment Fund, which could be set up with public funding, to lever match
funding from the public and private sectors, with a variant model based on the
model of The Olympics Legacy Trust. In addition to Art Fund International, a range
of initiatives currently exist that have the potential to be adopted and adapted by
different institutions, or by regions, or as a model at national level. These include
museumaker, a partnership between Arts Council England, the Museums,
Libraries and Archives Council’s Renaissance in the Regions; as well as Outset’s
acquisitions fund specifically for Tate to acquire work at Frieze Art Fair, Business
Collectors Network (Arts Council England/ Sponsor Club for Arts & Business,
North East), Collecting Cultures (HLF) and Enriching Regions (The Art Fund and
Esmée Fairbairn Foundation).
1.7. What has become clear is the desirability of, and potential for, alignments
amongst national bodies such as the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council
(MLA) and Arts Council England (ACE), which could be achieved through formal
Memoranda of Understanding, to establish areas of common purpose included in
their respective strategies: Turning Point (ACE) and Museums in England, A
National Strategy (MLA). The Renaissance in the Regions hub structure, and in
particular its lead partners, have been identified as an appropriate mechanism
through which ACE can forge links and formalise its relationship at policy level with
the museum sector and public collections. Regional Development Strategies (local
authorities and ACE) also share many common goals intersecting through the
visual arts, including those relevant to public collections.
1.8. The consultation has indicated a general lack of business patronage relating
to acquisitions for public collections in the regions. This is borne out in
benchmarking statistics compiled by Arts & Business. Those consulted
6
acknowledged the importance of developing more positive and productive
business relationships. In view of the cachet associated with contemporary art and
the public attention it attracts, it is perhaps surprising that developers and
businesses do not perceive contemporary collecting to be a greater priority.
Examples of business sponsorship in the visual arts, where it occurs in the
regions, are usually linked to temporary exhibitions or to commissions. The lack of
corporate patronage for collecting in the regions is attributed, by those consulted,
to several factors:




the global nature of business today often working through London based
headquarters and fewer businesses with a local stronghold
the lack of financial incentives for businesses to support collections
the lack of recognition of the national and regional significance of
collections in the regions in the UK
London’s position as the centre for the UK art market.
At a time when the contemporary visual arts attract so much public attention,
through the art market and fairs such as Frieze, as well as high prices at auction,
there is a need to raise awareness of the quality that exists in UK collections
outside London.
1.9. Initiatives are recommended that increase both individual and business
patronage in the regions, and partnerships between museums and galleries and
visual arts organisations across England to encourage greater patronage outside
London. Collective working could ensure a higher profile for the visual arts and for
public collections, and there is potential for initiatives to be led by cities or by
regional consortia. For prospective individual patrons, the routes to engagement
with contemporary art, or becoming a patron, are not always clear, particularly visà-vis local-authority organisations. Conversely, it has been acknowledged
elsewhere that for museums and galleries direct contact with patrons is not easily
achieved or sustained. However, information and advice is available from
Philanthropy UK, the Contemporary Art Society and The Art Fund, who could play
an important role in the development of new initiatives and events. Larger-scale
organisations with development departments are better equipped to develop
patrons. Smaller-scale organisations and those at the ‘cutting edge’ of
contemporary art are less likely to attract support or have patrons. A national-led
campaign could be one way to raise awareness of collecting and collections, with
Arts Council England and its regional offices to lead on the development of
7
partnerships. Support is required to develop the level and sophistication of
marketing and development capacity within individual museums and/or regional
consortia. New posts could be a way to develop capacity to broker relationships
between agencies at national and regional level, and assist in delivering working
models to increase patronage and private income.
1.10. Amongst the international contexts surveyed, there is recognition that the
purchasing power of public collections has dipped, particularly when compared
with that of private and corporate collections. This is attributed to several factors,
such as the varying levels of public subsidy available, elevated market prices, the
demands of an internationalised art world (art fairs, biennales and festivals), and a
highly competitive collecting environment. Public funding is the mainstay for the
FRAC system in France, and for many of the regional and municipal contemporary
collections in Spain (for instance MUSAC, in Leon). In other contexts, such as
Germany, there are instances whereby municipal authorities have entered into cofinancing agreements with the business sector to underwrite capital development
and/or running costs for civic museums. Many museums have benefited from a
mixture of funding possibilities for building collections of contemporary art, which
are drawn from a range of public and private sources through a variety of
mechanisms. There is evidence of recourse to collective funding streams such as
the Lottery, as well as the creation of business patronage plans, and the cultivation
of specific relationships with Foundations and with individual patrons and
collectors.
1.11. In the international contexts considered, it is also recognised that:
 the public sector needs to be strengthened, particularly vis-à-vis building
collections of contemporary art
 there is a need to extend relations with the private sector (businesses,
individuals and foundations)
 the private sector wants to partner a strong public sector, and not replace or
rescue a weak one
 museums have to equip themselves, attitudinally and in terms of capacity,
to expand their funding landscapes, and that the profile of museums and
regional collections must be strengthened to achieve this.
These have played out in an increasing trend towards ‘privatisation’ of civic and
regional museums in the form of trusts or foundations (UK, The Netherlands,
Germany, Italy, Spain). Changing to trust or foundation status is felt, in some
8
quarters, to motivate interface with the private sector, and makes the levering of
support easier (ARTium, Vitoria; Stedelijk Foundation, Amsterdam; GAM, Turin).
However, there are important exceptions where institutions have remained within
their city administrations (Museum für Moderne Kunst, Frankfurt, and Van
Abbemuseum, Eindhoven), and have succeeded in developing strong patronage
links with their respective business communities.
1.12. There is a broad acceptance of the need to cultivate individual giving,
business donations and support from foundations to the benefit of the public
sector, particularly on civic and community level. There are different patterns of
prioritisation; where, for example in France, emphasis is on cultivating business
giving, and in the UK, it is on individual giving. The climate for giving and
incentivising is felt broadly to be tied to, but not exclusively influenced by, the
introduction of fiscal incentives, as well as trends towards a re-emphasis on civil
society. The picture is not consistent in terms of who is driving forward policy and
dissemination of tax incentives, initiative models, and forming of partnerships.
Central government has taken the lead in France. Direction is also coming from
Arts & Business groups (Italy, Australia, France, England), Arts Councils (in
Australia both Commonwealth and State Arts Councils), and Associations (France,
Italy, US). Increasingly, philanthropy is promoted directly by individual institutions,
with many now providing details of tax deductions or credits available via
dedicated pages on websites (France, Australia, Germany). Some museums rely
on their Friends organisations as partners to help mediate with businesses
(Germany, Holland) and other public bodies, and to host events. In Germany,
many Friends organisations have revised their identities and missions, and have
developed their own websites. Other institutions are establishing foundations to
mediate with businesses and individuals (Australia, Finland).
1.13. That regional and civic institutions within the international context are taking
steps to expand their funding sources and to develop partnerships to support
contemporary acquisitions and collections-building is clearly the case. As indicated
above, this report testifies to the wealth and range of these. The results, in the
form of richer collections that expand educational programmes, promote the
values of ‘international’, ‘regional’ and ‘local’, and engage and inspire audiences,
are there to be seen. The public appeal, led by Queensland Art Gallery Foundation
in Queensland, Australia, to raise funds in support of the acquisition of Yayoi
Kusama’s room-sized installation Soul under the Moon, 2002 is exemplary in this
respect; commissioned for the museum’s Asia-Pacific Triennial of Contemporary
9
Art, with the assistance of private funds, the acquisition is a testament to the
potential power of public-private collaboration, endorsed by the success of a public
campaign.
1.14. This report proposes a number of options for the UK, and highlights selected
international models and initiatives of relevance, which could be taken forward,
premised on the creation of funds:
 For strategic collections-building: This report proposes that DCMS be
approached with regard to the creation of a dedicated funding stream for
civic and regional collections to access, for the purposes of strategic
contemporary collections-building.
 For capacity and partnership building: It also proposes the consideration of
funding options to enable local authorities or institutions to conduct
research, establish or invigorate partnerships or initiatives, and promote
philanthropy. Funding could be made available that would favour consortia
applications to support the following; the commissioning and dissemination
of research; network building and profile raising events; the strengthening of
existing partnerships (with Friends organisations for instance), and the
development and facilitation of collector groups.
1.15. The report also chimes with recent calls to address what tax incentives are
available, and how they are promoted, within an overall view to fostering broader
philanthropic giving. Of particular relevance to the focus of this report is the issue
of incentives to encourage lifetime gifting. The Art Fund defines lifetime giving as
‘the gift of a cultural object within the lifetime of an individual owner or corporation
to a public collection in lieu of income or corporation tax.’1 If introduced, it would
have the added benefit of encouraging the development of ongoing relationships
between private donors and public galleries.
2. Research methods
2.1. A consultation was undertaken in order to construct a comprehensive view of
the current funding landscape available to English museums and galleries that
wish to build collections of contemporary art, and a view of future options. The
consultation comprised face-to-face interviews with museum and gallery
representatives with a responsibility for public collections from across eight of the
1
The Art Fund, Gift Aid Consultation 2007, unpublished p.5
10
Engllish regions (not including London). Interviews were also conducted with
selected representatives from Arts Council England regularly funded galleries and
commissioning agencies, and with relevant organisations such as VAGA, The Art
Fund, Contemporary Art Society, and Arts and Business. Interviews were
conducted by telephone where visits were not possible, and supported by desk
research.
2.2. The areas discussed within the consultation included:
 the current funding sources for contemporary art acquisition for collection
and examples or initiatives involving public and private funding
 possible new funding models involving private sponsorship, supported by
strong civic values to enhance collecting and mechanisms for delivery
 the position of contemporary art (living artists) within the current acquisition
policy; the relationship between commissioned work (temporary exhibition
space) and the permanent collection
 the relationship between public collections and the non-collection visual art
venues
 the research and decision making process for contemporary art acquisition.
2.3. Research focusing on various international contexts assembled selective
evidence of types of co-financing, plural funding and partnership models, and
indicated instances of notable practice. The six contexts – Germany, France, Italy,
Spain, The Netherlands, and Australia – were selected because of:
 the incidence of municipal and regional collections of contemporary art
across each
 the traditionally dominant role of public funding as the mainstay for public
institutions
 broader shifts towards engaging with the private sector demonstrable in
each
 the broader strategic focus on philanthropic giving and the incentivising/
cultivating that supports this.
Selective telephone interviews were conducted. Some curators also responded to
written questionnaires. Considerable information was also yielded through
institution websites, and through an extensive literature review.
3. Comparing Terminology
11
The terminology surrounding public collections, publicly accessible collections,
public subsidy, private support, patronage and sponsorship is largely consistent,
but there are some important variations or qualifications, which are noted here.
3.1. The ‘three spheres’
In a recent report on the financing of culture commissioned by the European
Parliament, Klamer et al. refer to the three spheres of finance: government, market
and third sector. The report indicates that data on the second and third sectors is
scarce: ‘the focus was generally on public financing, ignoring other possible
sources of funds (market, third sphere) and hence other possible ways to develop
cultural policies’. In fact, as it suggests, available funding most often involves
private sources with market characteristics, as well as non-market and nongovernmental contributions. More often it is the case that the three spheres
operate simultaneously, and their intermingling is more the rule than the exception.
(Klamer et al., 2006)
A key question is how far the three spheres operate in the UK, and in the wider
field vis-à-vis regional and municipal collections of contemporary art? As our
consultation and research bear out, this is increasingly the case across the
countries considered within this report. Focusing on funding models and
partnerships to support the building of regional collections of contemporary art, this
report looks primarily at public or governmental and third sphere (non-market, nongovernmental) contributions, whilst recognising the place of market within the
understanding of an overall ecology, and as an often decisive influencing factor.
3.2. Sources of public subsidy
Public subsidy is a generic term for funding that derives from a governmental
source (central, regional or local), and is raised through taxation. How subsidy
flows between and from these is often critical, and is subject to variation across
national boundary:
Most countries have a centralized structure with a central ministry bearing
most responsibility. Some authority has been devolved to lower levels of
government, which, in general, operate under the control of the Minister.
Ireland, Cyprus, Italy, France, and Luxembourg belong to this group.
Countries like Austria, Belgium, Germany, Poland, Portugal, Spain and the
United Kingdom, instead, have a decentralized organisation where lower
levels of government (Länder, regions, counties, provinces, and
municipalities) are responsible for most cultural matters.
12
(Erasmus University and Boekman Foundation, 2007)
Klamer et. al (2006) also make an important distinction between direct and indirect
public subsidy, indirect public expenditure referring to revenue gained through tax
deductions or credits on donating and gift-giving. Tax incentives are often
implicated in ‘private sector’ vocabulary, and usually viewed as concessions to the
wealthy, particularly vis-à-vis contemporary art. However, insofar as the revenue
created is ‘tax forgone’ by government, it is an indirect, but vital form of public
support. Inkei (2001) suggests ‘not taking into consideration indirect expenditures,
however, leads to serious underestimation of some countries’ intervention.’
Tax
Legislation can encourage or discourage donations, boost the bequeathing of
valuables, foster the creation of foundations, etc. Typically, tax incentives take
place as:
 tax exemptions, tax deductions and special (lower) rates for art and cultural
institutions, for example, in gift and inheritance taxes and corporate income
taxes
 tax deductions and tax credits for companies and individuals donating to or
investing in the arts
 different VAT rate on cultural products
Lottery
Alternative collective funding generally refers to nationalised Lottery sources. State
expenditure on culture is extensively supported by funds from the lotteries in
Finland, Italy, United Kingdom, Poland and Denmark. Private lotteries do exist in
some countries (for example, The Netherlands). Germany has a mixed publicprivate lottery ownership. In terms of the stability of funds, the Finnish model is
particularly interesting, where the government compensates for lottery
shortcomings. Only Italy distributes a fixed amount to heritage annually.
(Klamer, et. al, 2006, 31)
3.3. Private support and ‘privatisation’
The distinction between private support and ‘privatisation’ is an important one to
make. For the purposes of this research, privatisation refers to the trend for
museums to undergo shifts to Trust, charitable company or Foundation status, or
to be created as such. Myerscough (2001) suggests that the term ‘privatisation’
implies ‘changes in management, operation or funding practice or ownership’.
13
The diversifying of funding that is in the subject of this report can attend
privatisation, but is not exclusive to it. These entail the search for funding from
non-public sources, as well as other public sources. There is little qualitative
research on the benefits of assuming Trust status in relation to the diversification
of funding sources and partnerships.
3.4. Types of private sector support
Private and non-profit sector are generic terms used, sometimes interchangeably,
to describe the financial support or ‘new money’ stream that can be provided to
public organisations from:
 businesses and corporate foundations
 individuals
 trusts, foundations, associations, and other charitable bodies
Across the countries considered, and beyond, there is an increasingly proactive
attitude and approach to seeking and cultivating partnerships with the business
sector. In some countries, such as Lithuania and Sweden, tax incentives are
available for business donors only, and there is no tax deduction for individuals
who donate to foundations (Klamer et. al, 2006). In France, the tax concessions,
introduced in 2003, favour enterprise and business giving.
Consultation and research for this report, as well as Private Investment
Benchmarking figures compiled by Arts & Business bear out Myerscough, (2001),
who suggests that, in the UK, the focus on contributed income is moving towards
individual giving, as opposed to corporate giving, which has long been the
principal source in the USA. Theresa Lloyd’s Why Rich People Give (2004) is
amongst the first studies to examine charitable giving patterns amongst wealthy
individuals, and to explore their motivations for giving, for not giving, what
fundraising methods work for them, how they decide the level of their giving.
Across the board, there is increasingly greater importance attached to the third or
non-profit sector, in the form of trusts, foundations, associations and other
charitable bodies. This is consonant with a re-emphasis on civil society, which
continues to emerge as a corrective to ‘big government policies,’ (Myerscough,
2001) or lack of funding from government in case of collections. In his recent
report, however, Paul Glinkowski has indicated that ‘by comparison with the work
recently undertaken on individual giving, very little research appears to have been
14
done to date on the role of charitable grant-making foundations in supporting the
arts.’2 Glinkowski characterises the independent grant-making sector in the UK as
‘a fluid entity – where funding priorities and schemes are constantly being
reconsidered and redrawn, and where new players enter as others leave the
stage.’
3.5. Private funds for public services
Foundations, trusts and charitable bodies provide mechanisms with which
individuals, families or businesses can make funds available for a range of
purposes, and organise or formalise their giving. What is subject to subtle
distinction are the motivations that underwrite any one act or type of funding.
Sponsorship is fairly consistently understood across national boundaries, and
refers to financial support with expectation of returns, by which the sponsor
receives something back either directly or indirectly.3 In Spain and France, the
distinction between sponsorship and patronage is reasonably clear, and based in
legislation on tax relief. In Spain, for instance, sponsorship is regulated by the
General Advertising Act (34/1988 Act) and patronage by the Act on Tax
Exemptions for Non-profit Making Organisations and on Sponsorship (49/2002
Act).4
The distinctions between giving, benefaction, philanthropy and patronage are,
however, less clearly defined in terms of their motivations. Klamer et. al note that
in some environments, particularly the United Kingdom, the subcategory of
patronage indicates the provision of support with expectation of some return.
Patronage is ‘financial, material or moral assistance provided by an organisation or
an individual … The assistance provided is of no direct benefit to the patron's
activities, but adds to his reputation and honour through the resulting fame’
(quoted in Klamer et. al., 2006). Philanthropy or maecenatism is seen to be
synonymous with support without returns. Interestingly, American curator Richard
Flood distinguishes philanthropy from collecting and gifting per se.5 Consonant
2 Paul
Glinkowski (2007), A Report on 21st Century Philanthropy and the Role of trusts and
foundations in supporting the arts in the UK.’ Available for download at
http://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/philanthropy/resources_and_links
3 DCMS, 2004 ‘Sponsorship is a business relationship between the provider of funds, resources or
services and an individual, event or organisation which offers in return some rights of association
that may be used for commercial advantage. It is not a charitable donation.’
4 http://www.culturalpolicies.net/web/spain.php?aid=73
15
with this, Rupert Myer (2007) defines philanthropy as ‘charitable aid and donations
designed to increase the prosperity and well being of people and communities,’
whilst Adam (2004) defines philanthropy as a mechanism ‘to advance society by
providing necessary social, cultural, and educational services which are not
provided by the state or the market.’
In a roundtable at Miami Basel in 2005, major American philanthropists David
Rockefeller and Eli Broad both refer to individual and corporate philanthropy as an
‘evolution’ on from collecting, gifting or donations, in terms of level of commitment
and scale of possible intervention.5 As Eli Broad noted, ‘at the beginning we were
just writing checks because I was engaged in the corporate world and I didn’t have
all that much time. But as time went on, I became more engaged in our
community, more involved in the arts, more involved in other activities and now I
spend all of my time at our foundation’s activities’ (Basel Miami Beach, 2005).
3.6. Public private partnerships
Arend Oetker, a German philanthropist offers the following truism: ‘it’s easier to
have a totally private organisation or a totally state-financed organisation. Its
however interesting to combine forces, and to get more out of it, to convince more,
to generate more money for the arts.’6 In their most strict sense, public private
partnerships (PPPs) have a somewhat indigestible pedigree for many in the
cultural sector, indicating, as they typically do, a linking of commercial interests to
public service organisations. In the UK, Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs) were set
up in 1992 to increase the involvement of the private sector in the provision of
public services, and under which the private sector designs, builds, finances and
operates a public facility and the public sector pays the PFI contractor to deliver
the service(s) over a contracted period, usually about 25 years (DCMS, 2004). In
the UK, a radical application of this was the partnership established between a
private company and a national museum (the Tower Armouries, London).
However, there is a ‘soft’ use of the term, more in line with plural funding and the
partnership principle that underwrites it, which is the sense in which PPP is
5
Art 36 Miami Basel (2005) ‘Contemporary Philanthropy in America,’ Conversations Transcripts,
available at http://www.art.ch/go/id/erm/
6
Art 37 Basel (2006) ‘Contemporary Philanthropy in Europe, in Conversations Transcripts, pp. 79-
98. Available at http://www.art.ch/go/id/erm/
16
employed in this report. With this usage, both partners can indeed be public, and
so we explore what might be termed public-public partnerships too.
3.7. Public collections and publicly accessible collections
This research focuses on collections in the UK and abroad that are owned,
developed, and maintained by public authorities (be they local, regional or
national), and held by that authority in trust for the public. However, there is also
an increasing instance of publicly accessible private collections, which assume
foundation status with an overt public mission. As Adrian Ellis has recently noted,
there was a steady trickle of new privately funded museums throughout the
second half of the 20th century. But for the most part the destination of
choice for most collectors with a philanthropic bent, uninterested heirs, or
an aversion to inheritance taxes was a public or a publicly funded museum
that would give the collection the imprimatur and care the collector believed
it deserved. The courting of collectors has always been a more significant
source of acquisitions for public museums than buying or commissioning. 7
Of those privately funded organisations, there are those that are supported by a
single private source (Magasin 3, Stockholm; La Maison Rouge, Paris; Ellipse
Foundation, Portugal), or those that have additional public partners (Fondazione
Sandretto Re Rebaudengo, Turin). There is no consistent language to distinguish
publicly owned from privately owned collections, as examples of the latter do
utilise the term ‘museum.’ Notwithstanding the fact that ‘gallery’ designates both
organisations with or without a permanent collection, here the terms ‘museum’ or
‘institution’ are employed to refer to any publicly owned facility that acquires,
houses and displays a collection.
4. Influencing Factors – UK
4.1. UK – ‘mixed funding economy’
According to DCMS (2004), plural funding has a good foothold vis-à-vis funding
the arts in England. England occupies an acknowledged ‘middle ground between
heavy dependence on the State – as in European countries such as France and
Germany – and almost entire reliance on private investment, as in the USA.’
(DCMS, 2004) What is clear is that ‘the cultural sector faces a funding landscape
7 Adrian Ellis, ‘The problem with Privately Funded Museums, The Art Newspaper, 21.2.08, Issue
188, accessed at http://www.theartnewspaper.com/article.asp?id=7509
17
that is far more competitive and dynamic than any they have been used to.’ (Arts &
Business, 2006) Paul Myners, Chairman of Tate Trustees, has noted that: ‘10% of
cultural organisations now see private funding accounting for 50% of their
turnover.’ (Arts & Business, 2008) Arts & Business figures indicate that the
preponderance of such organizations is based in London. More broadly, recent
evidence given to the DCMS Select Committee (2007) has indicated that ‘many
independent museums are wholly reliant on self-generated income and
fundraising, and museums generally have become adept at accessing support
from a wide variety of sources.’
In terms of impact, it is thought that moving towards or cultivating plural funding
can prove highly beneficial to artists and arts organisations, as ‘it reduces the risks
that can arise from reliance on a single funding source, and ensures that they
have greater artistic freedom and financial flexibility’. (DCMS, 2004)
Of particular import is the cultivation of the necessary attitudinal factors within the
public sector. Myerscough (2001) suggests that the professional attitudes
necessary in more plural systems have extensive implications, and ‘do not emerge
overnight.’ Roy Clare, Head of MLA, has recently noted ‘there’s a very important
lesson to take on board, which is that the Tate model needs to get out to smaller
institutions, regional institutions…There’s a training mission because it’s not just
the Boards that drive this. We need the executive, the curators, the staff, to
understand also the language of business, the power of entrepreneurialism.’
(Arts & Business, 2008)
4.2. Public subsidy – regional museums
In the UK, local authorities are the second largest supporter of the arts in England
after the Arts Council. Their provision of funding for the arts is discretionary: they
are able to support the arts, but it is not an official requirement. Funding for local
cultural provision is paid to local authorities as part of the Local Government
Financial Settlement, but the amounts to be spent on cultural services are not ring
fenced within this grant. All local authorities operate differently, with their own
structures, policies, grant-in-aid criteria and schemes.
Evidence given to the DCMS Select Committee (2007) indicated that the funding
landscape is regarded as ‘depressingly bleak, despite some very welcome new
funding which has come on-stream in the recent past.’ Research conducted by Art
Fund (2006) suggests that fewer than 10% of museums in the UK allocate a fixed
18
proportion of their core funding each year to collecting and, in 2005, 60% of them
had allocated no income to collecting. A number of local authority services have
changed legal status to Trust (e.g. Sheffield, York, Glasgow). Although museums
devolved to trusts had done well in attracting additional funding, most of it has
come from public funding sources available to other museums, and relatively little
effort had been put into cultivating private donors. (MLA, 2006)
4.3. Collections and collecting: the regions
There are collections of quality to be found throughout the UK. More than 60 of
England's non-national museums have collections that have been designated as
being of pre-eminent national and international importance under the MLA
Designation Scheme. There is, moreover, continued recognition for the position of
public collection institutions as endorsers of excellence. Museums attract a high
level of trust from a wide ranging public.
The issue of active collecting on the part of UK museums has been the subject of
some focus. The Goodison Report (2004) noted of museums that:
the squeeze in recent years on their core funding has led them to reduce
the money that they allocate to acquisitions in order to maintain other
services… As a result very few of them trouble to look for acquisitions or to
keep in touch with the market. They find that even inexpensive objects are
beyond them.
However, giving evidence to the Select Committee, David Lammy, former Minister
for Culture, referred to the amounts that national and regional museums spend on
acquisitions – around £30 million a year, fluctuating between £65 million in 200304 and £23 million in 2006. In terms of strategic collecting, the report of the DCMS
Select committee (2007) concluded that collecting for even large regional
museums had been reactive not proactive, responding to opportunities where they
arose rather than strategically developing collections. Others have said that the
lack of a single strategic funding stream for acquisitions was making it difficult for
museums to acquire significant items for their collection.
Of contemporary collecting in particular, Sheila MacGregor (2005) noted that
‘public galleries outside London are finding it increasingly difficult to make
significant acquisitions of contemporary visual art.’ Her report coined a language of
‘crisis,’ and indicated moreover that ‘the internationalization of contemporary art
practice, and the institutions that support it, has made it additionally difficult for
19
curators working within local authority galleries.’ In their evidence to the DCMS
Select Committee, VAGA added, ‘once galleries have stopped collecting
contemporary art, it could be very hard to get a foothold again – to fill gaps or to
retain the curatorial expertise.’
4.4. UK tax system
Current tax reliefs available to individuals include:
 conditional exemption from inheritance and capital gains tax, where
qualifying heritage assets are given public access
 a Douceur on private sales treaties, which applies to sales to public
institutions
 Gift Aid in the form of tax relief on money donated to UK charities
 Acceptance-in-Lieu whereby anyone liable for an existing inheritance tax bill
can offer a heritage object in part or whole payment of the tax
National organisations such as Art Fund, National Museum Directors’ Conference
(NMDC), Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA), and Arts & Business
lobby strenuously in favour of improvements to the current tax reliefs, and believe
tax regime reforms could do much in helping museums and galleries to raise
funds, build their collections and acquire important items.
In 2006, HM Treasury tabled a consultation on Gift Aid, and published a summary
of evidence in 2007. In their response, Art Fund indicated that in 2006, Gift Aid
claims were worth £422,000 to their organisation – of which £405,000 came from
members’ subscriptions. 76% of their members Gift Aid their subscription. Their
recommendations, as well as those proposed by NMDC, include lifting restrictions
on benefits imposed by HM Revenue and Customs vis-à-vis Friends schemes;
allowing either an uncapped percentage of donation in benefit to major donors, or
for separate benefit levels of major donors and patrons; extending tax incentives to
gifts of objects; allowing museums to recover Gift Aid on exhibition ticket sales;
and alternative wording for the Gift Aid Declaration.
Perhaps most pertinent to this report is the opportunity that the Gift Aid
consultation has afforded Art Fund and NMDC to lobby for lifetime giving. If
introduced, it would have the added benefit of encouraging the development of
ongoing relationships between private donors and public institutions.
4.5. Cultivating private support
20
Arts & Business’ Benchmarking Statistics reveal that in 2005/06 private sector
support of the arts reached £529.5 million, with business investment accounting
for £153.4 million of that amount (A&B, 2006).8 Margaret Hodge (Arts & Business,
2008): ‘Only just over four percent of total charitable giving in the UK finds its way
to the cultural institutions of the country and this tiny proportion sits oddly with
society’s undoubted appetite for culture as an expression of shared identity, as
defining the place in which we live and as a way of enhancing the competitive
attraction of Britain.’
In the UK, individual giving exceeds business giving by some margin. In 20052006, individuals gave £262.4 million. The largest proportion of that, some £153.4
million, came from Friends organisations, which eclipses corporate membership
contributions dramatically. Of that individual donations constituted £77.2 million,
thereby dwarfing corporation donations, with Legacies and Bequests at £60.6
million. Individual giving has not only established itself as a very significant source
of fundraising income, but it also has the potential to become the single most
important source of funding in the future. DCMS reported in 2004 that ‘UK trusts
and foundations give about £2 billion in grants each year to charities. About 70%
of trusts and foundations give to the health and social welfare fields and 30% give
to the arts and recreation.’
In terms of distribution, around two-thirds of private giving to cultural institutions
takes place in London. In 2005-2006, 75% of total private investment in the arts
was shared amongst 50 organisations. In 2006-07 this rose to 62%. For most
regional arts organisations, issues like low profile, lack of networking opportunities
and poor advocacy remain obstacles to increasing their share of private
investment (Arts & Business, 2006).
There is the issue of leadership. In its response to the Gift Aid Consultation, The
Art Fund stated that ‘the responsibility for making a success of giving to museums
lies with the sector, through effective leadership and professional asking; the
government also has a vital role to play in areas such as taxation policy.’
5. Survey of International Models
8
In 2006/2007, total private investment reached nearly £600 million
21
This section provides a summary of initiatives, models and partnerships, which
have been developed by regional and civic institutions across Germany, France,
Italy, Spain, The Netherlands and Australia in order to support the development of
collections of contemporary art.
Very few public museums and galleries are able to maintain purchasing power in
relation to an ever-growing number of private and corporate collectors acquiring
contemporary art. Recently in The Art Newspaper, Gareth Harris and Ossian Ward
reported that:
...even the largest, state-funded European museums are expressing fears
that they are being left behind in the current boom. Most do not enjoy such
a rich tradition of philanthropy or such generous tax breaks as US
museums, while across Europe governments are squeezing cultural
budgets.9
There is an increasing inclination amongst major private collectors to form
foundations that provide public access to their collections, rather than bequeathing
their collections to museums or to the state. Donald and Doris Fisher's move to
house the GAP collection in a dedicated building in the Presidio in San Francisco,
rather than gift it to SFMoMA is a recent example. Also powerful are the corporate
collections that are publicly accessible, such as that of La Caixa in Barcelona.
Other types of negotiations between private collectors and public museums are
developing. Adrian Ellis has written that ‘Eli Broad’s funding of a “museum within a
museum” at the Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art and the uncertainty
around the eventual destination of his collection is the latest example of these
criss-crossed lines between private collectors and public institutions.’ (Ellis, 2008)
The defining role and strength of the ‘private museum’ phenomenon is, however,
evident in the collections, buildings and profiles of organisations such as Insel
Hombroich in Neuss just outside Dusseldorf, Fondation Beyeler in Basel, Halle für
Neue Kunst in Schaffhausen Switzerland, The Ellipse Foundation in Portugal, and
La Maison Rouge in Paris.
‘The effervescent art market, its fairs and auctions; the global museum building
boom; and the increasingly complex and conflicted relationship between active
private collectors and public museums,’ are all ‘manifestations’ of what Ellis refers
9
Gareth Harris and Ossian Ward, The Art Newspaper,
http://www.theartnewspaper.com/article.asp?id=312
22
to as the widespread and ‘large-scale change in the institutional ecology of art’.
More broadly, the evolving dynamic between ‘public’ and ‘private’ has originated,
at least in the first instance, from pressures out with the public institutions
themselves. They have mostly been receptors rather than instigators of such
changes and shifts (Klamer et. al, 2006). Yet this is itself changing, with the public
sector looking to affirm its role and strengthen itself, particularly vis-à-vis the
development and presentation of collections of contemporary art.
5.1. Areas for international comparison
The partnerships and initiatives detailed in this section must be viewed against the
variations that exist between public funding mechanisms, municipal and regional
museum infrastructures, historical attitudes to contemporary art and collecting, and
the role of private sector support. These factors are referred to throughout in this
chapter. Key issues relating to tax incentives and the promotion thereof are
summarised below.
Legislation on tax incentives#
Arts & Business (2004) note that:
Governments around the world, including in parts of Europe and Asia, as
well as Canada and the United Kingdom, have implemented recently or are
considering currently variety of measures to encourage private support for
social welfare and the arts, arenas that traditionally have been funded
largely or exclusively by the state.
France, Spain, Belgium, Germany, and Australia have all introduced legislation
recently, mostly in the form of tax incentives, to stimulate philanthropy. Although
Mark Schuster (2004) has suggested that in the US direct government spending
on the arts is far outstripped by indirect government expenditure, Klamer et. al.
(2006) suggests that in some European countries, the balance of what is ‘direct’
and ‘indirect’ subsidy is often unacknowledged. They also conclude that ‘tax
incentives for culture imply a shift of focus from supply towards demand; more
responsibility is given to the public.’
Arts & Business commissioned comparative research from AEA Consulting in
2004, which looked at how various drivers influence individual charitable giving to
23
the arts in the US and Canada.10 The Art Fund’s recently published research in tax
concessions clearly lays out the options available to the individual taxpayer over a
range of European contexts. The report shows for instance that a German
taxpayer is able, since January 2007, to make gifts of art to cultural institutions or
non-profit organisations and obtain a deduction of up to 20% of taxable income for
that year. For donations or gifts that exceed 20% of taxable income in the year of
the gift, the remaining amount can be carried forward into the following year. There
is an in-lieu-of-tax mechanism, but ‘more attractive,’ according to the Art Fund, ‘is
the mechanism which allows a German taxpayer to hand over a work of art to a
German charitable foundation within two years of inheritance and achieve a
retroactive exemption from the tax that was paid in respect of the inheritance.’
(Art Fund, 2007)
Several studies have recently focused on Australian tax initiatives, in particular
‘Did tax incentives play any part in increased giving?’ by Myles McGregorLowndes et. al (2006). They review the package of measures that were put in
place in Australia in March 1999 to cultivate greater corporate and personal
philanthropy, including ‘a package of taxation incentives amounting to
approximately $230m over five years.’11 The centrepiece was the allowance of gift
deductibility to private and corporate foundations known as Prescribed Private
Funds (PPFs). Where the USA, UK and Canada allow for deductible gifts to family
and corporate foundations, Australia did not until the introduction of the PPFs
allow deductibility for gifts to foundations not regarded as ‘public.’12
Impact of tax incentives on giving
There is some literature that looks at the impact of tax reforms on the cultivation of
philanthropic giving. The findings of ‘Giving Australia: Research on Philanthropy in
10
The aim of the report was ‘primarily the creation of a practical glossary of charitable giving
mechanisms – both the gift structures themselves, and the tactics that non-profit arts organisations
and professional fundraisers use to leverage them – that help to stimulate individual arts
philanthropy in North America, particularly in the United States.’ (AEA Consulting, 2004, p. 2)
11
Also included were deductibility for gifts of property over $5,000; ability for donors to spread
donation deductions over five years; capital gains tax exemption for cultural gifts; deductions for
contributions incurred in fundraising dinners and similar events (McGregor-Lowndes et. al. 2006)
They also note that unlike the UK, USA and Canada, Australia does not cap the amount that can
be claimed as a gift deduction by either individuals or corporate taxpayers.
12
By 2006, 440 PPFs had been created and $505.8m donated to them.
24
Australia’ (ACOSS, 2005) indicate a significant increase in charitable giving:
Since 1997, giving of money by individuals has increased in absolute terms
by about 88%, or 12.5% pa. In real terms, adjusted for inflation, giving rose
by about 58% over those seven years.
In terms of the impact that tax incentives might hold on giving, the report noted,
‘Taxation measures also foster planned giving.’ It found, in line with broader
research, that tax incentives alone do not necessarily encourage greater giving,
but they can impact on ‘the size, form and timing of the gift.’13
In terms of the potential impact of such reforms on the collecting and/or gifting of
works of contemporary art, the impact of the one of pieces of reform passed in
France, Loi 2003-709 (1 August 2003), will likely prove of particular interest. The
first piece of legislation, Loi 2002-05 (4 January 2002) on French museums14, was
intended to improve the framework for donations and specifically encourages the
purchase of ‘National Treasures’. The second, Loi 2003-709 (1 August 2003),
included major reforms to income tax deductions for individual and corporate
giving.15 Jean-Cédric Delvainquière has suggested that:
France ranks among the countries where public financing is known to be
high. Probably the main effect, as well as the main challenge since [the
introduction of tax incentives in] 2003, has been to make the way of thinking
both for the private actors as well as for the cultural institutions to evolve, to
13
The Art Fund, Gift Aid Consultation 2007, unpublished. p. 5
14
Sauvant in Erasmus University and Boekman Foundation, 2007: Beginning in December 2002,
the law has been applied 26 times and enabled 186 national treasures to stay on national land
benefiting collections of 17 museums for a total amount of 81 millions euros given by companies.
Most recent example is the buying of a ‘Poussin’ for the Lyon Museum of Fine Arts bought 17
millions euros, and 15 millions euros of those were given by companies (10 millions euros by
corporate foundation Gaz de France, Total and Axa, and 5 millions euros by local small-andmedium-sized companies).
15
See Morel, 2008 for details. For individual giving, there is a tax deduction up to 66% of the
donation’s value directly on income tax up to a maximum of 20% of the total taxable income.
Amounts in excess of that can be deducted over a five-year period. For corporate giving, there is
an available tax deduction of 60% directly on corporate income tax, up to 0.5% of the turnover,
which is twice the past allowed amount. Amounts in excess can be deducted over a five-year
period. The French Government has seemed intent on refining these pieces of legislation too, to
facilitate their uptake.
25
raise the openness in France to the possible role (and duty) of the private
donations.
Assessments of the 2003 legislation are slowly emerging. Catherine Morel (2003,
2008) suggests that the laws of 2003 are well constructed. She pertinently
indicates that the changes favour business mécénat rather than individual giving.
She suggests that the French, when thinking ‘private’, think business rather than
individual. Nathalie Sauvant concurs with this, and has noted that whilst, in 2005,
overall giving by individuals showed an increase ‘only 5% of donors chose culture’.
She suggests ‘we can notice that the specific measures encouraging buying of
national treasures and contemporary art are restricted to corporate giving’. This
provides a point of contrast with wider trends in the UK towards a focus on
individual giving.
Cultivation and distribution of giving to the arts at civic and regional level
Klamer, et al. (2006) provides a wealth of comparative statistical detail on the
levels of third sector support to the arts across Europe. They don’t specifically
indicate the regional distribution of private support, nor provide comparative
evidence to that effect. They provide some indirect evidence as with Italy where
they report that business support to culture in Italy in 2004-2005 totalled
approximately €32 million, with the regions of Lombardy, Veneto and Lazio
receiving the highest percentages. However, 70% of these funds went to the
performing arts. (Klamer et. al, 2006) Elsewhere, in France for instance, statistics
show that donations most usually focus around Ile de France (which includes
Paris), with the regions of Pyrennes-Alps-Cote d’Azur, Rhones-Alpes, and Nord
Pas de Calais taking receipt of 4-5% of the total acts of patronage in France.
(Sosnierz, 2007) Klamer et. al. also suggest that business support in Germany is
mostly allocated on the local level to small cultural institutions, but recently has
tended to support larger national cultural institutions.
Key agents
Arts & Business models exist across Europe and in Australia, and are appearing in
countries such as Italy: ‘Business support to culture in Italy is showing a change of
attitude’. Companies are increasingly interested in the cultural sector. They
consider ‘investing in culture as a strategic resource useful to develop the
company in connection with the environment’. (Impresa e Cultura, 2006)
There are two notable strategies conducted in France and Australia respectively to
26
promote incentives once in place:
 in France the Delegation aux Artes Plastiques has embarked upon an
information campaign – Le-Savez Vous? Collections creation mécénat et
fiscalité, 2006, which has echoed in some of the regions. Catherine Morel
suggests that the accommodation of Mission Mécénat in the Culture
Ministry, rather than in another government department, is a strong signal
as to their desire to align mécénat with culture.16 To all intent and purpose,
the Direction Regionale des Affaires Culturelles (DRAC) are driving the
Mission Mécénat and the formation of partnerships with the private sector.
Morel suggests that in the UK, for one reason or another, the private sector
was called upon a long time ago, but that this has not been the case in
France. However, the DRAC have appointed ‘mécénat’ promoters or
individuals to build networks and infrastructure

Artsupport Australia is an initiative of the Australia Council for the Arts,
established in 2003 to grow cultural philanthropy, and has, in the interim,
facilitated more than $12 million in donations from individuals, foundations
and trusts to artists and to arts organisations.17 It works closely with
government, as well as with the cultural, corporate, financial and
philanthropic sectors to develop strategies for giving, and it also brokers
partnerships between philanthropists, foundations, artists and arts
organisations
5.2. Models and partnerships
The remainder of this chapter identifies and outlines pertinent trends, funding
models and partnerships that are being developed or adopted by regional and
municipal institutions to build collections of contemporary art. Not intended to be
comprehensive, it assembles evidence of types of co-financing, plural funding and
partnership models, and indicates exemplars or instances of notable practice.
Within each country, there is reference to:
 the main public bodies and funding routes (state, regional, municipal)
 trends in interface with the private sector (business, individual, foundation,
association)
16
Telephone interview with Catherine Morel, 8 February 2008
17
http://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/philanthropy/artsupport_australia
27




instances where restructuring or transition to foundation status has
occurred, and where examples of those are co-financed by a combination of
private/public finance, or indeed consortia
innovative individualised models and initiatives that directly support funds
for collections-building i.e. patronage plans, the re-launching of existing
Friends organisations and membership groups
examples of public-public partnerships, or partnerships with particular
private collectors
strategies such as commissioning to collect, acquisitions in situ,
commissioning to gift, and co-acquisitions
Some attention is also given to other public-private models such as for public
commissioning where appropriate.
5.3. A note on the US
There are recent instances of innovative acquisition practice in the US vis-à-vis
contemporary art, which are worthy of note, and that differ in character and scale
from major gifting. In the UK, major gift fundraising tends to be considered
synonymous with capital campaigns. However, big gifts can be obtained through
other fundraising contexts, including annual campaigns, specific projects and
planned giving (legacies). The US is held up as a benchmark in this area.
(Sargeant et. al, 2002; Lloyd, 2004) Theresa Lloyd has suggested that:
philanthropy in the US is a social institution that takes on meaning in a
culture of individualism and private initiative and in the absence of a
comprehensive welfare state … It operates in an environment which is
resistant to the idea that the state has a very prominent role to play. In the
US, philanthropy is not just an option which wealth provides, it is a defining
characteristic of the elite.
The particular alignment between philanthropy and sense of civic duty is well
demonstrated in examples such as the Carnegie International, a triennial
showcase for new art organised by Carnegie Art Museum. In addition to educating
and inspiring museum visitors, it maintains a legacy of enriching the museum’s
permanent collection, and recently received a $5 million gift from Milton Fine to
28
secure its future and prominent international role for Pittsburgh. 18 There is also a
substantial practice in alumnus gifting, which can take on major proportions.
A recent instance is the $26 million gift made by collectors Eli and Edythe Broad to
establish a new museum of modern and contemporary art at the State University
in Michigan.19 Towards a total capital project cost of $30 milliion, the Broad’s
committed $18.5 million. A further $65 million had to be fundraised and included
another major gift of $2 million from Edward and Julie Minskoff. Furthermore,
motivated by his desire to ‘give back’ to his University, Broad and his wife gifted
$7,5 million for endowment and acquisitions to build up the collection.
5.3.1. Examples of partnerships
However, of particular interest here is the increased level of partnership working
amongst museum institutions themselves, which falls very much within the ethos
of strengthening the public sector, and could be distinguished from the
psychologies involved in cultivating major gifts, particularly of the size recently
witnessed in the US (and Australia, Germany and the UK).
Particularly interesting and fairly recent is an innovative consortium scheme
entitled the Three M Project. Involving the New Museum of Contemporary Art,
New York, Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago, and Hammer Museum, Los
Angeles, the project constituted ‘a shared commitment to commission, exhibit, and
acquire significant new works of art by emerging contemporary artists’.20 Three
artists were selected to develop specially commissioned work – Fiona Tan,
Aernout Mik, and Patty Chang – the resulting works of art subsequently exhibited
at all three venues. Budgeting $150,000 per artist commission, the consortium
raised $50,000 from the American Center Foundation, $60,000 from the Peter
Norton Family Foundation, and covered the remaining $40,000 cost from their
museums. As a permanent legacy of the commissions, MCA, Chicago has
recently acquired the two large installations by Fiona Tan and Aernout Mik into
their permanent collection. Jointly, the directors of the Consortium institutions
stated:
18
Press release on the gift available at
http://www.carnegiemuseums.org/docs/Fine_Foundation_Gift.pdf . Accessed on 14 March 2008.
19
http://newsroom.msu.edu/site/indexer/3106/content.htm. Accessed on 14 March 2008
20
http://www.hammer.ucla.edu/press_release_11.htm. The project was widely commented upon in
editorials in the US art press, including ‘Museums team up for new art,’ Art in America, May 2004.
29
Each of our institutions shares a cooperative vision and entrepreneurial
spirit that makes working together a natural fit with our missions to support
new work by emerging international artists. Given the realities of the current
economic climate, it is incumbent upon art institutions to take initiatives that
maximize our resources in new and creative ways. This kind of
collaboration will enable important works to be produced and shown across
the country, giving the artist the widest exposure to a broad, national
audience.
5.3.2. New models of acquiring
Joint acquisitions of pre-existing artworks have a comparatively more established
history, with early examples being pioneered by San Francisco Museum of
Modern Art. It has shared the purchase of a sculptural installation from Matthew
Barney’s Cremaster Series Walker Art Center in Minneapolis in 2000; a self
portrait by Felix Gonzales-Torres with the Art Institute of Chicago in 2002, and a
major work by Gary Hill with the Hirshhorn in Washington D.C. Subsequently, the
Whitney Museum participated in the co-acquisition of Bill Viola’s Five Angels for
the Millenium, 2001 with Tate and Centre Pompidou, supported by three
individuals.
More recently in 2007, Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive partnered
with Museum of Contemporary Art San Diego to acquire major works by Joan
Jonas and Finnish artist Eija-Ahtila. Both directors again invoked the acquisitions
as part of ‘an increasingly important trend for small and mid-size institutions
seeking to add works by leading artists to their collections.’ The terms of the joint
purchase agreement resolve that both parties cover all costs associated with
acquisition and maintenance 50%-50%.21 The suitability of joint acquisitions is
particularly promoted in relation to works on video or film, however, an example of
a large-scale physical work – Rachael Whiteread’s Untitled (Domestic), 2002 –
was jointly acquired by Carnegie Museum of Art and the Albright-knox in Buffalo.22
As the press release for the co-acquisition noted:
While it may seem unconventional for museums to “share” ownership of an
artwork, joint purchasing is becoming a common practice. As the price of
contemporary art increases and artists continue to work in large-scale
21
Press release available at http://www.bampfa.berkeley.edu/press/release/TXT0167. Accessed
14 March 2008.
22
Press release available at http://www.cmoa.org/info/npress122.asp. Accessed 16 April 2008.
30
formats, storage and exhibition space are at a premium these days. Joint
purchasing is a logical and creative solution for museums facing these
issues. Even museums with larger purchasing endowments and more
space such as the Los Angeles County Museum of Art and the Museum of
Modern Art, New York, have forged joint-purchase relationships.
In terms of joint ownership resulting from long-standing partnerships, early in
2008, the Solomon R Guggenheim Foundation accepted as a gift from Deutsche
Bank 50% ownership of 60 contemporary artworks by five artists. The artworks are
the product of a joint commissioning process undertaken over a period of 10 years
by the Guggenheim Foundation and Deutsche Bank, which saw the Guggenheim
select the artists and the bank finance the production and exhibition of the
resulting works.23
5.4. Germany
Germany is a federal country divided into 16 Länder, or regional governments,
which have historically assumed responsibility for policy and financing of culture.
Berlin and Hamburg constitute ‘city states’. The cultural framework is a devolved
one, with the Federal government playing little part until 1998. (Burns, 2003) The
Länder often devolve functions to particular city/local administrations. In terms of
contemporary art, Berlin has in recent years begun to emerge as a major focus,
with a burgeoning art scene and a critically successful biennial and art fair. It has
attracted a number of major collectors, such as Christian Boros, who have
relocated their collections there from other German cities, and established private
museums. Also potentially indicative of the increasing pull of Berlin is the move of
Udo Kittelmann, till recently director at MMK in Frankfurt, to the Directorship of the
Hamburger Bahnhof in Berlin.
Through its structure of Kunsthalle, Kunstvereine, city museums and state
collections, Germany is regarded as having one of the strongest infrastructures for
contemporary art in Europe. That infrastructure is the product of, and has
benefited from, an unambiguous connection between civil society and culture.
German society has a long-standing involvement with culture, and there is a
widespread understanding of culture as a guarantee of civil freedoms. The
23
Details available at
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/arts/design/18voge.html?pagewanted=print. Accessed 13
March 2008.
31
Kunstvereine, which are associations of citizens, collectors and artists that
established collections and venues across Germany mostly in the 19th century,
are taken to exemplify that involvement. Kunsthalle typically denotes a temporary
exhibition venue for contemporary art, but at least eight Kunsthalle have
permanent collections (notably the Kunsthallen at Hamburg, Bielefield, Bremen,
Mannheim).
Writing in 2004, Susanne Nusser noted the financial crisis that took hold in
Germany from 2001 onwards in particular, prompted by falling tax revenue, which
took its cities and municipalities by surprise. Frankfurt, one of Germany's most
prosperous cities, recorded a drop of €200 million in trade tax revenues in 2002
and in December of that year could only meet its financial obligations by taking out
short-term loans.24 Nusser elaborated the broader impact on cities such as
Cologne, whose cultural budget of €94 million in 2002 stood at €22 million in 2004,
and was further cut by 23% in 2005. The Museum Council held a symposium
Zukunft der Museen – Wege aus der Finanzkrise (The Future of Museums – Ways
Out of the Financial Crisis) in October 2003, attended by museum representatives
from other German cities, and focusing on the future of the museums and
solutions to the financial crisis. Cologne’s museums, in line with a broader trend
elsewhere in Germany (Hamburg for instance), began to distance themselves from
their public authorities, financially and administratively, and take new legal forms in
the shape of foundations or charitable companies.
5.4.1. Co-financing
In Germany, as elsewhere, co-financing in the form of public-private partnerships
has occurred most frequently and successfully in relation to capital development
projects. In Munich, the construction of Pinakothek der Moderne was underwritten
by the Foundation Pinakothetk der Moderne through a combination of State and
private money.25 The Free State of Bavaria had initially turned down the
construction of the museum on financial grounds. However, in 1994, a group of
citizens, corporations and patrons established the Foundation, primarily to raise 30
million DM in the process of four years, with the result that development could
begin in 1996 and concluded in 2002.
24
http://www.goethe.de/kue/bku/thm/msi/en125145.htm Accessed 13 March 2008.
25
http://www.pinakothek.de/pinakothek-der-moderne/englisch/englisch.htm Accessed 8 January
2008
32
However, in Germany the effective ‘privatisation’ of the institutions has also
provided a useful lever for co-financing in the mid-to-longer term, which might
support the expansion of a collection or exhibition programme. A prime example is
Stichtung Museum Kunst Palast in Dusseldorf.26 Museum Kunst Palast is a
foundation that combines two previously independent institutions, both run by the
municipal authorities in Dusseldorf. There was no public finance to either renovate
the Kunstpalast or continue administering the Kunstmuseum.27 The City of
Dusseldorf proposed to merge them together as a foundation, and entered into a
co-financing agreement with E.ON in order to redevelop the museum and to
subsidise an exhibitions programme. It involved the sale of a plot of land on the
rear side of the Kunstpalast to E.ON, which produced €9,75 million for the
foundation, as well as a further €4 million from another estate transaction, and a
state subsidy of €12,55 million.
E.ON made a further contribution of €5 million to the Foundation, which was used
for the reconstruction of the Kunstpalast. With the opening in September 2001,
they also committed to contributing €1 million per year until 2009, and to paying
€1.5 million per year for the first six years towards the costs of the museum’s
exhibitions. Dusseldorf funds acquisitions to the collection, although the amount is
not fixed and can fluctuate each year. It has tended to be fixed at around
€300,000, sometimes less, and this amount supports the entire collection (of which
contemporary art is one part).
E.ON predominantly provides funds for exhibition programmes, such as that which
it underwrites at museum kunst palast and also Museum Folkswang. There is an
instance, however, where it directly supports the building of a collection of
contemporary art in the form of the MARTa Herford Collection. MARTa is a
relatively new museum that opened on 7 May 2005 in Herford,28 although it was
established earlier and began forming its collection in 2001. It comprises a
complex of buildings designed by Frank Gehry, which accommodates a museum,
a centre of excellence and an event forum.29 Run by director Jan Hoet, a key
26
http://www.museum-kunst-palast.de/SES86974031/lang1/doc60A.html Accessed 8 January
2008
27
Jean-Hubert Martin, telephone interview, 13 February 2008
28
http://www.martaherford.de/pages/en/marta/concept.html
29
The total cost of the building was €28.8 million. The greater Herford region spent €14.6 million,
the state of North Rhine-Westphalia €9.7 million
33
concept behind MARTa Herford is to ‘highlight and redefine the contradictory links
between art and business’. It was created as a charitable limited company in 1998
and was renamed in 2005 as MARTa Herford gGmbH. The company also has two
‘tenant’ organisations, whose offices are within their complex.
5.4.2. Examples of partnerships
There are a few instances where foundations have been set up specifically to
support the building of a collection, for example the Foundation for Contemporary
Art, which exists exclusively to support the purchase of contemporary art for the
Hamburger Bahnhof – Museum für Gegenwart in Berlin.30 The Hamburger
Bahnhof was opened in 1996, and forms part of the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin.
Interestingly it has a history of receiving donations specifically to support the
acquisition of contemporary artworks for its collection. In 1999, Debis gave
$645,000 specifically for that purpose. However, the funds were diverted by the
then General-Director Peter Klaus Schuster into a renovation project. Six years on,
the foundation was formed with the profits of an exhibition, Das MoMA in Berlin,
staged at the Neue National Galerie in 2004. The exhibition was exclusively
sponsored by Deutsche Bank, and was hugely successful, achieving 1.2 milion
ticket sales and approximately €6 million profit. Ten months after the end of the
show, the Association of the Friends of the New National Gallery established the
foundation, using capital derived from the exhibition’s profits. The Berlin Senate
granted the foundation charter, and it commenced work on 1 July 2005. Works by
artists not older than forty-five may be purchased, while the work themselves must
have been made during the 10 years prior to the time of purchase. Those
responsible have an annual budget of around €300,000. The works to be
purchased will be decided on by an independent acquisition committee voted in for
a period of two years.
Under the directorship of Udo Kittelmann, the Museum für Moderne Kunst in
Frankfurt developed a particularly innovative patronage plan, which included
seven leading corporations in the city, and ran for three years (2005-2007).31 MMK
is still part of the city administration, though the city only finances its running and
30
For details see http://www.vfn-stiftung.org/stiftung_d.html . Accessed 12 February 2008
31
See http://www.mmk-frankfurt.de/mmk_e/03_ausstellungen00_ix.html. Accessed 8 January
2008. The partners are DekaBank Deutsche Girozentrale, DELTON AG, Deutsche Bank AG,
Eurohypo AG, Helaba Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen, KfW Bankengruppe and UBS Deutschland
AG.
34
employment costs. Typically the museum has to finance its acquisitions and
exhibitions programme from entry fees, donations, and grants from Foundation
and Trusts. The plan was the initiative of Kittelmann, who, upon assuming the
directorship, felt that the collection of MMK needed to be built up. MMK decided to
approach the banks and financial services – particularly those with a high profile
(UBS, Deutsch Bank) – and some of which had established connections with the
museum through its members and through sponsorship. Each was asked to
commit for a period of three years to donate the sum of €40,000 per annum. MMK
then approached the city administration, which agreed to match the funds raised.
MMK’s Friends organisation, Freunde des Museums für Moderne Kunst, was
established in 1991. It attempts in several ways to generate new membership,
although Katja Schmolke suggests that in Germany it is not so easy to attract
younger members to Friends organisations, and that giving is seen as something
established in later life. However, it has developed initiatives such as its ‘dinner’ in
the museum, whereby 16 existing corporate members bring sixteen new
members.32
In Munich, both the Lenbauchaus, and the Pinkothek der Moderne also rely on
Friends organisations. The latter has PIN., established in 1965 and originally
called ‘Galerie Verein,’ but more recently relaunched in its current guise. Working
in close collaboration with the museum, it has acquired hundreds of works for the
Pinakothek der Moderne, including Thomas Hirshhorn’s Doppelganger, 2002 and
Jonathan Monk’s Searching for the centre of a sheet of A4 paper, 2002. On its
dedicated website, PIN. notes:
public museums are necessarily slower to act than private collectors.
Acquisitions have to pass a lengthy review process before a final decision
can be made. This is true especially in economically difficult times…PIN.
wants to help in this regard by supporting the Pinakothek der Moderne in
situations where decisions must be made quickly. PIN. wants to give the
museum flexibility. 33
As an aside, but relatedly, in Switzerland, the Berner Kunst Fond was founded in
1993, by the Freunde des Berner Kunstmuseums, the Bernische
Kunstgesellschaft (Art Society) and the Kunsthalle Bern in order to coordinate the
32
Katja Schmolke, telephone interview, 3 March 2008
33
It has a distinct identity and website, www.pin-freunde.de. Accessed on 8 January 2008
35
relationship with patrons and sponsors. Supporters receive free entry to a number
of city institutions, as well as invitations to cultural events. With a collective annual
contribution of roughly 100,000 Swiss Francs, the 80 members make an important
contribution to supporting collaboration between the Kunstmuseum and the
Kunsthalle Bern.34 Similarly, the Stiftung Kunsthalle Bern was founded in 1988 by
a group of patrons with the goal of buying outstanding works of art shown at the
Kunsthalle, and retaining them for the art community of Bern. The collection is
available to the Kunstmuseum Bern for exhibitions.
Several museums in Germany have important relationship with major private
collectors, from which they have profited: for instance, Hamburger Bahnhof
Museum fur Gegenwart in Berlin and also K21 in Dusseldorf. The first of those
currently has a long-term loan agreement with Friedrich Christian Flick to show
works from his collection for seven years. Works on loan include those by Candida
Höfer, Mike Kelly, Martin Kippenberger, Bruce Nauman, Jason Rhoades, Pipilotti
Rist, Thomas Ruff, Luc Tuymans and Franz West. Flick has also subsidised a new
exhibition space at the museum for his collection in the form of the Rieckhallen (a
300-metre former warehouse). Indeed, Flick has recently gifted part of his
collection to the institution.35
K21 in Dusseldorf was established to house a developing collection of
contemporary art as part of the Kunstsammlung Nordrhein-Westfalen. It was
opened in the so-called Ständehaus, which formerly housed the state parliament
in 2002, with the first acquisitions made for that occasion. The collection is still in
the process of being built up, so is reliant on an alternating exhibition programme
of works on permanent loan from people like Reiner Speck, a collector from
Cologne. Similarly Heinz Ackerman lent a significant part of his collection to the
opening displays, including significant works by Katerina Fritsch and Robert
Gober, and the museum was subsequently able to acquire the collection in 2004.36
ZKM/Museum of Contemporary Art in Karlsruhe opened in 1999 and established
partnerships with a variety of public and corporate international collections such as
Sammlung FER, Sammlung Grässlin, Sammlung Weishaupt, and VAF-Stiftung, as
34
http://www.kunstmuseumbern.ch/index.cfm?nav=1245,1401,1598,1602&SID=2&DID=9
35
Beatty, Emma ‘Zurich, Strasbourg, and Dresden refused to show Christian Flick’s Collection:
Now Berlin gets it as a gift,’ The Art Newspaper,
http://www.theartnewspaper.com/article.asp?id=7739
36See
http://www.kunstsammlung.de/en/collections.html. Accessed on 26 January 2008.
36
well as Museo d’Arte Moderna e Contemporanea di Trento e Rovereto in Italy. It
also has a partnership with Maximiliansforum, a venue in Munich, which shows its
collection.37
5.5. France
France has a strong regional infrastructure for the collecting of contemporary art. It
is divided into 22 regions, which are themselves sub-divided into Départements
and municipalities.38 The French regions do not have legislative autonomy, nor
can they issue regulations, but they are able to levy their own taxes and have
sizeable, though not considerable, budgets, managed by a regional council or
Conseil Régional.
France’s public commitment to building up collections of contemporary art within
the regions is long-standing, and structured through the Fonds Regionals d’Art
Contemporain (FRAC), which were created as associations in the early 1980s
under legislation introduced by Jack Lang, and guided by the decentralisation put
into effect by Francois Mitterand’s Government.39 The FRAC are subsidised by
central government through its regional offices – the DRAC – and also by their
appropriate Conseil Régional directly. In 2006, the FRAC collectively had a budget
of €4,237,000 to spend on acquisitions alone. Of this amount, €2,296,000 came
through the DRAC (on behalf of the Ministry of Culture), €1,545,000 from the
regions, and €396,000 from other (unspecified) sources.40
In terms of contemporary art holdings, the Musées des Beaux-Arts and Musées
d’Art Contemporain within the regions are served by the Fonds Régional
d'Acquisition pour les Musées (FRAM), which has helped support acquisitions of
contemporary art by MOCA Lyon for instance. They are also able to supplement
their collections with long loans from the Fonds National d’Art Contemporain
(FNAC), a collection assembled on behalf of the State, with an annual acquisitions
37
See http://www.muenchen.de/Rathaus/culture/museums/ZKMax/188623/index.html. Accessed
12 March 2008.
38
There are 21 regions in mainland France. Corsica constitutes another region, and there are a
further four overseas.
39
The emphasis was placed upon building collections that could be loaned by various designated
FRAC partners. Consequently few of the FRAC have fixed galleries or bases.
40
The Ministry of Culture publishes key statistics for culture annually. A concise version of the
most recent can be downloaded in pdf format at www2.culture.gouv.fr/deps/. Statistics for the
FRAC are given on p.49.
37
budget of approximately €3 million.41 Most such institutions remain under their city
administrations, and can still be directly linked to their Mayoral office for instance.
This has several vital implications insofar as often their finances are also directly
linked to the wider city finances, i.e. any revenue does not remain in the Musées.
5.5.1. Examples of co-financing
In France, co-financing undertaken by a range of public partners – often a
combination of central, regional and local governments – is the norm. Beatrice
Josse, Director of FRAC Lorraine, indicates that her organisation is financed by
the State, the Region, the Department and the city, and a little by private
sources.42 This contrasts with FNAC, which is funded by one single source – the
State. A further example of the mix of public funding that supports the FRAC and
the Centres Régionale d’Art Contemporain (CRAC) would be the Institut d’Art
Contemporain in Villeurbanne, which is funded by DRAC Rhone-Alpes, Conseil
Régional Rhone-Alpes and municipality of Villeurbanne. IAC is the product of an
ammalgation of a FRAC and Centre d’Art, in 1997, and has a dual role (collections
building and temporary exhibitions) that is distinctive in regional France.
This co-financing model has scaled up recently in the shape of the Centre
Pompidou Metz, which is due to open in 2009. Metz Metropole Community (known
as Metz Metropole or CA2M) comprises 40 local municipalities, working under the
leadership of Jean-Marie Rausch (Mayor of Metz). The total budget for the project
is €60 million. La Communauté d’Agglomération de Metz Métropole is financing
the majority of the project with €34 million. Other partners are the State (€4
million), The European Union (€2 million), La Région Lorraine (€10 million) and the
Département de la Moselle (€10 million).43
5.5.2. Examples of partnerships
For the FRAC, interface with the business sector is beginning to appear gradually.
Thierry Ollat, Director of Musée d’Art Contemporain, Marseille, suggests that
private support is a necessity to be embraced fully by municipal collections and
41
This figure has fluctuated, reaching €3,746 000 in 2000 and 2001, but dipping below €3 million
c. 2004. In 2006 the budget was €3,129 000.
42
http://www.evene.fr/arts/actualite/interview-beatrice-josse-frac-lorraine-art-contemporain-281.php
43
http://www.centrepompidou-metz.fr/site/en/nav/cp-centre-pompidou-metz
38
institutions, and that collectors are well placed to advise museums in this
capacity.44
DRAC Nord Pas de Calais signed a regional charter with Lille Chamber of
Commerce and Industry on 4 October 2005, to encourage cultural giving. On 13
December 2007, it also signed a ‘convention de partenariat’ with French banking
corporation BNP Paribas – the first agreement between the BNP and a FRAC, and
which was preceded by a group of loans from the FRAC’s collection to BNP
Paribas’ regional offices in Boulogne-sur-mer.45 This is not specifically funding to
support acquisitions, but provides an important instance of cooperation, which
could be cultivated, particularly with the 2003 tax laws. Amongst the FRAC
directly, last December (2007) FRAC Aquitaine explicitly began looking for
partners, an initiative developed by new director Claire Jacquet, and would appear
to be one of the first FRAC to actively do so.46
Although the FRAC were all created between 1982 and 1984, the first Association
des Amis for the FRAC was not formed until 1996 (Champagne-Ardenne). Though
most now have a Friends organisation, the support provided by its members
typically supports the staging of conferences, editions, programmes, and not
specifically acquisitions (an exception being Nord Pas de Calais.) Elsewhere, the
Museums in France most usually have Associations des Amis of long-standing,
which can help bring in acquisitions.
MAC, Marseille received a gift of some 50 contemporary works from FNAC in
2007, as part of a distribution, which also saw works such as Ian Hamilton Finlay’s
La Hutte d’Adorno, 1986-87 distributed to Musee d’Art Moderne et Contemporain
de la Ville de Strasbourg. Indeed, Strasbourg have also recently benefited from a
relationship with La Société Générale, the corporate and investment banking
44
Thierry Ollat, email correspondence, 9 February 2008.
45
For press dossier, see
http://www.vieuxlille.com/evenements/frac/Dossier%20P%20arras%20.pdf. Accessed on 26
January 2008.
46
See http://fracaquitaine.net/medias/textes/partenariatFrac.pdf. Accessed on 17January 2008.
39
company who underwrote their recent exhibition of French artist Xavier Veihan,
and in 2005 presented two of his installations to the collection.47
The same year, La Musée D’Art Moderne de St Étienne Métropole similarly
received a donation of 58 contemporary artworks from the collection of La Caisse
des Dépôts, a public financial institution that performs public interest missions on
behalf of France’s various levels of government.48 The group of works had been
on loan to MAM St Étienne since 1995. Indeed, the museum now includes a
mécénat section on its website, and has also created un club des partenaires,
currently including a dozen business members, whose role it is to help promote
the museum and encourage donations.
In France, there is also the partnership that numerous ‘agencies’ enjoy with La
Fondation de France. These partnerships operate on a number of levels: a prime
example is Le Consortium, an art centre/agency based in Dijon, with two sites for
showing exhibitions of contemporary art. It was initiated in 1977, by three codirectors Xavier Douroux, Eric Troncy and Franck Gauthier. It has a collection of
approximately 300 works, which comprise acquisitions that grow out of its
exhibitions/commissions programme directly. Le Consortium is supported by
DRAC Bourgogne. It also has a relationship with La Fondation de Bourgogne,
which was itself created in 1998 by La Fondation de France, with a specific
mission to contribute to the enrichment of artistic and cultural life in Bourgogne.
La Fondation de Bourgogne has recently undertaken a campaign to seek business
partners to support two key projects, of which Le Consortium is one.49 It has also
acquired works for Le Consortium’s collection, such as Mark Handforth’s
Lamppost 2003, which is destined to join the collection of the Musee des BeauxArts, Dijon.
Finally, there is the singular partnership that underwrites Collection Lambert en
Avignon Musee d’Art Contemporain. The institution opened in June 2000, the year
47
See http://www.musees-
strasbourg.org/F/exposi/plus_dinfo_expos/VEILHAN/VEILHAN_INDEX.HTML. Accessed on 26
January 2008.
48
http://www.mam-st-etienne.fr/index.php?rubrique=65. Members include IKEA, Lyonnais de
Banque and Cabinet d’Architecture XXI.
49
See ‘Devenez partenaire de La Fondation de Bourgogne,’ accessed at http://news.reseau-
concept.net/images/extra_oec/Client/2006-05-29_Fondation_de_Bourgogne.pdf, 17 January 2008.
40
that Avignon held European Cultural Capital status. With a view to making a future
donation, gallerist and collector Yvon Lambert loaned some 350 artworks from his
personal collection to the City of Avignon. Housed in an 18th century mansion, the
museum is supported by Avignon and by the Department of Vaucluse, as well as
the Conseil Regional and DRAC. It also includes LVMH and Fondation Cartier
amongst its supporters. Its Association des Amis has assisted in making
numerous purchases since 2000, amongst them works by Douglas Gordon,
Jonathan Monk, as well as works by Jenny Holzer and Claude Léveque made
specifically for the building.50
5.5.3. New models for acquiring
Commissioning to collect has been developed in France by museums such as
Musee d’Art Contemporain Lyon and previously by MAC, Marsaille. Lyon is
particuarly well known for its commissions/acquisitions policy, and has also
benefited from the Biennale de Lyon, which its director, Thierry Raspail, also
oversees.
Several recent acquisitions made by FRAC Bourgogne have been particularly
interesting in their partnership basis. FRAC Bourgogne is supported by DRAC
Bourgogne, Conseil Régional de Bourgogne and the Conseil Général de la Côte
d’Or. It receives €191,000 for acquisition and conservation. Of this, €75,000 is
from Conseil Regional, with €116,000 from DRAC. It is taken as a convention that
running costs come from Region, and a larger percentage of budget for
acquisitions from the DRAC.51 In 2007, the FRAC made its first acquisition in situ –
Krijn de Koning’s Omvang, Omgang, which is a site-specific installation in the
kitchen of the Abbaye de Corbigny. The installation is the result of an initiative by
the Town of Corbigny, and overseen by Centre d’Art Contemporain Parc-Saint
Leger de Pouges-Les-Eaux. Elaborating on the Koning acquisition, Eva GonzalezSancho indicates that she saw the work and then proposed the acquisition of the
‘Cuisine’ element of the work to the Mayor of Corbigny. Gonzalez-Sancho raised a
contract with the Mayor, which requires that the work remains installed for fifteen
years. Corbigny will maintain it, with guidance from the FRAC. Gonzalez-Sancho
50
See http://www.collectionlambert.com/. Accessed 17 January 2008.
51
Eva Gonzalez-Sancho, telephone interview,5 February 2008.
41
has been developing this mode of working since 2004. However, in one instance
Peter Downsbrough at Dijon did not succeed.52
5.5.4. Other modes of public collection
There are models in France whereby a wide range of financial partners come
together to commission contemporary art: Les Nouveaux Commanditares. It is a
national initiative, developed by La Fondation de France in 1992, and has enabled
citizens, either as individuals or acting in association with others, to take the
initiative of commissioning a work of art.
Writing in March 2007, Francois Her noted that more than 200 commissions of
works from every artistic discipline had either been completed or were in
development. He also indicated that more than 450 financial partners had already
been involved in the initiative. Her concluded that ‘it is the decisive commitment of
the Fondation de France that has made the realisation of these projects possible
for the past 15 years.’53 The initiative brings together three ‘actors’ – the artist, the
citizen and a cultural mediator. The latter is typically an established commissioner,
such as Xavier Douroux of Le Consortium. The financial partners are frequently
led by public sources, as well as the Foundation de France, with other
foundations, public entities and businesses offering finance, for budgets between
€75,000 and €250,000. An example would be Christian Boltanski’s Parcours
d’Ombres, 2004, commissioned by the inhabitants and municipal council of
Vitteaux Commune. The total budget was €129,014, and was provided by
Fondation de France, Commune de Vitteaux, Leader II and SICECO.
Less frequently, museums are partners in the commission, but there is evidence
that museums are being included as partners on a more regular basis (Musee des
Beaux-Arts, Nancy). The calibre of artist and project is uncompromising. Many
commissions are tied directly into European Cultural Capital designation – as was
52
She went to the Mayor of Dijon with two proposed budgets: one for the work as a temporary
installation, and the other for it to be installed permanently. The Mayor accepted, but refused to
take the issue of maintenance on board, and the partnership fell through.
53http://www.nouveauxcommanditaires.com/nav.php?Langue=fra&pages=home/PresentationNCfr.
pdf&i=fr&css=oeuvres-fra&home=logo-hfr.gif&naviguer=Pour%20naviguer. There is a similar
initiative, funded through the Ministry of Culture, entitled Les Commandes Publiques, which
receives upwards of €3.2 million in state funding.
42
the case with Lille 2004, Saint-Étienne Metropole’s candidacy for 2004, and with
Marseille’s candidacy for 2013.
5.6. Italy
Italy is comprised of 20 regions that each have an elected parliament, and are
further sub-divided into provinces and municipalities. As with Germany, there has
been some experimentation with the handing over of the management of publicly
owned museums to private partners, and municipalities such as Venice have
already been trying new patterns of partnership between the public and private
sector.54 Legislation created in 2002 (Article 35) enables the formation of
fondazioni di partecipazione or partnership foundations, which are similar to British
Trusts. The endowment of such institutions can evolve through the participation of
different partners – whether they be individuals or institutions, public or private
entities. A good example of this is the Galleria Civica d’Arte Modern e
Contemporanea in Turin, which is itself part of the Fondazione Torino Musei – the
first foundation formed under Article 35, created in 2002 to administer the city’s
four museum services.55
Increasingly, contemporary art is gaining in profile in Italy, with centres of activity
most evident in Turin and Naples, as well as in Rome and Venice. The latter’s
position has been enhanced with the arrival of Francois Pinault’s Foundation and
collection at the Palazzo Grassi in 2006. DARC, the Directorate General for
Contemporary Architecture and Art, was created in May 2001 by the Ministry of
Cultural Heritage and Activity. The development of MAXXI in Rome is one of their
primary projects, and the appearance of gallerists such as Larry Gagosian and
Lorcan O’Neill have further emphasised the growing profile of contemporary art in
Rome. Yet despite the presence of the MAXXI project in Rome, Walter
Guadagnani has likened the flourishing of Italy more to Spain, and to a lesser
extent Germany, than Britain or France, which have huge capitals that provide a
point of anchorage.56 Like Spain, Italy’s economic capital is not its historic capital
(Milan / Rome and Barcelona/Madrid) and Milan, for instance, has not yet
developed a strategic policy towards contemporary art. Some very small towns,
such as Trento which has a population no larger than 20,000, are taking the
54
http://www.culturalpolicies.net/web/italy.php?aid=71. Accessed 14 April 2008.
55
http://www.fondazionetorinomusei.it Also includes Museo d’arte Antica, Borgo Medievale and
Museo d’arte orientale.
56
Walter Guadagnani, telephone interview, 4 March 2008
43
initiative, as is witnessed with the staging of Manifesta in 2008 in the Trento
region, and this is coincident with trends in Spain too.
5.6.1 Examples of co-financing
In the last 10 years, the city of Turin has established itself as a key cultural
destination, and has placed contemporary art at the centre of its identity as such.
The city’s Strategic Plan, entitled Torino Internazionale, was developed between
May 1998 and January 2000 with the collaboration of the city’s principal public
institutions, private economic bodies and companies, and many of the cultural and
social components of the city and metropolitan area.57 The announcement that
Turin was to host the Winter Olympics 2006 acted as ‘a powerful driver’, along with
a desire to promote the regeneration of the city. The document’s ‘Strategic line no.
5’ focuses on promoting Turin as a City of Culture, Tourism, Commerce and Sport,
and included the strategic commitment to ‘…enhance the contemporary art system
by strengthening the already existing network which links GAM, Castello di Rivoli
and other public institutions in the contemporary art sector, while developing
young artistic creativity with a distinctly international attitude.’ It went further and
identified the various actors to be involved: management bodies of public or
private contemporary art museums, Fondazione CRT and the local authorities.
The co-financing principle set out by the Strategic Plan would appear to have
provided a solid grounding for partnership working across public and private
sectors, and might explain Turin’s readiness to establish a foundation to run its
civic museum service, drawing into partnership the Regione Piemonte, La
Compagnia di San Paolo and Fondazione CRT. Indeed, the impetus has also
been seen to flow in the opposite direction, with Regione Piemonte and Comune di
Torino also functioning as partners in the establishment of a Turin-based venue for
Fondazione Sandretto Re Rebaudengo – the foundation and private collection of
Patrizia Sandretto Re Rebaudengo established in 1995 – along with bodies such
as Camera di Commercio di Torino.
5.6.2 Examples of partnerships
Several productive partnerships have emerged in Turin, which have directly
supported collections-building through acquisitions. With increased investment,
Turin’s international contemporary art fair Artissima has become a focal point for
57
The second strategic plan for Turin is available at http://www.torino-
internazionale.org/Page/t13/view_html?idp=2448
44
collections-building commitments by both public and private organisations in the
city. At Artissima 13 in 2006, Regione Piemonte acquired two works by two artists,
Kimsooja and Simon Starling for the permanent collection of Castello di Rivoli. The
works were selected from a group of nine that formed a curated section of the fair
called Constellations. The section was organised by the Fair’s Curatorial
Committee, whose members included Dan Cameron, and Nicolaus Schafhausen
amongst others. The acquisitions made by the Regione Piemonte were particularly
presient in securing a legacy of the exhibition, and ensuring that works of high
international calibre entered a local museum. Regione Piemonte, along with
Fondazione CRT, Galleria Civica d’Arte Moderne e Contemporanea (GAM) and
Castello di Rivoli purchased works of art displayed at the Fair for a total amount of
euros €1,650,000. For Artissima 14, in 2007, the Piemonte region’s recently
established FRAC Piemonte acquired a number of works with its annual budget of
€150 000.58
Possibly unique within Italy in terms of its direct collections-building support is the
Progetto Arte Moderna e Contemporanea, undertaken by Fondazione CRT, a
private non-profit organisation established in 1991 by the Cassa di Risparmo di
Torino.59 It instigated the project specifically to support the development of
contemporary holdings at GAM and Castello di Rivoli. It has a scientific committee,
which includes Sir Nicholas Serota among others, who guide the programme. It
has assisted in placing works in those collections, and establishing the
international profile of both institutions.
Unicredit is another notable instance whereby a banking corporation works to
support the production of new work by emerging artists in collaboration with
museums. In Italy, in the past four years, Unicredit has invested over €6 million in
new acquisitions.60 Through its Unicredit & Art Project, the banking group has
developed relationships with MAMbo in Bologna, and Galleria Borghese and
58
A list of acquisitions made at Artissima 14 is available at
http://www.artissima.it/media/1207075146.pdf. For details on the announcement of FRAC
Piemonte, see http://www.regione.piemonte.it/piemonteinforma/diario/2007/novembre/frac.htm
Accessed 16 January 2006.
59
http://www.fondazionecrt.it/fondazioneEng.html Accessed 16 January 2006.
60
For details of Unicredit’s partnership activities in the sphere of contemporary art, see
http://www.unicreditgroup.eu/DOC/jsp/navigation/large_include_content.jsp?parCurrentId=0b00303
98031e438&parCurrentPage=arte.html&locale=en Accessed 16 January 2008.
45
MAXXI in Rome, which find focus around the commissioning of work from
emerging or newly established artists. It has a sizeable collection of contemporary
art and a history of sponsorship, but is particularly keen to move beyond ‘collecting
and sponsoring’ to ‘partnering.’ Walter Guadagnani differentiates partnership very
clearly from benefaction. Guadagnani, a consultant working with the scientific
committee of the Unicredit & Art Project, suggests that it is the desire of the
Project to become ‘embedded’ in the system.
Of their projects, they are working with MAMbo closely. Guadagani and the
Director have developed a three-year program, which invites Italian artists to
produce commissioned works. Works by artists such as Luca Pancrazzi, Loris
Cecchini and Alessandra Tesi were shown at the Shanghai, Valencia and Moscow
Biennales. These as well as works by Elisa Sighicelli, Lara Favaretto, and others
were acquired by Unicredit and are now on long-term loan to the museum’s
permanent collection. Similarly, Unicredit is underwriting a programme of
commissioned new works at the Galeria Borghese for 10 years. The commission
committee features the Director of Borghese and the Director of MAXXI, and are
subsequently acquired by them and lent on long-term basis to MAXXI.
5.6.3. New models for acquiring
Various newly emerging institutions appear to be investigating the advantages of
collections-building through long-term loans. Unicredit are working with both
MAMbo and MAXXI to that effect. For museums that are particularly young, but
clearly seeking to have immediate impact and reputation, it is an especially useful
strategy. However, what is increasingly clear is the importance that working
directly with artists and galleries holds for museums, particularly where market
prices are so inflated. A particularly notable instance where long-term loan has
been similarly employed is the Museo d’Arte Contemporea Donna Regina
(MADRE), the extraordinary museum that opened in two stages in Naples in 2005
with a collection predominantly comprising loans from artists, gallerists and private
collections. The ground floor of the museum comprises 12 ‘rooms,’ each dedicated
to a specific artist and containing installations (some site-specific) by them.61
61
Artists included are Francesco Clemente, Luciano Fabro, Mimmo Paladino and Giulio Paolini
from Italy, Rebecca Horn from Germany and others such as Anish Kapoor, Jeff Koons, Jannis
Kounellis, Richard Serra, Sol LeWitt and Richard Long.
46
5.7. Spain
Spain comprises 17 autonomous communities, as well as two autonomous cities,
which comprise provinces and municipalities. A significant number of the cultural
institutions are financed and self-managed under agreements between different
levels of government. This inter-institutional cooperation promotes coherence in
regional development strategies, and is facilitated by the cultural strategies that
towns of varying sizes – Barcelona, Seville, Sabadell, Calvià – have drawn up.62
A testament to the current public commitment to collecting contemporary art and to
strengthening its place within civic collections is revealed by ARCO 08’s post-fair
figures. As it reports, public institutions went to ARCO, with major acquisitions
initiatives to satisfy. The purchasing power of foundations such as Pedro Barrié de
la Maza Foundation was demonstrated by the outlay of half a million euros to
initiate its international collection. Centro de Arte Contemporánea de Caja de
Burgos outlayed €23,000, The Coca-Cola Foundation spent €120,000, and
IFEMA, for the ARCO Foundation, €250,000. However, the public sector proved to
be quite competitive: the Reina Sofía (€1,164,000); MUSAC (€312,000); the
Province of Malaga (€24,000); the Murcia Regional Administration (€166,000); the
City of Pamplona (€60,000); Centro Galego de Arte Contemporánea (€230,000);
Regional Administration of Cantabria (€215,000); and Madrid Regional
Administration (€196,000).63
5.7.1. Examples of co-financing
A number of contemporary art museums are funded exclusively by their regional
government, as is the case with the Centro Andaluz de Arte Contemporáneo in
Seville, which is supported by Junta de Andalucia, and MUSAC, in Leon, which is
financed by Junta de Castile y Leon. MUSAC receives its funding through the
Fundacio Siglo, which was established by the region as an arm’s length
organisation to provide funding for all regional cultural organisations (the
orchestra, theatres etc).64 The Fundacio Siglo gives MUSAC approx €5-6 million
per annum: €3-4 million supports running costs and programmes, with €2 million
ring-fenced for acquisitions to the collection. The Fundacio manages the money
and contracts, but they leave the programme and acquisitions policy entirely to the
Director and his Chief Curator. MUSAC has no entrance fee, and the
62
See http://www.culturalpolicies.net/web/spain.php?aid=73 Accessed 16 January 2008
63
http://www.ifema.es/ferias/arco/default_i.html Accessed 24 January 2008
64
Agustín Pérez Rubio, telephone interview, 24 January 2008.
47
administration would rather sacrifice two possible acquisitions per year to ensure
free entry. Their current level of funding is secure for 10 years – specifically to
secure the quality of the collection, which, in Spain, avoids the consequences of
potential political shifts in governance every four years.
In contrast, DA2, or Domus Artium created in 2002 in Salamanca, is funded by the
City of Salamanca, and its inauguration coincided with its status as European City
of Culture in 2002. It is managed by Fundacion Salamanca Ciudad de Cultura, a
city foundation established in 2003 as a legacy of the City of Culture tenureship.65
Its collection is exceptional, including works by Spanish artists, as well as
international figures such as Liam Gillick, Laura Ford, Rosemary Laing and Janine
Antoni. Whereas the MUSAC collection has been in formation since 1995, all
works in DA2 collection date from 2002 onwards.
A clear tripartite structure oversees the funding and management of Museum of
Contemporary Art, Barcelona. The museum in its present form was created in
1998 as a public entity, and is run as a consortium that includes the region in the
form of the Generalitat di Catalania, Barcelona City Council, and MACBA
Foundation. The decision to form the MACBA Consortium was the City Council’s,
and was particularly promoted by the Mayor of the city at that time, Pasqual
Maragall.66 The two public administrative bodies contribute the necessary
resources to maintain the museum’s basic functions, while the Fundació MACBA
is responsible for generating the necessary capital to establish the permanent
collection. The Fundació is a private entity, established in 1987 by ‘a wide range of
representation from Catalonian Civil Society.’ It is made up of 38 sponsoring
members and 33 founding businesses. They have economically supported the
museum since 1988.
The Fundació owns the collection, but the works are on long-term loan to the
Consortium. The museum has the responsibility of its conservation and
distribution, as well as the management of the whole collection. The MACBA
Collection also comprises works in the ownership of the Generalitat and of the City
Council, as well as works directly given to the Consortium. If a work is gifted or
donated, the private individual or the companies can donate it to the Fundació, or
65
For further details, see http://www.salamancaciudaddecultura.org/salam.html
66
Antonia Maria Perello, email correspondenc, 5 February 2008. See also
http://www.macba.es/controller.php?p_action=show_page&pagina_id=24&inst_id=404 Accessed
24 January 2008.
48
directly to the Consortium. The average invested in acquisitions by the foundation
is around €1 million. The Director has a team of advisors who meet once or twice
a year. The curators present works of interest for acquisition to the advisors, and
those selected are passed to the Fundació for purchase. In 2007, however, the
Generalitat and Ajuntament contributed a budget of €650,000 towards
acquisitions.
5.7.2. Examples of partnerships
Within the climate fostered in the Basque region by Guggenheim Bilbao, Artium in
Vitoria, a contemporary art collection initiated in the 1970s, is now managed and
financed by The ARTIUM of Alava Foundation, a non-profit entity set up in
February 2001 by the Provincial Council of Alava.67 Its Board of Trustees
comprises four levels of public institution including the Ministry of Culture, the City
of Vitoria, the Provincial Government of Alava, and Government of Basque
Country. It has, however, established a Corporate Members Programme, which
has been decisive in supporting the development of the museum and its collection.
In particular Artium has developed an important group of private patrons that
includes Caja Vital Kutxa, Gamesa and El Correo, which each have honorary
representation on the Board of Trustees. Their respective contributions equal
€66,000 a year over five years, with other levels of financial commitment available.
Museo de Bellas Artes de Bilbao underwent a period of vigorous re-development
between 1995 and 2000 under the directorship of Miguel Zugaza. He oversaw a
multi-million euro building renovation, the creation of the Bilbao Art Museum
Foundation, and he considerably increased private support. Due to Zugaza’s
efforts, the museum received a $7.3 million credit from Banco Bilbao Vizcaya
Argenteria, to be used for acquisitions and paid back over a 10-year period.68
Using the BBVA Accession Fund, the Bilbao Art Museum Foundation has recently
purchased works by Susana Talayero, and Xabier Salaberri, adding to other
contemporary holdings acquired in 2002.
Increasingly, many of the new and newly housed museums are engaging in
partnerships with foundations, to exhibit (in some cases exclusively) works from
67See
68
http://www.artium.org/ingles/museo_coleccion_i.html Accessed 12 February 2008.
Kim Bradley, ‘Regional Renaissance,’ Art in America, 2005, accessed at
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1248/is_10_93/ai_n15966464/pg_1. See also
http://www.museobilbao.com/ Accessed 12 February 2008.
49
their collections. For instance, as of 2007, DA2 has exclusive access to the
Colección Fundación Coca-Cola Espana. Likewise, Centro Galego de Arte
Contemporaneo, Santiago, which itself has a stunning collection, has access to
pieces in the collections of Areán, the Xunta de Galicia (Galician City Council), and
the ARCO Foundation.69
5.7.3. New models for acquiring
MUSAC has an annual acquisitions budget of approximately €1 million. However,
in order to maximise their available funds, they do not buy from the secondary
market, and have a policy of working towards acquisitions with the artist or gallery
directly. They also tie their acquisitions in directly with their exhibitions programme,
whereby they offer an artist a solo show, and then purchase an artwork from the
show. For example, MUSAC staged an exhibition of Julie Mehertu, who produced
new work for the show, of which they managed to acquire a painting. This model
of acquisition can offset the cost of an acquisition insofar as exhibitions budgets
can be used to cover production costs and artists fees, which are factored into a
reduced acquisitions price. This particular mode of acquisition is also employed by
institutions such as Magasin 3 in Stockholm, Sweden. 90% of their acquisitions
are made through galleries. They buy small groups of works (i.e. a group of three),
and always acquire with a view to building an exhibition.70
5.8. The Netherlands
In The Netherlands, a tertiary system of government is in operation – central,
province, and municipal. Cultural institutions receive funding from both the state
and the local authority, through a linked subsidy system. Visual Arts and Design
Funding is allocated in 12 provinces and 14 municipalities through targeted
funding. Nine cities provide the focus for this funding, selected on the grounds of
their established positions in national and international networks.71 Besides these
cities, five municipalities are eligible for funds that are specifically linked to the
development and growth of artists and designers. The provinces use the funding
to identify and facilitate regional developments. In consultation with local
authorities, they ensure that the required means are concentrated in those cities
69
See http://www.salamancaciudaddecultura.org:81/da2/ and http://www.cgac.org/ for further
details. Accessed 12 February 2008.
70
Richard Julin, telehpone interview, 1 February 2008.
71
Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, Utrecht, Eindhoven, Groningen, Enschede, Arnhem,
Maastricht.
50
and institutions, which contribute to the strengthening of an infrastructure for visual
arts and design.
The Netherland’s Cultural Policy Act (1993) enabled the creation of Funds through
which the Government can provide finance to the arts and culture.72 These Funds
operate at arm's length, and the key foundation in the sphere of contemporary art
is the Stichting Mondriaan. Created in 1994, it is responsible for implementing
government policy on the distribution and purchase of visual art. It subsidises
institutions by offering them financial support, and stimulates collection formation,
marketing, export policy, education projects and research activity. 73
There is a distinct shift on the part of Dutch institutions to explore private support
routes and mechanisms to support acquisitions of contemporary art. In some
cases, this is allied with the shift to Foundation status, but not in all (Van Abbe
being a notable instance of an institution remaining within its municipal structure).
5.8.1. Examples of co-financing
The Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam transferred to Foundation status on 1
January 2006. As the Stedelijk Museum Foundation, the museum still receives
subsidies from the City of Amsterdam. Moreover, the collection remains the
property of the City; the Stedelijk Museum Foundation administers, conserves,
exhibits and expands it for the City. The building on the Museumplein also remains
municipal property – the Stedelijk Museum Foundation bears the responsibility for
its maintenance and operation.74
With its new status Stedelijk Museum expects to be able:
to operate more flexibly, with long-range budgeting and planning that gives
it more freedom than was previously possible as a municipal agency. For
instance, it offers more possibilities for developing initiatives to generate
incomes as a cultural enterprise.
72
http://www.culturalpolicies.net/web/netherlands.php?aid=513 Accessed 23 February 2008.
73
http://www.culturalpolicies.net/web/netherlands.php?aid=811&cid=1340&lid=en&curl=81
Accessed 23 February 2008
74
http://www.stedelijk.nl/ Accessed 23 February 2008.
51
The Stedelijk has a Business Club (SMBC), which has some 100 members. SMBC
has been in existence since 1996, and was created by the initiative of the
Governors of the Friends of the Stedelijk.
5.8.2. Examples of partnerships
Van Abbe Museum is funded by the City of Eindhoven as well as the province and
central government. Current director Charles Esche feels it is important that the
Van Abbe stay within the city administration, rather than transfer to Trust status.75
Esche feels it is important to work with the city, and they have sought discussions
with other departments. City funding for acquisitions is fixed at €220,000. The Van
Abbe can also call on funds from other sources, for instance, the Mondriaan
Foundation. They have two streams that Van Abbe use; the first is funding for
‘structural’ as well as acquisitions purposes, for which the museum has to apply
every two years, submitting a collection policy plan, which outlines forward
developments and initiatives towards acquisitions loans, conservation, and
collections management. The Mondriaan Foundation disperses this on behalf of
the Ministry. Awards from this fund can be between €50,000 and €200,000 per
year. Van Abbe received €125,000 per year in the last round. Of acquisitions
made, they spent roughly 50% on Dutch artists and 50% on other artists.
The Van Abbe also seeks match funding for major acquisitions from the
Mondriaan Foundation’s acquisitions fund. A recent example would be Paul
McCarthy’s Piccadilly Circus 2003. They also use the Rembrandt Association, and
Lottery Funding to support acquisitions. The former does fund contemporary works
– a large association. The latter is fairly new in the Netherlands, however Van
Abbe have received €1 million over five years, to contribute to their overall
development, of which acquisitions is a part.
Of particular interest is the Stichting Promoters Van Abbemuseum, a foundation of
corporate museum patrons created by former Director Jan Debbaut. It is a
membership scheme specifically for businesses, who pay between €6,000 and
€10,000 a year. The fund is dedicated to supporting acquisitions, and there are
usually about 20 members a year generating around €200,000. Their annual
donations amount to more than a third of the museum's budget for new
acquisitions. The Stichting holds the money, and the Van Abbe applies to them.
With Debbaut, the funds were used for ‘gap’ filling acquisitions. Since Esche’s
75
Christiane Berndes, telephone interview, 8 February 2008.
52
directorship, the funds are focused on emerging artists in particular. The
foundation has already enabled the purchase of several key works. Notable
examples are Tapis de Sable by Marcel Broodthaers, Proun P23, no. 6 by El
Lissitzky, and Listening Figure with Balcony by Juan Muñoz.
Bonnefantenmuseum in Maastricht is annually supported by the Province
of Limburg, which accounts for the major part of the budget of the museum (over
70%). The museum is also supported in its acquisitions by the City of Maastricht,
Mondriaan Stichting, and the Rembrandt Association. In 2006 it acquired the
works of contemporary Dutch and international artists such as Suchan Kinoschita
and Gilbert & George with the funds from the Mondriaan Stichting. The acquisition
of a work by Rik Meijers was supported by the Friends of
the Bonnefantenmuseum. BankGiro Loterij also operates as a partner of the
museum, and recently helped with funds to acquire a painting by Laura Owens. 76
BankGiro Loterij also supports the Kröller-Müller, which is a ‘rijksmusuem’ or
national museum, in its acquisitions too, on a three-yearly basis.77
In a recently developed private collector-public partner initiative, the Stedelijk
Museum in Amsterdam is working in partnership with the Broere Charitable
Foundation to build up a collection of work by winners of the Vincent Award, a
Biennale award made to a European artist. This collection is known as The
Monique Zajfen Collection, and will be available to the Stedelijk Museum on loan.
Recent acquisitions include works by Luc Tuymans and Lisa Yuskavage. 78 Also of
note is Museum Boijmans van Beuningen’s H+F Patronage initiative developed in
2005 with Hans Nefkens, a private collector who supports a range of public
institutions in The Netherlands. The H+F Patronage plan is particularly innovative
insofar as it contains a commissioning element, whereby contemporary artists are
invited to make work in response to the collection. Some of these are
76
http://www.bonnefanten.nl/content/content.php?main=11&page_id=63 Accessed 23 February
2008.
77
http://www.kmm.nl/page/39/Sponsors Accessed 23 February 2008.
78
Details of this particular partnership and a list of works acquired can be downloaded at
http://www.stedelijk.nl/
53
subsequently acquired into the collection, and works by artists David Claerbout,
Salla Tykka and Sylvie Zijlmans have been purchased.79
5.8.4 New Models for Acquiring
The Van Abbemuseum does ‘commission to collect’ and uses recoupment
agreements. Christiane Berndes has indicated that Van Abbe museum is exploring
the possibility of making co-acquisitions internationally. Berndes feels that this
could be an interesting way forward, especially with video art, insofar as it is
duplicable, copies could be made for partners, with an agreement that only one
exhibits the work at a time. For Berndes, this kind of acquisitions model could
make the public domain stronger.80
5.9. Australia
In Australia, there is the Commonwealth, the State or Territory, and local level
governments. Similarly to Spain and Germany, the states or regions have a high
level of autonomy. As Rupert Myer explains the major art museums:
‘rarely receive direct government support specifically for the acquisition of
contemporary art – generally they build their collection through the
benefaction of foundations or ‘friends associations’ and such like, dedicated
to the support of such purchases, or from the support of corporate
sponsorship, or private philanthropy.’ (Myer, 2003)
The Cultural Gifts Program is administered by the Federal Department of
Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, and encourages donations
of culturally significant items from private collections to public galleries and
museums. As Myer (2003, 208) indicates, in this way ‘the Commonwealth
supports major art museums (and regional galleries and other public art galleries)
[and] offer donors a tax deduction for the current market value of their gift of an
artwork … In 2000-01, gifts of works of art and craft of more than $11.5 million in
value were made to major art museums.’ 81
There is also the Australia Council Donations Fund, which is managed by the
Australia Council's Donations Fund Committee. It allows the Australia Council to
79
See http://www.boijmans.nl/en/25/hf-mecenaat and also the site for the HF Collection at
http://www.hfcollection.org/index.php?pageid=17&PHPSESSID=7b1817faec7f44844ec9c9bda4622
38f. Accessed 23 February 2008.
80
Christiane Berndes, telephone interview.
81
http://www.arts.gov.au/tax_incentives/cultural_gifts_program Accessed 3 January 2008.
54
receive tax-deductible donations to projects such as Australia's representation at
the Venice Biennale, and the eight Australian Indigenous Art commissions
at the Musee du Quai Branly in Paris, funded by the Harold Mitchell Foundation.
Perhaps most pertinently, the Commonwealth Government commissioned a Visual
Arts and Craft Inquiry undertaken by Rupert Myer in 2001 with a major report
published in 2003. A wide-ranging document, it provided the substantive
framework for a five-year strategic funding plan known as VACS, which was
funded through a partnership of Commonwealth and State governments. Although
the funding did not specifically address a dedicated commitment to public
acquisitions, Myer did in his report set out a model for an Acquisitions Fund, which
would have the primary aim of increasing the amount of private donations and
bequests received by collecting institutions. As he noted:
the acquisitions funds of the major state art galleries, museums, and
regional galleries, are limited. While the Inquiry is aware that galleries and
museums in Tasmania and Queensland utilise their government funds for
the acquisition of new works, this is unusual.
Myers indicated that as funding for contemporary art acquisitions generally derives
from private donations and bequests, ‘…it is thus desirable to improve incentives
for private benefactors and corporations to make donations or bequests of cash to
collecting institutions with a view to facilitating the acquisition of networks of
contemporary visual arts and craft.’ His proposed Acquisitions Fund would be
allocated a distribution from the Commonwealth government. When State and
territory museums receive private donations or bequests, and these funds are
used for the acquisition of works of contemporary visual arts or craft, the collecting
institution could apply to the Acquisitions Fund for a grant, which could make a
grant of equal value to the private donations. A key factor is that private money
unlocks public funds, and not vice-versa. Myers also set out a series of eligibility
clauses, including that works applicable to the Fund would be purchased directly
from the artist or the artist’s agent, and that the artist is a living artist either born in
Australia or resident in Australia for at least the previous two years. Art acquired
from the secondary market would be excluded.
Partially in this model, Australia Business Arts Foundation has participated in the
development of two Arts Partnership Funds with Tasmanian and South Australian
Governments, which could provide an interesting blueprint for cultural institutions
to examine. The Tasmanian State Government and Veolia Environmental Services
will commit a combined total of $300,000 to the Tasmania fund over the next three
years. Tasmanian Premier, Paul Lennon has noted,
55
That $300,000 is there to match business sponsorship to the same value,
meaning a total of $600,000 in new arts sponsorship will be available to
help our local artists. 82
A business and either an arts organisation or individual artist form a ‘first-time’
partnership to an agreed value, with an agreed exchange of benefits. They provide
a copy of the partnership contract to the Fund Review Panel, which then can
match the business partner’s financial contribution to a maximum of $20,000 per
annum for up to three years.
Cathy Hunt and Phyllida Shaw recently published ‘A Sustainable Arts Sector:
What Will it Take?’ in Platform Papers 15.83 In that text, they extend an invitation
to:
The federal Government to initiate a discussion about establishing an
endowment to create a new funding source for the arts in Australia: a future
fund for the arts, financed by the federal Government in partnership with the
state governments and the private sector, through a special tax incentive
linked to corporate and individual investment.
They point to precedents in the form of a future fund that the Howard government
established to take responsibility for the investment of the Higher Education
Endowment Fund. Most pertinently is the positioning they suggest for such a fund
and its support of innovative and risk:
A future fund for the arts could be independently constituted as a
foundation. It could work alongside the Australia Council, state and local
governments, and undertake activities that governments and their agencies
find problematic but which are vital to sustainability. Specifically, it would
have a remit to provide support for artistic and organisational risk and
innovation, projects and programs lasting seven years or more, and
longitudinal research into the long-term impact of the arts.
5.9.1. Examples of partnerships
82http://www.abaf.org.au/communicationscentre/mediareleases/TasmanianPremiersArtsPartnership
Fund.htm Accessed 20 April 2008.
83
An edited extract of the paper was published in Australian News on 22 January 2008, and is
available at http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23087056-16947,00.html
Accessed 12 February 2008.
56
Numerous levels of Australian museums and galleries organise their individual and
corporate support through foundations that are independent administratively. Art
Gallery of New South Wales Foundation, which itself makes acquisitions on behalf
of the Gallery, is the major acquisition fund and umbrella organisation for all
benefactor groups of the Art Gallery of New South Wales in Sydney.84 Not to be
confused with the legal status of the Gallery as Trust, the Foundation oversees
four funds that support acquisitions of contemporary art: Contemporary Collection
Benefactors group, which was established in 1993 to help support the acquisitions
of contemporary Australian art, International Collection Benefactors, Photography
Collection Benefactors and Aboriginal Collection Benefactors.
Likewise, in 2002 the National Gallery of Victoria in Melbourne established NGV
Contemporary, under the auspices of NGV Foundation, which has brought major
works by Juan Davila, Antony Gormley, William Kentridge and Yinka Shonibare to
the collection.85 This kind of structure is not confined to State museums alone;
Newcastle Regional Art Gallery has a foundation established to coordinate giving.
It also has holdings of key internationally known Australian artists such as Tracey
Moffat, Bill Henson, and Rosemary Lang, with acquisitions being supported with
funds from its foundation.86 Also pertinent is the relationship that NGV has
developed with Melbourne Art Fair Foundation. In 2006 the Foundation
commissioned New Zealand artist Michael Parekowhai to create Cosmo Mcmurtry,
an 8 x 5 metre monumental inflatable rabbit sculpture, which it then subsequently
gifted to the NGV.
Consonantly, Queensland Art Gallery has since 1993 organised the highly
successful Asia-Pacific Triennial of Contemporary Art, from which it has made a
series of acquisitions to build up its contemporary Asia and Pacific collections.
Acquisitions of works by Xu Bing, Simryn Gill, Lee Ufan, and Sara Tse have been
made through funds such as The Queensland Government’s Gallery of Modern Art
Acquisitions Fund, the Gallery’s foundation, and from private donors. The Gallery
also acquired an extraordinary installation by Yayoi Kusama through partnership
84
In April 2008, The Art Gallery of New South Wales received a major gift of 120 artworks from
John Kaldor. See Emily Sharpe, ‘A quantum Leap’ for Australia, The Art Newspaper, 3.4.08, Issue
190 http://www.theartnewspaper.com/article.asp?id=7737 Accessed 24 April 2008.
85
http://www.ngv.vic.gov.au/ngvfoundation/. Accessed 3 January 2008.
86
http://www.ncc.nsw.gov.au/discover_newcastle/region_art_gallery/nrag_support. Accessed 3
January 2008
57
with Michael Simcha Baevski and The Myer Foundation, as well as through public
appeal. The installation Soul under the moon 2002 was created for APT 2002:
Asia-Pacific Triennial of Contemporary Art as part of the Sidney Myer Centenary
Celebration 1899-1999.87
Australian Centre for Contemporary Art (ACCA), Melbourne, which is itself cofinanced by various layers of public funding that includes Arts Victoria (regional
government), Australia Council (Commonwealth Government), as well as grantbased funding from Melbourne City, relies on the support of philanthropic trusts
and foundations to assist with projects. An impressive demonstration of this is the
Helen Macpherson Smith Commission, created in 2004.88 The commission is
awarded annually to a Victoria-based emerging artist, and seeks to provide their
career with a major stepping-stone. The partnership between ACCA and the Helen
Macpherson Smith Trust also extends to a regional Victorian gallery. Funds from
the Trust enable ACCA to develop and produce the annual commission, which is
shown in ACCA’s prestigious Exhibitions Hall. The work (or part of) is then gifted
to a regional Victorian gallery in perpetuity. For instance, legacies of Callum
Morton’s Tomorrow Land 2005 and, Daniel Von Sturmer’s The Field Equation
2006 were gifted to Ballarat Fine Art Gallery and to Geelong Art Gallery
respectively. It is worth noting that the process of finding a ‘compatible’ regional
gallery to take receipt of the work is not necessarily easy, and can involve a
modification of the scale of the work.
6. UK Public Policy, Funding and Models – Collections
This section sets out current public funding models for contemporary collections in
the UK, the policy and strategic contexts at national and regional level, and the
relationship between commissioning programmes and public collections. It also
looks at foundations and trusts, and a number of their funding models, as well as
initiatives around patrons and patron groups, the promotion of philanthropy, and
business collector networks.
6.1. Public Funding and Selected models
87
http://www.qag.qld.gov.au/support_us. Accessed 3 January 2008.
88
http://www.accaonline.org.au/MediaReleaseTheHelenMacphersonSmithCommision Accessed 3
January 2008.
58
6.1.1. Arts Council England
In the UK, contemporary visual art continues to make a significant contribution to
regional development and regeneration taking place in many cities in England.
The pace of development is very much in evidence in each region with new capital
projects, the transformation of exhibition spaces that now offer state of the art
facilities, high profile commissions, visual art festivals, and strong exhibition
programmes. Consultation reveals that the strength and diversity of contemporary
art collections in museums outside London are not sufficiently recognised as a
national resource. There is a need to raise the profile of collections in the regions,
and to promote regional distinctiveness. A higher profile for contemporary art
collections in public institutions will serve to strengthen art market development in
the regions, as the museum is a respected and trusted institution that provides
essential endorsement for newly created work.
The priority for Arts Council England investment in the visual arts, whether through
the network of regularly funded organisations or through Grants for the arts funded
projects, is to support artists, professional development, the production of new
work, and its presentation. Turning Point, the Arts Council’s 10-year strategy for
the contemporary arts in England, argues for greater linkages to be made between
contemporary and historic work. Within many museums in the UK, contemporary
art collections co-exist with multidisciplinary collections, which attract a more
diverse audience, and contemporary art is often integrated with other disciplines
and historic work. There are several examples of museums in the regions working
with artists who reference past collections to create new work, which is later
shown within the museum. Indeed, the high level of public museum attendance in
the UK is an important consideration for the Arts Council to consider in relation to
collections, and in addressing the separation, identified by Jackson and Jordan,
between the contemporary and historic.
Curatorial programming also integrates contemporary with historic work. Some
public collections do so in themed exhibitions to be seen at Manchester Art
Gallery, and at New Walk Gallery, Leicester. Pallant House in Chichester is one
example of many where the relationship between the historic and the
contemporary is seamless. An artist-in-residence programme feeds in to work for
exhibition, and the work may then enter the collection. Pieces by Andy
Goldsworthy and Langlands and Bell are integrated with previously acquired work.
The divide between contemporary art and past work may be attributed to some
59
extent to how funding is distributed, with the demarcation of heritage within lottery
funding.
The Arts Council maintains a relationship with the museum sector through the Arts
Council Collection, which was set up in 1946, and is now the largest national loan
collection of modern and contemporary British art in the world.89 Approximately
20-30 works are bought each year with an annual budget that now stands at
£180,000. The collection is considered a valuable resource by the museums and
galleries consulted, and it provides an important endorsement for new work. The
Arts Council Collection is perceived by some museums as being constituted to
take a greater level of risk in terms of purchasing fragile and innovative new work.
In some regions, there is a connection between the Arts Council and public
collections in museums in the form of project funding towards the temporary
exhibition programme. In cases where there is no direct funding relationship
between a museum and the Arts Council, there is more likely to be a distance
between the museum and independent sector galleries supported by the Arts
Council. This pattern is identified by Jackson and Jordan:
In many towns and cities the separation between the museum with its art
collections and the Arts Council England funded organisations engaged in
exhibition, commissioning and presenting, is stark. (Jackson and Jordan,
2006, 5.21)
The Arts Council has, until quite recently, provided for collections-building for
example, through the Contemporary Art Society’s Special Collection Scheme
(1997-2005). There are also instances where Arts Council project funding has
resulted in the acquisition of work for collection. A work by the artist Grayson
Perry was part funded by Arts Council East Midlands as part of a project initiated
by The Collection, Lincoln, and subsequently acquired for its collection.
Unfortunately such cases are rare.
Consultation revealed a separation between contemporary art practice and
production, and museum collections, which may be due in part to the high levels of
funding that the Arts Council invests in supporting artists and the creation of new
work. It is important to reflect on the pace of production today compared with that
of collecting, and to the different motivations and agendas that underpin each.
89
See http://www.artscouncilcollection.org.uk/main.html
60
The separation is also, in part, due to funding. There is an opportunity for Arts
Council England and partners (e.g. MLA, DCMS) to review and define their policy
supporting public collections development The recommendations identified in
Turning Point are relevant to both Arts Council England funded organisations and
to museums, calling for greater partnership working in a traditionally fragmented
sector. Contemporary art acquisitions development is one of a range of strategic
objectives that aims to:
 provide more opportunities for people to experience and engage with the
contemporary visual arts wherever they are in the country
 stronger regional, national, and organisation-to-organisation partnerships
 greater engagement in, and understanding of, contemporary art in its
historical and cultural context.
6.1.2. The National Lottery
In England there is currently no national lottery funding earmarked to specifically
support the acquisition by public collections of contemporary art under 10 years
old. However, Arts Council England, as the distributor of National Lottery funding
for the arts, has played a role in directly supporting the acquisition of work for
public collections. National Lottery capital funding totalling £2.5 million was
awarded by the Arts Council for the Special Collection Scheme (1997-2005), and
15 museums in England purchased 610 works by 313 artists and makers. This
model of funding for acquisitions not only made possible major new purchases for
public collections, but also engendered a more strategic approach to collecting.
Working with the Contemporary Art Society, each museum was required to have a
specific theme for collecting. As with other lottery funded projects the Special
Collection Scheme was predicated on partnership funding. Local-authority
member museums were required to allocate funding to the programme. Local
authorities are still major investors in the arts in the UK, although changing
priorities and spending reviews in local government have resulted in diminishing
acquisition budgets in past years. Some level of local-authority funding, albeit
modest, is crucial for museums to access other sources of funding, and the
substantial grants offered by grant bodies for major works.
In the UK, National Lottery funding has resulted in many successful projects.
National Lottery funding has been responsible for raising standards, as well as
levels of ambition and expectation among organisations and the public. The
challenge for organisations is how to sustain successful projects once the project
term is at an end. The time-limited or stop-start nature of so much public funding
61
may not be the most suitable way to support the development of permanent public
collections; one of the lessons of the Special Collection Scheme is that longerterm investment could have a more significant and meaningful impact at UK
national level.90 There is a need for a sustainable funding model for the purchasing
of contemporary artworks, and for museums to build collections that are developed
consistently and coherently and remain relevant to peoples’ lives today.
6.1.3. Arts Council England: galleries and commissioning agencies
Injections of new funding, through capital lottery, Grants for the arts, and funding
for festivals, has enabled ambitious new work and commissioning on a large scale
across England. Turning Point refers to commission figures within the Owen Burns
Partnership report:
In 2003-04, 136 visual arts organisations, commissioned over 1,100 new
works. Visual arts is the largest number of commissions of all art forms at
34%. (ACE, 2006)
There is, however, across the regions, a noticeable lack of follow-through from the
commission process to the public art collection, as previously identified by Jackson
and Jordan: ‘… there is a fundamental divide between organisations that
commission and exhibit art on a temporary basis – the independent galleries – and
those that collect – the museums.’ (Jackson and Jordan 2006, 4.6) Of course, not
all commissions will be appropriate for public collections; work must be relevant to
a museum’s acquisition policy. The approach of the museum is to build on the
collections they have, to concentrate on the excellence of a single work, while
temporary exhibition spaces may commission to support emergent artists.
However, closer working between museums and regularly funded organisations
(galleries and agencies) could allow the early identification of a potential
acquisition linked to a commission. Other benefits can include direct access to a
major artist, the opportunity to negotiate an affordable price for acquisition, and
possibly a work being donated to the collection.
For some agencies based in the regions, such as The International 3 and
Workplace, the aim has appeared to tend towards placing artists’ work in London,
or abroad, rather than in focusing on public collections in their region, or elsewhere
in the UK. In some instances there is a presumption on the part of the gallery
90
Val Millington, Contemporary Art Society Special Collections Scheme Evaluation Report,
December 2005.
62
system that regional museums cannot afford to buy work, or that they do not have
the skills to do so (Buck, 2004). It may also be the case that the quality and
national significance of many public collections in the regions are not being
sufficiently recognised by those public organisations responsible for producing
new work.
The legacy for new work, even by high profile, nationally and internationally
acclaimed artists, is often approached as an afterthought following the creative
process. The work may be site-specific or ephemeral, and, following temporary
presentation, it may go in to store, to the artist or to the artist’s gallery to be sold
on the open market. This is often in accord with the artist’s intent, the remit of the
exhibition venue, and the conditions of the funding body. However, work can and
sometimes should have an important legacy in the context of a public collection.
The level of commissioned work currently entering public collections is extremely
low relative to the level of new work created. There is a need to bring together
museums and those commissioning to consider the public legacy for the work
earlier on in the commissioning process. Reinvestment advice recently developed
by Arts Council England, National Office cites important examples exist of
collaborative working between commissioning agencies and museums, which
result in a commissioned work entering public collection, but such examples of
foresight and negotiation to maximise public investment in production of new work
are not yet maximised across the visual arts sector.
Consultation revealed a number of examples of public collections working with
artists directly or through commissioning agencies. Such examples tend to occur
in pockets, and geographical distribution of initiatives is uneven across the
regions. They tend to occur through the efforts of proactive individuals and are
often enabled by close proximity or critical mass of activity.
In the North East, an example of a close relationship between the commissioning
agency and public collection is that of Locus+ and the Laing Art Gallery. A work by
the artist Mark Wallinger work was commissioned by the Laing, in partnership with
Locus+, for the opening programme following the Laing’s refurbishment in 2004.
The gallery did not acquire Underworld, but did buy, with support from their
Friends, a work by Layla Curtis also commissioned by Locus+ as a result of this
partnership.
63
In the South East, there is a synergy between commissions and collections
through the Photo Biennial. Photoworks, Towner Art Gallery, Artsway and the
Photo Biennial work together. A Lapse of Memory by Fiona Tan came about
through a collaboration in 2006 between the Royal Pavilion Libraries and
Museums, Brighton and Hove City Council, Brighton Photo Biennial and Screen
Archive South East. However, there is no legacy plan for the work in the region
beyond the Biennial. Photoworks has also worked with the National Trust in
Glynebourne.
In the North West, the Harris Museum and Art Gallery commissioned and
presented new work by Kutlug Ataman. The commission and exhibition Paradise
is an example of a major collaboration, involving six regional partners and five
international partners. The Harris Gallery is presently considering collecting new
media work as part of its acquisition policy.
Supported by the Arts Council’s National Activities Grants for the arts funding
stream, Modern Art Oxford is working with Arnolfini in Bristol and Camden Art
Centre in London to commission three major works as a consortium. Each venue
will develop its own commission, and the resulting works will tour. As a condition of
funding, each venue will seek to place the resulting commission, or a legacy of it,
within the context of a public collection.
In the East region, Ipswich Town Hall Galleries liased with East International,
working with Elizabeth Wright, and with Richard Billingham and David Austen,
both artists responding to aspects of the collection. In Norwich, for the festival
Contemporary Art Norfolk, Arts Council England East supported a commission by
the artist Julian Walker who worked with the collection at Norwich Castle Museum.
The museum commissioned the artist to create a smaller version of the work for its
permanent collection.
In Yorkshire, Leeds City Art Gallery provided £10,000 towards the work Eurydices
by the Quay Brothers, commissioned by Opera North working with The Culture
Company. The new work was presented at Leeds Art Gallery.
Not all museums work with agencies or galleries to commission new work, but
work directly with the artist or dealer, such as Abbot Hall, Kendal. The Mead
Gallery in Coventry, a gallery based within a university context, works with artists
that are supported by the Leverhulme Foundation to work with different faculties,
64
and work may enter the art collection. Yet, there are instances throughout the UK
when the calibre of the artist, the nature of the commission including the level of
investment and its relevance to the region, are such that it is in the clear interests
of the commissioning agency, the temporary exhibition gallery and the museum
public collection to work together to secure an artwork for the long term.
The commissioning process is considered by museums to involve a greater level
of risk. Through its regularly funded organisations, the Arts Council encourages
risk and innovation, but although several museum collections embrace the new
and innovative they must satisfy different stakeholders and political support for
more challenging work may not be strong. Risk is, however, minimised when
there is relevant expertise, dialogue and early engagement. In some regions there
are well-established and reputable commissioning agencies as well as public
galleries working with nationally and internationally renowned artists. These
organisations have a strong track record in commissioning work and publishing,
and they play a crucial role in the endorsement system. However, this role could
be better recognised, with links made at the stage before endorsement by the art
market and its inflationary impact on prices.
 It is recommended that a more formal approach to communication is
adopted as standard best practice between public collections and
commissioning organisations at the point of planning new work. This could
result in significant benefits:
 A sustainable legacy: A commission will often be of regional significance,
related to capital development, programmes of city regeneration, or a
festival. A high profile commission will involve a number of stakeholders in
the community and the region; a key stakeholder in ensuring a sustainable
legacy for work is usually the museum public collection.
 Added value: Through involving the museum at the commissioning stage.
Agreements and contracts at the formulation stage can take in to account
the principle of ‘first option’ for the museum to acquire the work and this
issue is acknowledged in the Arts Council’s new reinvestment guidelines for
visual arts organisations. The purchase price is negotiated and factored in
to the commissioning agreement, the principle being to maximise the
investment of the initial costs for the creation and presentation of work
sometimes leading to purchase of a work for collection.
 New partnerships: Commissioning agencies can be instrumental in
establishing new partnerships, between developers, regional development
65


agencies, and local authority planning, exhibition and public collection
venues.
Public Access: In working together there are added benefits for each
stakeholder and increased opportunities for work to be acclaimed. Public
collections play a major role in attracting new audiences – they
contextualise the new with the old and they engender public trust,
(museums can also aid regional activity in developing a collector base for
the region).
Private and business support: Stakeholders within a city or region investing
in new work could, with closer contact to collections, become patrons of the
museum.
6.1.4. Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA)
The MLA is a non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Department for
Culture, Media and Sport. It was launched in 2000 as the strategic body working
with and for the museums, archives, and libraries sector. The MLA Partnership
comprises the MLA Council and the nine MLA regional agencies.
The MLA’s 10-year national strategy for museums, Museums in England – A
National Strategy, looks at trends likely to impact in the near future, and
recognises that museums will be serving an ever-broader market. It calls for the
development of new models for funding including charitable giving and
philanthropy. It also recommends research on good practice in securing
philanthropic and charitable giving particularly outside London. For instance:
 government will wish to build strong stable communities with a powerful
sense of social cohesion and pride of place
 greater emphasis will be put on delivering services through partnerships,
and flexible pluralistic models.
The important role of the museum and of collections, and the benefits to society
are emphasised: ‘Remember that collections, and collecting real things are their
unique offer and underpin everything museums do. Moreover, they are ‘a cost
effective, visible and powerful way to make a major contribution to: community
identity and cohesion, and local, regional and national pride.’ The MLA’ s
Museums in England – A National Strategy, and the Arts Council’s report Turning
Point include common goals. Contemporary art in the public realm and in public
collections is making a significant contribution to ‘to community identity and
cohesion, and local, regional and national pride’. (ACE, 2006)
66
6.1.5. Renaissance in the Regions
With its regional hub structure, Renaissance in the Regions has been identified
through consultation as a potential mechanism to engender increased partnership
working. The programme was awarded £142 million from the DCMS, and is being
implemented in two phases across nine regional hubs. It backs initiatives that are
making the most of the scholarship, professional skills and public treasures that
reside in England’s museums.
Each region has a ‘hub’ of up to five flagship museums. The 42 museums in the
networks share skills, and make connections with smaller museums. The
programme aims to establish partnerships between regional and national
museums, across museums, libraries and archives, and through education,
tourism and community action. The hubs also work closely with government
agencies, local authorities, and the voluntary sector. In particular, they work
closely with the MLA partnership, and are supported by a small hub management
team to promote modernisation. Of significance, is the capacity building within the
programme for at least 580 new posts to be created in hub museums in 2008, and
188 new curatorial posts.91 The programme seeks to strengthen museum
infrastructure including the area of care and presentation for collections.
From the consultation, it is clear that there are differences between the regions in
the application of the Renaissance programme, and that there are differing views
on the nature of potential Arts Council England involvement. Developing strategic
alliances can be complex where a body with a broad-based remit, such as the
MLA, and the Renaissance hub structure interfaces with a single art form.
Alignment, however, can be made where there are common policy aims and
mutually beneficial programmes included in business plans. Now, in an interim
year, the Renaissance in the Regions partner hubs are considering their future
strategies.
Of particular significance to Arts Council England, and the visual arts sector, is the
profile of the hub lead partners; four out of nine lead partners are major art
galleries. Within some regional hubs gallery collections have been awarded
‘Designation Status’ through the MLA’s Designation Scheme (there are some 65
museums with designation status). The Scheme identifies the pre-eminent
91
Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) www.mla.gov.uk/policy/museum_policy
67
collections of national and international importance held in England’s non-national
museums.
Region
Lead Partner
Galleries
North East
Tyne and Wear Museums
Laing Art Gallery
Shipley Art Gallery
South Shields Museum & Art
Gallery
Yorkshire
Sheffield Galleries and
Leeds Art Gallery
Museums Trust
Ferens Art Gallery
York City Museum and Art
Gallery
East
South East
Norfolk Museums &
Norwich Castle
Archaeology Service
Museum & Art Gallery
Hampshire County Council
Brighton Museum & Art
Museums Service
Gallery
Southampton City Art Gallery
South West
Bristol Museums & Art
Bristol Museum & Art Gallery
Gallery
Exeter Museum & Art Gallery
Plymouth Museum & Art
Gallery
West Midlands
Birmingham Museums & Art
Birmingham Museums &
Gallery
Art Gallery
Barber Institute of Fine Arts
North West
Manchester City Galleries
Manchester Art Gallery
Whitworth Art Gallery
6.1.6. Local government museums and museum trusts – collections
The UK’s present funding support structure for contemporary art collections in the
public domain lacks a national comprehensive public funding model. Across UK
museums, core collections are often the historical product of private bequests
made by individual collectors, which have often determined the shape of
subsequent collecting. Past bequests have set a level of ambition, and have
largely determined what has been collected since. Despite ad hoc trends and a
variation in focus on the regional, national and/or international, many of the
collections in accredited regional museums in England are of high quality, and
constitute a significant national resource.
68
There is currently no public funding stream specifically for contemporary art
collections in England. Major funding for works of art is, however, available from
sources including trusts and foundations, and is made available for historic, as well
as contemporary work, often across a range of collection disciplines. In seeking to
add to their collections, public museums in England deal with a complex matrix of
potential funding routes, public and private funding, local and national. Museums
apply to National Lottery (Heritage Lottery Fund), the MLA/V&A Purchase Grant
Fund and to charitable trusts and foundations. Museums also rely on local
bequests, contributions made by their Friends groups, and on donations.
Local government continues to be a major supporter of the arts, including the
visual arts, although in a climate of changing policy agendas and priorities,
acquisition budgets have steadily diminished over the years. Across the regions,
museums hold only small acquisitions budgets, and some have no formal
acquisition budget. Restructuring and staff turnaround can, additionally, impact
negatively on collections development. The strength of a collection is often in part
attributed due to the expertise and passion of a specialist curator who has been in
post for several years, during which they have established strong relationships
with potential benefactors.
It is apparent that collecting takes place against a backdrop of increasing
competition for major grants and diminishing levels of lottery funding. Heritage
Lottery Fund in 2006/07 distributed £100 million in awards. In 2008 the total for
distribution is £50 million, and in 2008/09 this will be reduced to £20 million. Due
to funds being diverted to support the London Olympics, the combined income of
HLF and Arts Council England will reduce by approximately £300 million in the
years up to 2012.
Reductions in lottery funding have impacted upon the level of applications to
charities, trusts and foundations such as The Art Fund. In the last three years, The
Art Fund has given total grants of just over £10 million, more than twice the
amount the Heritage Lottery Fund awarded for acquisitions. The present funding
structure for buying work for public collection enables museums to purchase major
works and initiatives such as Art Fund International (2007-2012), The Heritage
Lottery Fund’s Collecting Cultures (2007-08), and the Contemporary Art Society’s
Special Collection Scheme (1997-2005) are significant not only because they
make available high levels of funding, but also because they require of the
recipient body a strategic and developmental approach to collecting.
69
The rationale for collecting by public bodies is set out in each institution’s
Acquisition Policy as a requirement of MLA Accreditation status. The policy is
defined by its existing collections; these in turn might have a strong regional as
well as national significance. The policy may be broadly defined in order that the
museums can respond to bequests and donations. Contemporary art is usually
included within the category of Fine Art, which includes older work.
Acquisition policies are reviewed as part of the museum planning process. New
funding initiatives that enable collections of works to be acquired require museums
to propose a specific collecting area and can be a catalyst for new work to be
collected, including work in new media. The nature of contemporary artistic
practice today presents some challenges with regard to storage, conservation,
presentation and technical expertise. These may act as a barrier to purchase in
some instances. There are examples of galleries working through such restraints
and embracing video work and wall drawing, as seen in Southampton Art Gallery’s
collection, which includes wall installations by Daniel Buren and by Michael CraigMartin.
While funding is available for new work, the associated costs of the work, storage,
conservation and presentation tend to be absorbed by the museum service or
trust. Incorporating a sum to cover associated costs within a new funding model
could provide an incentive for those museums otherwise hindered by practical
considerations to collect new work.
6.1.7. Regional Development Agencies (RDAs)
While regional development agencies support the visual arts, particularly through
the creative industries, and regional regeneration, there are no examples of direct
support from regional development agencies for public collections. Support is
likely to come indirectly through other arts programmes, including the
commissioning process.
6.1.8. Museums Association (MA)
The Museums Association looks after the interests of its member museums and
galleries, and lobbies on their behalf. The recent MA report Making Collections
Effective (2007), supported by the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, is a major strand
of the MA’s Collections for the Future Report (2005). The MA will support the
development of initiatives to promote a more strategic approach to acquisitions:
70
A key goal of Effective Collections is to change the culture of museums with
the aim of increasing the amount of long lending as well as encouraging
active approaches towards disposal.
It will monitor the impact of programmes such as Collecting Cultures, Enriching
Regions and Art Fund International, and consider further action as appropriate to
promote an active culture of collecting in the UK’s museums. The MA administers
some trust funds designed to enhance collections, but these do not cover
contemporary art.
6.1.9. MLA/V&A Purchase Grant Fund (PGF)
The Purchase Grant Fund (PGF) is funded by MLA and administered through the Victoria
and Albert Museum (V&A). The purpose of the fund is to provide support, advice and
grants for the acquisition of objects relating to the arts, literature, and history into regional
museums in England and Wales. In 2006-07 there were 279 applications and 182 grants
made to the value of £1,035,042 to enable purchases worth over £4 million. Grants are
awarded on a case-by-case basis for work of all periods, including contemporary art.
6.1.10. Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF)
To be eligible for funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF), artworks to be
acquired must be at least 10 years old. This guidance has been in place since
2002, and will remain in the new five-year strategy (2008-2013). The HLF states
in its guidance note: ’we will fund buying works of art, archives, objects and other
collections which are important to the heritage and which were created more than
ten years ago.’
The policy and funding criteria are formed to reflect a distinction between heritage
and contemporary. Under the heritage lottery strand, there must be some notion of
age and demarcation with the arts lottery that is for the creation of new work.
Although changes were not made to the overall strategy, consultation undertaken
through Collecting Cultures grants development did reveal that there was more
demand from public collections for contemporary art and design acquisitions, and
more culturally diverse material.
6.1.11. National Heritage Memorial Fund (NHMF)
The National Heritage Memorial Fund (NHMF) describes itself as the fund of last
resort for the nation’s heritage. It includes land, building, objects, and collections of
outstanding scenic, historic, aesthetic and scientific interest. Funding comes from
71
Government in an annual grant that currently stands at £10 million. Since the
establishment of the lottery the NHMF has spent a total of £22 million on art. It has
recently given £7 million towards the collection comprising 725 works of modern
art given to the National Galleries of Scotland and Tate by Anthony d’Offay. This
collection of work is considered a valuable and significant part of the UK’s national
heritage.
6.1.12. Contemporary Art Society (CAS)
The Contemporary Art Society was established in 1909, and receives funding from
the the Arts Council. It continues to play a key role in supporting professional
development and research for curators, and for placing important works in public
collections in the UK. In return for annual subscription, museum members have in
the past acquired work through the CAS Distribution Scheme, which is now under
review. Membership of the CAS continues to be an important form of endorsement
for the museum.
The CAS is consulting with the regions on its national and regional programme,
including professional development, new partnerships, and networks and ways to
encourage greater patronage. The CAS has been commissioned by Arts Council
England, North West to work with visual arts organisations and further develop
relationships between Arts Council England’s regularly funded organisations and
museums. It also has a remit to establish new links between organisations and
patrons. It aims to encourage more patrons through special events held regionally
and putting in place membership schemes. The membership initiative, Blood (set
up in 2002), is aimed at nurturing young members and this could be rolled out in
the regions and forge partnerships with other cultural organisations.
Traditionally the focus for the CAS is on individual giving, and promoting the idea
of civic patronage, rather than corporate giving. However, it plans to continue to
work with individuals linked to business and city development, and explore the
potential for new corporate sponsorship. It is presently preparing for its centenary,
and facilitating a programme of commissions for public collections across the
regions. Each commission will involve the artist, the collections curator and the
patron, with CAS as convener. Funding will be sought from trusts and foundations
with contributions from each commissioning patron.
The CAS is currently preparing a national strategy based on members’ collecting
policies, Turning Point and the scoping study of post-1970s collections nationally
commissioned by Tate and the Arts Council.
72
6.1.13. National Galleries and Museums
There are close relationships between some public collections in the regions with
Tate, The National Portrait Gallery, or the British Museum. Key advisors from Tate
working with curators in regional museums have been instrumental in bringing
together strong collections. A stipulation within a past bequest led to Southampton
Art Gallery working closely with a Tate adviser. Public collections in the regions
participate in the Tate Partnership Scheme, and draw on the Tate’s technical and
conservation expertise.
Links with a national gallery such as Tate can help generate support and publicity
and the potential for the Tate to lead on raising the profile of support for public
collections is acknowledged by most. Several of those consulted said it would be
beneficial for Tate to set out its plans in relation to working with the regions
particularly in the area of contemporary collections. The importance for the regions
to have their own voice within any national-led initiative is considered paramount,
and for such initiatives to contribute to raising awareness of the regional
distinctiveness of collections across the UK.
6.2. Foundations and trusts: funding and selected models
6.2.1. The Art Fund
The allocation of funding from The Art Fund across the UK demonstrates that
financial investment for collections is determined not so much by the scale of the
museum, or its regional context, but by its quality, expertise and ambition. The Art
Fund launched its International Fund in 2007, and has since awarded a total of £5
million to five accredited museums working in collaboration with independent
galleries or commissioning agencies to develop their collections of international
contemporary art.
The International Fund represents a new model of funding for the most ambitious
public collecting. The fund sets out to address gaps of international art in public
collections. It is also highly developmental in its concept in which museum
collection curators are to work with either exhibition or independent curators,
extending knowledge and expertise between the sectors. The five-year timescale
recognises the time needed to develop sustainable partnerships and for research
and development. The application process and its criteria of collaborative working
has been a catalyst for new conversations, the exchange of expertise and
73
establishing new partnerships. A total of 90 organisations have been involved in
making 29 applications. The research, the dialogues and new links established,
and importantly, the institutional and political support generated in preparing the
applications, provides a ready template on which to build.
Another initiative by the Art Fund, Enriching Regions, aims to encourage collecting
in the East Midlands, the East of England and the West Midlands.
The initiative, supported by Esmée Fairbairn, has made available £130,000 for
purchases by local authority and independent museums in 2007. The initiative
included the involvement of Arts & Business in advising museums on fundraising.
6.2.2. Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
The Esmée Fairbairn Foundation announced its new approach to funding in
January 2008. The three strands for funding for the period 2008-2010, in addition
to the main funding programme, will focus on: Biodiversity, Museums and Heritage
Collections and New Approaches to Learning.
The Museums and Heritage Collections strand will support collections-related work
such as research, documentation and conservation that is outside the scope of the
organisation’s normal resources. The funding available for the strand is
approximately £1 million and the upper limits of the grants are £50,000 - £100,000.
Information on the main fund (which accounts for two thirds of overall funding)
includes possible support for running costs, staff salaries and the development of
exhibitions of new work and education. The Foundation guidelines also state that
funding could be available for projects where knowledge is shared with other
organisations, through partnerships or dissemination, and for developing an idea
in the early stages. Although the focus for funding is not on acquisitions, the
Museums and Heritage Collections strand of funding has the potential to benefit
the work around collections and those who work with collections.
6.2.3. Jerwood Charitable Foundation
There are high profile initiatives for commissioning work such as The Jerwood
Artangel Open, a £1 million initiative for the contemporary arts. The initiative is for
three major site-specific projects and Artangel will produce winning commissions
for presentation in the UK between 2008 and 2010. Such initiatives can present
new opportunities for dialogue between agencies and public collections. Public
collection institutions could invite agencies to work with them in commissioning
work for the museum collection.
74
6.3. Patrons and patron groups
There is a great deal of civic support for the arts, through the museums service,
education programmes and art in the public realm, but there is little evidence of
widespread external support in the form of individual and business patronage.
Some larger scale arts organisations have their own development departments,
and are therefore better equipped to attract funding. Smaller scale organisations
and those at the ‘cutting edge’ of contemporary art are less likely to attract support
from patrons.
Organisations are understandably protective of their contacts and how they
develop patrons. However, the consultation indicated that there is a need for a
more strategic and joined up approach to attract private support, particularly in
areas where there is very little or no activity. Plans to increase patronage could be
led by regional consortia, with visual arts organisations working collectively, for the
visual arts and maximising opportunities presented by events in the region such as
major commissions, civic anniversaries or festivals. Patrons, meanwhile, could be
encouraged to think of themselves as communities of donors. In the US, the
Seattle Art Museum received more than 1,000 works of art from 53 donors as part
of an acquisitions campaign to celebrate the museum’s 75th anniversary.
Individual patronage is more in evidence that business patronage in the UK. Arts &
Business West Midlands’ recent reporting on trends states that individual giving
has the potential to become the single most important source of funding in the
future. Support is usually through close and trusted relationships between
directors, curators, and individuals and is often low key and discreet. Several
public collections have worked together with private individuals with the mutual
aim of benefiting the collections. More collective forms of patronage are more
evident in the form of memberships to organisations such as The Art Fund, and
the Contemporary Art Society.
Historically there are examples of patronage in the form of trusts. For example,
Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery draws on a charity trust fund set up by a
group of industrialists in the 1860s. Trustees administer The Public Picture Gallery
Fund, and the dividend is used to fund acquisitions. Most arts institutions have
Friends groups rather than Patrons, although individual benefactors may also be
patrons.
75
In the North of England, an independent group Contemporary Art North (CAN)
works to develop collecting by organising events and visits for its members to
galleries and artists’ studios. CAN was born out of an initiative between Arts
Council Yorkshire and the Contemporary Art Society in 2006. CAN is independent
and privately funded but liaises with bodies such as Axis and Arts & Business. It
provides access to new networks for collectors and curators, and private
individuals e.g. one member has been active in setting up the Northern Art Prize,
shown at Leeds Art Gallery. Groups such as CAN usually consist of enthusiastic
individuals, with good contacts, and a passion for contemporary art. Their
independent status is important for the way such groups operate but their role
could be more widely recognised by public funded agencies.
In the South East region, to celebrate the millennium, The Wonderful Fund was set
up, whereby a group of private individuals collectively bought for ownership 100
new works over five years. Led by an individual, the Fund included events and
talks by the UK’s leading artists. The work went on to be shown at Pallant House.
Another group, The Northern Canon, is a charitable organisation set up by a
lawyer to buy work by artists in the North.
Some independent sector galleries are looking to develop their own patrons.
Site Gallery, Sheffield, is encouraging potential patrons and their emphasis is on
engagement rather than funding. The Visual Arts Forum in Sheffield is developing
ambassadors and activity that is expected to generate financial support. Directors
and curators from both the independent gallery sector and the museum sector are
ideally placed to work with established and emergent collectors, and to form
collections that might in time be donated by the individual to the museum. Strong
collections rely on specialist knowledge and curators in the capacity of advisers
could have a significant role in engendering this form of patronage.
A particularly strong model of civic support is The East Anglia Art Fund (EAAF) in
Norwich. This evolved out of the Tate in East Anglia project and continues to
maintain close contact with Tate in London. The fund is unusual in that its
supporters include benefactors, patrons, fellows and business sponsors. As a
charity organisation with its own director and membership secretary, it is proactive
in seeking new members and is able to offer within its list of membership package
the use of the Members’ Rooms at Tate Britain and Tate Modern. The funding
raised supports exhibitions, local artists and education and learning programmes.
76
6.3.1. Friends
Many museums have Friends groups, and the money raised is usually for
acquisitions. The level of funding raised tends to be modest. Friends groups may
buy a work outright but more often they provide the valuable seed funding required
for applications to trusts and foundations to purchase major works. In some
organisations, the Friends are highly active for example, at the Whitworth Art
Gallery, Manchester, and the Laing Art Gallery, Newcastle. Members of Friends
groups tend to be elderly, and the number of Friends is diminishing in some areas.
6.4. Promoting philanthropy
6.4.1. Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS)
A Philanthropy Policy team has recently been formed within the DCMS to look at
the areas of tax, policy and fundraising. The team will work with relevant bodies
such as Arts & Business and the National Museums’ Directors Conference to look
at third sector funding models.
6.4.2. Philanthropy UK
Philanthropy UK was established by the Association of Charitable Foundations to
encourage more people to become philanthropic, through providing impartial
advice and information on giving, and links to specialists. Its principal funder is the
Cabinet Office; founding funders are Esmée Fairbairn, Lloyds TSB Foundations
and The Gatsby Charitable Foundation. Its vision is of ‘a society of engaged
citizens that promotes thoughtful and effective giving, and where philanthropy is
celebrated as a positive act of civic participation’. It aims to inspire new givers, to
inform and share knowledge and best practice with all those involved in giving;
and to connect givers to charities, networks and sources of advice and
information.
Philanthropy UK, in association with the bank Coutts & Co, has published A Guide
to Giving, which offers practical guidance on a variety of approaches to and
mechanisms for giving for individuals. The guide includes a framework for
developing a charitable giving strategy that reflects the givers’ own motivations,
interests, circumstances and objectives.
6.5. The business sector
The consultation indicated that the level of cash sponsorship for the independent
gallery sector from businesses in the regions is generally low or non-existent. The
lack of evidence of business patronage relating to acquisitions for public
77
collections is consistent across the regions. Where there are examples of business
sponsorship, they are usually linked to temporary exhibitions or commissions.
Galleries such as Site Gallery in Sheffield actively encourage businesses to
become involved through events and exhibitions with a view to establishing future
sponsorship opportunities. For many smaller scale organisations sponsorship is inkind. However, the exhibition or commission provides the opportunity for high
profile branding, and strong local press coverage, particularly where the
commission is often large scale, and prominent within the city.
The lack of corporate patronage for collecting is attributed to several factors:
 the global nature of business today often working through London-based
headquarters and fewer businesses with a local stronghold
 the lack of financial incentives for businesses to support collections
 the lack of recognition of the national and regional significance of
collections in the regions in the UK
 the close proximity to London and London’s position as the centre for the
UK art market.
Another factor may be that, in recent years, there has been a strong drive towards
raising business sponsorship for aspirational and high profile capital development
projects. The challenge now is for institutions to convey aspirational goals that
relate to their programmes and collections. With the high profile coverage and
cachet associated with contemporary art and British artists today, it is maybe
surprising that developers and businesses are not more involved in supporting
new work and collections.
6.5.1. Arts & Business
There is little evidence of any direct partnership between Arts & Business (A&B)
and public collections in the regions. Where a funding initiative does exist
between the Arts Council and A&B the emphasis is primarily on collections for the
business rather than for the region’s public collections. There is little or no contact
between visual arts organisations and A&B in some regions.
A funding model that brings together collecting by businesses with public
collections has been initiated in the North East between the Arts Council and A&B
community. The Business Collectors Network is a three-year scheme bringing
together businesses and artists living and working in the North East. Fifteen
businesses invest £1,500 a year for three years in a corporate art fund held at the
78
Community Foundation, a registered charity. The fund is used to purchase work
by artists living or working in the North East.
The Business Collectors Network plans to appoint a curator to develop a collecting
policy that will have a strong focus on work by artists in the region. The work will
be displayed in the businesses and after a period of time the work purchased will
be the property of the Community Foundation and may be gifted to a regional
gallery collection for the benefit of people in the North East. The benefits of such a
model with regard to the museum collection are dependent on a high level of
ambition, expertise and close collaboration throughout between the businesses,
the curator, and the museum.
7. Proposed Funding Models and Partnerships
While acknowledging the strength of funding support and key initiatives that
already exists in the UK, this report outlines potential benefits for a dedicated fund
to be set up that specifically supports the building of collections of contemporary
art in the regions, as well as the development of the expertise required to do so. It
could focus attention on the cultural legacy of contemporary art in the UK and be
underpinned by a recognition that the public sector needs to be strengthened in
order to attract and sustain relationships with private partners, patrons and other
support. It should be long-term, strategic and attuned to supporting a range of
institutional ambitions. Funding should be directed where there is the greatest
potential to build on strengths in existing collections or develop new areas of
interest (e.g. ones that could result in new types of collection, or aim to address
gaps in cultural or geographic provision, or encouraging a model for cross-regional
working). A new fund should seek to achieve maximum impact by supporting
quality, expertise, vision and commitment, essential to ensuring long-term public
benefit. The report recommends that contemporary art collections be integrated
within strategic planning for the visual arts in each region.
Potential bids would include private and business patronage plans to strengthen
regional public collections and demonstrate an awareness of how new acquisitions
would contribute to national collections.
International models outlined in this report could inform the structure of a new fund
for public collections in the UK. For example, a key international model that takes
79
a strategic and targeted approach to the dispersal of central funds is the
Mondriaan Foundation (The Netherlands). In summary:
 a funding model with a single focus on contemporary art can help raise the
profile of excellence in contemporary art activity and collections in the UK
 a model predicated on long-term support can be a catalyst for sustainable
collection development
 a model that attracts substantial investment (investment from both public
and private sources) can raise levels of ambition and aspiration.
7.1. Proposed models
The following options for funding have emerged through the consultation process.
7.1.1. A National Endowment Fund for contemporary art for collections in the
regions
A National Endowment Fund set up with an initial contribution from Arts Council
England – to lever match funding from the regions through the public and private
sector. Several museums have endowment funds from past benefactors and the
interest is drawn upon to purchase work. A national endowment fund for
purchasing contemporary art for public collections could target beneficiaries with a
developmental and agency-type role to broker new partnerships, fundraise, coordinate forums and deliver events.
The gift by Anthony d’Offay to Tate and the National Galleries of Scotland, of a
collection of 725 works known as Artist Rooms, will have a significant impact on
the regions as a wide range of partner museums and galleries will stage displays
of works in 2009. It is significant that the agreement includes a provision for the
establishment of a £5 million endowment fund by the National Galleries of
Scotland and Tate, the interest of which will be used for the acquisition of further
rooms in the future. The fund has £1 million from Tate and the National Galleries
of Scotland, and another £4 million is to be raised from other sources. The gift will
continue to raise the profile of collections and collecting, and should in turn throw a
spotlight on many of the existing major collections in the regions. It is therefore
particularly timely to consider a wider framework for possible funding models for
collections in the regions, and what form these might take.
7.1.2. A National Endowment Fund model – The Olympics Legacy Trust
The Olympics Legacy Trust offers an effective model of a trust endowment fund
set up for a clear strategic purpose. It was set up with £40 million to distribute to
80
projects across the UK that will link with and create a legacy for the Olympic
Games 2012. The funding partners are DCMS, the Arts Council and the Big
Lottery Fund. The Trust works to achieve funding from other sources, including the
private sector. The distribution of funding is on a strategic and open funds basis.
The application to create The Olympics Legacy Trust was submitted by a
consortium, led by City of London, including East London Business Alliance,
Business in the Community, Yorkshire Forward and Time bank. The Legacy Trust
represents a potential model for a new fund for collecting contemporary art for
public collection across the regions, possibly with the same funding partners:
DCMS, the Arts Council and the Big Lottery Fund, and with a consortium
comprising public and private sector representatives from each region.
The trust fund would be substantial, and could aim to raise a lump sum for each
region through public and private funding. Applications for funding might be
predicated on high profile regional and/or national events that provide the
opportunity for new work to have a continued legacy in a public collection and
support ongoing collecting by museums. A new fund could encourage the
principle of collaborative working, and joint ownership of work, nationally and/or
across the regions. Each region could identify opportunities to co-ordinate
applications to the Trust. Funds might be allocated on a managed funds basis to
encourage strategic development and/or through the open application process.
Regional forums for the visual arts, together with Arts & Business and the
Contemporary Art Society, are well placed to facilitate and broker new
relationships between businesses and patrons, and galleries and museums.
7.1.3. An Investment Fund
Funding options put forward include an Investment Fund where a sum of money is
raised and invested in stocks and shares to accumulate capital. The museums
within each regional area use the capital to purchase work. Funding could come
through a long-term loan, for example for a 50-year period, with public collections
drawing on the profits to buy new work. The interest and profits could constitute
sponsorship from a bank or group of businesses.
7.1.4. A foundation
The foundation model can also offer benefits, demonstrated by The Northern Rock
Foundation. Since its launch in 1997, it has been supported by an annual donation
81
of five per cent of Northern Rock plc’s pre-tax profits. To date Northern Rock has
donated £190 million to the Foundation. The Foundation is dependent on the
parent company, the bank, for its income flow. The foundation model would need
to ensure its allocated funding is protected from risk.
7.1.5. Section 106/Community Infrastructure Levy
Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows a local planning
authority (LPA) to enter into a legally binding agreement or planning obligation with
a land developer. The obligation is sometimes termed as a Section 106
agreement. The agreements can include building in tasks for developers, which
will provide benefits for communities. Benefits may include public art and
commissions.
The agency and think-tank for public art in England, ixia, supports an approach to
enable place-wide initiatives and activities, in addition to site-specific work. There
may be opportunities for public collections where local authority departments work
directly with artists in the public realm and with public art (and through Section
106). This would require joined-up working between the local authority planning
and collections departments.
7.1.6. A Pre-accession Fund
A fund designed specifically to support greater risk taking in public collections
could work to bridge the current gap between new work from the independent
gallery sector and work purchased and accessioned by collections. The fund could
support more emergent and innovative work. The work could be for display, for
education or touring. After a specified time, the work could be reviewed and either
accessioned, or sold on by the museum.
7.2. Proposed funding initiatives
There are several initiatives that should be considered as potential models to be
adopted cross-regionally and/or nationally.
7.2.1. Collecting Cultures – Heritage Lottery Fund
Collecting Cultures is a Heritage Lottery Fund initiative launched in 2007 to
respond to concerns about a lack of active collecting in many museums and
galleries. The one-off investment of £3 million over five years is to support
acquisitions (all disciplines, historic and contemporary work), curatorial skills,
research and increased public activity.
82
The fund encourages individual museums and galleries, or small consortia of
those with a shared collecting interest to apply for support to develop their
collections. The grants available range from £50,000 to £200,000 and projects can
run up to five years. Decisions will be made in May 2008.
7.2.2. Enriching Regions – The Art Fund/Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
Enriching Regions is an initiative by The Art fund for accredited local authorityowned and independent museums and galleries launched by The Art Fund in 2006
for one year. The aim of the fund is to strengthen collecting in three identified
regions, in the East Midlands, East of England and West Midlands. The Esmée
Fairbairn Foundation has provided £45,000 for museums in each of the regions.
The scheme grew out of The Art Fund’s research The Collecting Challenge, which
found that almost 70% of museums (local authority owned and independent
museums are the types of museums least able to collect) now acquire new work
mainly or solely by gift. The scheme covers up to 100% of the cost of a work;
however, museums are encouraged to find funding from patrons and local
business and to develop relationships with local donors with advice from Arts and
Business in creating partnerships.
7.2.3. museumaker
museumaker is a funding model predicated on partnership between a number of
public and private stakeholders including Arts Council England, East Midlands;
Museums, Libraries & Archives East Midlands; Renaissance in the Regions;
Esmée Fairbairn Foundation and museums. A total of £310,000 was raised for a
five strand programme including audience development and retail, focusing on
contemporary craft inspired by museum collections. A total of 20 museums from
the East Midlands took part, 10 of which commissioned new work. Some of the
work produced was for temporary display, other work was permanent and
accessioned in to the museum collection.
museumaker is to be rolled out in Phase II, and proposes to include Yorkshire,
South East, and London regions in a targeted £1.5m programme. It is a model
that meets several objectives of Turning Point and Renaissance in the Regions:
 museumaker represents a new creative partnership between regional
NDPBs
83



funds are raised by several stakeholders working together in a strategic
alliance
museumaker works to bring the contemporary and past together
museumaker is applicable to large and small, urban and rural museums
An initiative on this scale requires strong project management and substantial
lead- in time to plan and develop the necessary relationships for creative
partnership – the MLA requires key projects to be included in the MLA regional
office and Renaissance business plans. The funding mechanism for museumaker2
is currently being considered. There is a need to consider the transferability of the
model from craft to contemporary visual art. The scale of funding required to
commission contemporary art and to acquire work for collection is likely to be
higher due to the nature of the contemporary art market.
7.2.4. Outset
Outset is a foundation that aims to support new art through a production fund and
through projects. Working with curators, Outset has sponsored acquisitions of
works with a view to institutional donors. Activities are funded by private patrons,
trustees and corporate partners. Outset has been described by Ed Vaizey
(Shadow Minister for Culture) as ‘an example of the new philanthropy’. 92 In 2003
Outset set up an acquisition fund connected to Frieze Art Fair in collaboration with
Tate and Frieze. Invited curators buy art at Frieze Art Fair each year with the
money raised and the works are donated to the Tate Gallery. There may be
potential for similar models to be developed in other regions, with works bought
through Frieze and Zoo Art Fairs, two recognised key platforms for buying work by
artists throughout the UK.
7.2.5. The Business Collectors Network (ACE NE and The Sponsor Club for Arts &
Business)
The Business Collectors Network (see 5.5.1), is a three-year scheme to raise
funding from businesses to purchase contemporary art, bringing together
businesses, artists and curators in the region through partnership between the Arts
Council (NE) and The Sponsor Club for Arts & Business (NE region).
8. Key International Findings and Trends
92
Ed Vaizey speaking at the South London Gallery at the celebration of Outset’s fifth anniversary.
84
The following section pinpoints key international findings and trends, and indicates
where these could have relevance, and in some instances direct application, to the
proposed options arising from the UK consultation.
It also suggests other areas for focus, which could be developed by regional
consortia or focus groups that might commission seminars, further research briefs
and workshops, or stage events to facilitate partnership building.
8.1. Building contemporary art collections in regional and local contexts
Many civic and regional museums have undergone relative cuts in public subsidy,
and struggle to maintain parity with private foundations established with public
missions. However there is evidence of synergy and close working in some
instances, such as the T1 Triennial organised by Fondazione Sandretto Re
Rebaudengo, GAM and Castello di Rivoli in Turin in Italy, and collections-sharing
between Artium and La Caixa in Spain, which could be instructive in looking at
how partnerships in the UK could be developed.
Recently, the appearance of recent civic collections and/or institutions has been
driven by regions and cities, with key motivation provided by regeneration, as with
Turin and Naples, Metz, Bilbao and the Basque region, and Salamanca. With
Turin, Salamanca and the Basque region, this has provided considerable
momentum in the formation or augmenting of civic collections of contemporary art
of international standing. The connection with regeneration is clear and
unambiguous, and structures/strategies to make this sustainable have been put in
place.
However, as a consequence, collections are often formed rapidly with an eye to
achieving immediate and high impact. This needs to be weighed up against the
value of collections-building over the longer term. Frequently, rapid collections
development or heavy investment in commissioning and/or contemporary
collecting has been tied to the climate generated by preparation and delivery of
major events such as the Olympics (Barcelona 1992, Sydney 2000, Turin 2006)
and European City of Culture (Salamanca), which have an increasingly strong
awareness of the issue of cultural legacy. Salamanca’s Fundacio Cuidad de
Cultura, established following its tenureship as City of Culture and supporting as it
does the continued growth of DA2’s contemporary collection, is a prime example
and could be of interest to contexts such as City of Culture, Liverpool, 2008, the
85
London Olympics 2012, and the hosting of the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow
in 2014.
Well-established municipal institutions such as MMK in Frankfurt and Van
Abbemuseum in Eindhoven, which are still tied directly to their city administrations,
are driving their own collections-building programmes, and provide strong models
for local authority institutions in England to drive forward their own programmes
and initiatives.
8.2. Funds for building contemporary collections
The funding structure of the Mondriaan Foundation (The Netherlands), and Cathy
Hunt and Phyllida Shaw’s proposed Future Fund (Australia) are interesting
possible models to be explored vis-à-vis for a national fund to support strategic
contemporary collections building in the regions. In the case of The Netherlands,
funding is available through Mondriaan Foundation to museum institutions in nine
cities, which can be used to support acquisitions as well as other areas of
development, and is unlocked through submission of two-year strategies.
Currently in the UK, the Art Fund is developing the nearest corollary to this as a
strategy for targeted funding with Art Fund International. However, the available
funds are dedicated specifically to meeting costs of the purchase, and cannot be
used to meet travel, research or documentation purposes.
In France, central government continues to make dedicated funds available
specifically to support acquisitions of contemporary art by regional collections
through the FRAC system, with the result that collections of contemporary art of an
international standard have been assembled across the country’s 22 regions,
embodying principles of regional ownership. The UK might consider setting up a
FRAC style system in the regions, with the same commitment to internationalism
as the French model, and the same expert panel participation. In Italy the
Piemonte region has recently established FRAC Piemonte set up with an annual
budget of €150,000 in the model of the French FRAC. Another model is that
provided by Salamanca’s Fundacio Cuidad de Cultura as an example of a
foundation established at municipal level as a ‘legacy funds,’ which are intended to
be longer term and sustainable.
There are instances where Lottery funding is provided straight to the institution for
a five-year period (The Netherlands BankGiro Loterij). In other instances,
government steps in to cover shortfall on Lottery to ‘good cause’ areas such as
86
culture (Finland) or they designate a specific amount of culture (Italy). (Klamer et.
al. 2006)
ARCO 2008 figures reveal a context in which public collections appear to match
private and corporate collections in purchasing activity. The sums vary from
modest to more substantial, but are not vast. A city or regional example is found in
Artissima, Turin’s art fair. Both reveal a successful template by which regional and
civic museums benefit from and provide important patronage to their domestic art
fairs. In Turin, a variant of the Outset/Tate/Frieze model is in operation, whereby
Fondazione CRT acquired work for GAM and Castello di Rivoli at Artissima.
8.3. Public sector development
The trend towards the ‘privatisation’ of civic and regional museums in the form of
trusts or foundations is increasing (UK, The Netherlands, Germany, Italy and
Spain). Important exceptions to this are MMK (Frankfurt) and Van Abbemuseum
(Eindhoven), which remain part of their city administrations. Those institutions
have, under strong directorship, developed corporate ‘patron plans’ that are
specifically geared towards developing a dedicated collections-building fund.
Analysis of the benefits of transfer to Trust or Foundation status is emerging,
though specific consideration of its benefits for the building of funds and
partnerships that support contemporary collecting would be very pertinent and
could be commissioned. A model of note is the MACBA consortium, where the
city, region and MACBA Foundation have entered into a tripartite funding
relationship. The city takes an explicit and active partnership role, along with the
Foundation, and is not simply a faceless funder.
Of note also is an initiative launched in October 2007 in New York, which draws
attention to the many competencies demanded of museum directors and high level
staff in the current climate. The Center for Curatorial Leadership proposes an
interesting model for developing ‘directors of the future’. Funded for three years
by Agnes Gund, and established by Elizabeth Easton, the former chair of the
Department of European Painting at the Brooklyn Museum, the Center will take on
eight fellows a year, and has partnered with Columbia University Business School.
It will provide ‘endowment management’, ‘fundraising’ and ‘strategy’ as part of the
curriculum.
8.4. Encouraging philanthropy
87
In Germany, at local level, the role of civil society and its support of culture in
particular is strong historically, and this bears out with wealth of Friends
Associations and Kunstvereine, which have been reinvigorated with the shift to
Foundation status by some organisations. Contact with German Friends
organisations could be established via events focused on information sharing.
In some countries, central governments and national bodies (France and
Australia) have initiated campaigns and initiatives tied to the introduction of fiscal
incentives, as have Arts & Business groups (England, Italy, Australia, France), and
Associations (France, Italy). With regard to the English context, a closer look at the
French Mission Mécénat, and at the roles of Arts Council for Australia’s Artsupport
and ABAF within the Australian context, and models such as the Australia Council
Donation Fund, and the Arts Partnership Funds (Tasmania and South Australia) is
recommended.
There is broad acceptance of the need for governments to address tax incentives,
in particular reductions in income and corporate income tax for lifetime gifts.
Legislation has been developed to support giving to foundations, and income tax
credits or deductions for businesses and individuals made available in France
(2003), Germany (2007), Italy (2000), Australia (1997) and Spain (2002).
Philanthropy is increasingly promoted directly by institutions, with many now
actively promoting giving and providing details of tax deductions or credits
available via dedicated pages on websites (Strasbourg and St Ètienne, France;
NGV, AGNSW and Queensland Art Gallery, Australia; MMK, K21, Germany).
These models could be instructive for UK institutions, and there should be funding
to enable institutions to develop such interfaces.
Profile-raising initiatives such as AMACI’s Imprese con l’arte contemporanea
(Business and Contemporary Art) could be looked at, which derived from the
success of its Giornata per il Contemporaneo (Contemporary Day) campaign.
8.5. Partnerships
Museums are using Friends organisations as strong partners to help mediate with
businesses (Germany, Holland) and other public bodies, and to host events.
Examples of business patronage groups that have been successfully developed
are MMK’s Patronage Plan and Stedelijk’s SBMC, while other institutions are
establishing foundations to mediate with businesses and individuals (Australia,
The Netherlands, Kiasma, in Finland). Some German Friends organisations have
88
recently relaunched themselves in order to develop their own profiles and
capacities (PIN, Munich). Funds could be made available to institutions or groups
of institutions in the UK, to support the development of Patronage groups and/or
collector circles.
Berner Kunstfonds is an example of a partnership established in 1993 by the
Freunde des Berner Kunstmuseums, the Bernische Kunstgesellschaft (Art
Society) and the Kunsthalle Bern in order to coordinate the relationship with
patrons and sponsors. Institutions are themselves forming partnerships with
private collectors, foundations and corporate collections, often with exclusivity
agreements. Initiatives from cities to seek out collections sharing with other public
institutions are in evidence. For instance, in Munich, there is ZKMax, a collectionsharing partnership between the city’s Maximiliansforum and ZKM in Karlsruhe.
Another example will be Centre Pompidou Metz – an agreement between Metz
Metropole and Centre Pompidou. Examples of the latter model exist already in the
UK in the form of Tate Partnerships. Other possibilities in the UK could be
supported by the creation of Art Partnership Funds along the lines of those
established in Tasmania and South Australia by ABAF, which could be used to
bring in the expertise of organisations such CAS and Outset.
8.6. Ways of acquiring
There is a preference for specified acquisitions budgets either on an annual or
basis or for a fixed number of years, as it gives the ability to be more strategic with
funds. There is a growing interest in commissioning to collect (MUDAM,
Luxembourg) and many museums are developing a closer alliance between
acquisitions and exhibitions programmes. There is a tendency, across the board,
to avoid buying from secondary market where prices tend to be more inflated.
Increasingly, curators work directly with an artist or commercial gallery because it
is seen to be more cost effective, with the possibility that the commercial gallery
can offer support in some way.
Collecting legacies: The Helen Macpherson Smith Commission, developed by
ACCA in Melbourne and the Helen Macpherson Smith Trust, is a model whereby a
major exhibition venue seeks to place a commission or a work derived from it with
a collection in the regions. If such a model were adopted in the UK, the collecting
venue would need to be on board at an early stage to prevent the accession from
becoming divorced from potential insights into the artistic process.
89
Joint acquisitions: A key potential model felt by some to be an important way to
strengthen the public sector on a broad and international level. In the UK, this has
been utilised by Tate only, and in conjunction with international partners. There is
evidence of its increasing currency as a model in the US and Europe. However,
joint acquisitions can entail complex arrangements, and consideration needs to be
given to its benefits. It may work for particular types of work (video for example)
but be more problematic for others.
Consortia commissioning: As undertaken by Three M Project, this is again a
dynamic way to present a strong public sector, which can attract private funding.
A prime example of this in the UK is a project developed by Modern Art Oxford,
Arnolfini and Camden Art Centre, with funds from the Arts Council (Grants for the
arts: National Activities). Could a strategic fund of this kind be established, with
collecting institutions being built into the consortia making the bids?
9. Recommendations
We have identified a need for a funding model to be set up that is specifically for
collecting contemporary visual art. In the UK the contemporary visual arts have a
growing public appeal and attract press attention. A new funding model would
focus attention on the cultural legacy of contemporary art in the UK, while drawing
interest to the new in relation to public collections in the regions. Whilst it
acknowledges the strength of funding support that already exists in the UK, mainly
through trusts and foundations, and identifies key initiatives, the report considers
the need for a long-term and strategic approach for the funding of public
collections. A new fund to support public collections in the regions should be set
up at national level, which could be designed to facilitate decision making at
regional level. The fund could be strengthened by incentivising match funding
from the private sector.
Moreover, ongoing support is required to strengthen the infrastructure, to broker
relationships between agencies at national and regional level, and assist in
delivering working models to increase patronage and private income. Adequate
planning, project management and dedicated staff posts are also required to
ensure sustainable programmes and initiatives.
We recommend that funds be created:
 For strategic collections-building
90

DCMS could create a dedicated funding stream for civic and regional
collections to access for the purposes of strategic contemporary art
collection-building throughout the UK. The role of national distribution
collections such as the Arts Council Collection and Tate Collection should
inform any national strategy to bolster regional public collections and
displays.
For capacity and partnership building
We also propose the creation of a funding stream, to be made available to
local authorities or institutions to conduct research, including specific
international models, establish or invigorate partnerships or initiatives, and
promote philanthropy. It could favour consortia applications, and support the
commissioning and dissemination of research, network building and profile
raising events, strengthening existing partnerships (with Friends
organisations for instance) and the development and facilitation of collector
groups.
This report also supports recent calls for the Government to address what tax
incentives are available, and how they are promoted, within its overall commitment
to fostering broader philanthropic giving. Of particular relevance is the current
campaign for the introduction of incentives to encourage lifetime gifting, the
benefits of which could have real lasting impact for museums, their collections and
their audiences across the UK.
Wendy Law and Tina Fiske
91
Acknowledgements
Many people have contributed to the development of this report and we would like
to thank everyone who gave so generously of their time, knowledge and ideas:
Lucy Bayley, Maria Balshaw, Jonathan Banks, Janet Barnes, Vivienne Bennett,
Christiane Berndes, Jon Bewley, Michelle Bowen, Niki Braithwaite, Lidia Bravo
Galvan, Paulette Terry Brien, Ronan Brindley, Kate Brindley, Rachel Browning,
Karen Brookfield, Andrew Brown, Sarah Brown, Sian Brown, James Bustard,
Helen Cadwallader, David Chandler, Caroline Collier, Suzanne Cotter, Tim
Craven, Sophia Crilly, Penelope Curtis, Janet Davies, Deborah Dean, Edith Eyo,
Sarah Fisher, Richard Flood, Brendan Flynn, Tim Foxon, Melanie Gardner,
Francesca Geens, Alice Gerlach, Catherine Gill, Elizabeth Gilmore, Eva GonzalezSancho, Nick Gordon, Amy Goring, Hilary Gresty, Walter Guadagnini, Timandra
Gustafson, Robert Hall, Kirstie Hamilton, Judith Harry, Ross Head, Paul Hobson,
Sarah Holdsworth, Amanda Jones, Richard Julin, Mark Kennard, Edward King,
Hannah Kirkham, Johanna Kociejowski, Caroline Krzesinska, Simon Lake,
Laurence Lane, Kwong Lee, Alison Lloyd, Susan Mackenzie, Anne McNeil, Bob
Martin, Jean-Hubert Martin, Carol Maund, Julie Milne, Gemma Millward, Andrew
Moore, Catherine Morel, Ceris Morris, Frances Morris, Lynda Morris, Mike Noon,
Joanna Oldham, Thierry Ollat, Antonia Maria Perello, Amanda Phillips, Caroline
Pick, Kate Pryor, Marina Pugliese, Stefan Van Raay, Sarah Richardson, Gaby
Robertshaw, Agustin Perez Rubio, Michelle Salerno, Ian Sanders, Sara Selwood,
Sarah Shalgosky, Mariam Sharpe, Ruth Shrigley, Laurence Sillars, Verity Slater,
Matthew Slotover, Paul Smith, Katja Schmolke, Ronald Van de Sompel, Stephen
Snoddy, Philip Spedding, Nicola Stephenson, Kim Streets, Mike Stubbs, Virginia
Tandy, Jonty Tarbuck, Nicholas Thornton, Tony Trehy, Colin Tweedy, Alice Uren,
Cristian Valsecchi, Fiona Venables, Alex Walker, Nigel Walsh, Jonathan Watkins,
Rebecca Weaver, Godfrey Worsdale, Val Young.
92
Sources
AEA Consulting (2004), The Maecenas Initiative: A Review of Charitable Giving
Vehicles and Their Use in the US and Canada, Parts 1 & 2, London: Arts &
Business
Art & Business (2005a), Survey of Private Investments in the Arts: Summary of
results 2002/2003, 2004/2005.
Arts & Business (2005b), Private Investment Benchmarking Survey 2004/05.
Available at
http://www.aandb.org.uk/Asp/uploadedFiles/File/REI_PrivateInvestmentSurvey040
5.pdf
Arts & Business (2006), Private Investment Benchmarking Survey 2005/2006
Arts & Business (2008a) Transcript of launch of Private investment figures
2006/2007, London, 29 January 2008
http://www.aandb.org.uk/Asp/uploadedFiles/File/Research/Arts_and_Business_%
20transcript.pdf
Arts & Business (2008b) Private Investment Benchmarking Survey 2006/2007
Arts Council England, Turning Point (2006) – Review of the Presentation of the
Contemporary Visual Arts, London: Arts Council England
http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/aboutus/project-detail php?browse=recent&id =516
Art Fund (2006),The Collecting Challenge (2006) London: The Art Fund
Art Fund (2007), Private Collections in the Public Domain (2007) London: The Art
Fund
Associazione Torino Internationale, The Strategic Plan of Torino 2000-2010 –
Piano Strategio per la Promozione della Citta, 2000
Art 36 Miami Basel (2005) ‘Contemporary Philanthropy in America,’ in
Conversations Transcripts, available at http://www.art.ch/go/id/erm/
93
Art 37 Basel (2006) ‘Contemporary Philanthropy in Europe,’ in Conversations
Transcripts, pp. 79-98. Available at http://www.art.ch/go/id/erm/
Beatty, Emma ‘Zurich, Strasbourg, and Dresden refused to show Christian Flick’s
Collection: Now Berlin gets it as a gift,’ The Art Newspaper,
http://www.theartnewspaper.com/article.asp?id=7739
Bradley, Kim, ‘Regional Renaissance,’ Art in America, 2005, accessed at
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1248/is_10_93/ai_n15966464/pg_1
Buck, Louisa, Market Matters (2004), The dynamics of the contemporary art
market, London: Arts Council England
http://wwwartscouncil.org.uk/publications/publication_detail.php?browse=recent&id
=417
Burns Owens Partnership – with Experian Business Strategies, Survey (March
2005)
http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/aboutus/project_detailphp?rid=3&id-517&page=7
Burns, Robert and Wilfried van der Will (2003), ‘Germany Cultural Policy:
An Overview,’ International Journal of Cultural Policy, 9, 2, July 2003, pp. 1330152
Council of Europe/ERICarts (eds.) (2007), national country profiles in the
Compendium of Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe, www.culturalpolicies.net
Danish Arts Foundation – Statens Kunstfond (2006a), Annual report 2004,
http://www.kunststyrelsen.dk/2060029
Danish Arts Foundation – Statens Kunstfond (2006b), Annual report 2003,
http://www.kunststyrelsen.dk/de000c
DCMS, Funding in the Arts, London: DCMS, 2004
Delegation aux Arts Plastiques (2006), Le-Savez Vous? Collections creation
mécénat et fiscalité,available at
http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/dap/dap/pdf/plaquet_mecenat.pdf
94
Ellis, Adrian ‘The problem with Privately Funded Museums’, The Art Newspaper,
21.2.08, Issue 188, accessed at
http://www.theartnewspaper.com/article.asp?id=7509
Erasmus University and Boekman Foundation (2007) Roundtable: The Interaction
between Private and Public Financing of the Arts and Culture: their interactions
and measurement, Amsterdam 5-6 October 2007. Transcript available at
http://www.boekman.nl/documenten/projecten_financing_07_summary.pdf
European Foundation Centre (2005a), A European map: Key data on the
dimensions of the foundation sector in the EU. Available at
http://www.efc.be/projects/eu/research/eumap.htm
European Parliament (2003), Information note on cultural sponsorship, Directorate
General for Research, Division for Social and Legal Affairs.
Federal Statistical Office Germany (2006), Expenditure (Basic Funds) of Public
Budgets on Arts and Culture by Sectors. Available at
http://www.destatis.de/basis/e/biwiku/ausgtab7.htm
Glinkowski, Paul (2007), ‘A Report on 21st Century Philanthropy and the Role of
trusts and foundations in supporting the arts in the UK.’ Available at
http://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/philanthropy/resources_and_links
Goodison, Nicholas, (2004) Securing the Best for our Museums: Private Giving
and Government Support, London: HMSO
Harris, Gareth and Ossian Ward, ‘US Museums Trounce European Institutions,’
The Art Newspaper, http://www.theartnewspaper.com/article.asp?id=312
Hemels, S.J.C. (2005), Tax Incentives for the Arts in the Netherlands, Mimeo
Ilzcuk, Dorothy (2001), Private Action for the Public Good; Regulations, Incentives
ad Examples of Practice, Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Available
athttp://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/Completed/MOSAIC/pubilczuk_en.asp#
TopOfPage
Hunt, Cathy and Phyllida Shaw (2007) ‘A sustainable sector: what will it take?’
95
Platform Papers: Quarterly Essays in Performing Arts, Strawberry Hills, NSW:
Currency House
Inkei, Péter (2001), Tax Incentives for private support to culture, Strasbourg:
Council of Europe, Cultural Policy and Action Department
Jackson, Tessa and Marc Jordan (2006), Presentation of the Contemporary Visual
Arts, London: Arts Council England
http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/aboutus/projectdetail.php@rid=3&id=517&page=7 14k –
Klamer, A., L. Petrova and A. Mignosa, 2006, Financing the Arts and Culture in the
European Union, European Parliament’s Committee on Culture and Education,
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/EST/download.do?file=13231#search=%20Financi
ng%20the%20arts%20and%20culture%20in%20the%20Eu%20
Lloyd, Theresa (2004) Why Rich People Give, London: Philanthropy UK,
Association of Charitable Foundations
McGregor, Sheila (2005), Collecting in Crisis? Contemporary Art in Regional
Galleries, Discussion Paper commissioned by Contemporay Art Society and
Renaissance West Midlands
McGregor, Sheila (Ed.) (2006), New Art on View: Public Collections in Britain
Scala
McGregor-Lowndes, Myles and Newton, Cameron and Marsden, Stephen
(2006) ‘Did tax incentives play any part in increased giving?’ Australian
Journal of Social Issues. 2006 Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS)
Millington, Val (2005) Contemporary Art Society Special Collections Scheme
Evaluation Report, December 2005. Downloadable from
http://www.contempart.org.uk/SpecialCollectionScheme.htm
Mission Money Models, MLA Yorkshire exemplar case study. Downloadable from
http://www.missionmodelsmoney.org.uk/Asp/uploadedFiles/File/MLA%20Yorkshire
%20-%20MMM%20exemplar%20case%20study.pdf
96
Morel, Catherine (2003), Will Businesses Ever Become Legitimate Partners in the
Financing of the Arts in France? Paper presented at the 3rd International
Conference on Cultural Policy Research,
http://www.hec.ca/iccpr/PDF_Texts/Morel_Catherine.pdf
Morel, Catherine (2008) ‘Private patrons in the development of a dynamic
contemporary art market: does France need more private patrons?’ in Iain
Robertson and Derek Chong eds., The Art Business, London: Routledge, pp. 99114
Museums Association (2005), Collections for the Future, London: Museums
Association. Available at http://www.museumsassociation.org/collections
Museums Association (2007), Making collections effective, London: Museums
Association
Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (2006) Moving to Museum Trusts:
Learning from Experience, Advice to Museums in England & Wales. London: MLA
Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (2008) Museums in England – A
National Strategy. Available at http/www.mla.gov.uk/policy/museum_policy
Myerscough, John (2001), National cultural institutions in transition:
‘desétatisation’ and privatisation, Strasbourg: council of Europe – Committee for
Cultural Co-operation. Available at
http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/Source/Policies/Reviews/CCCULT(2001)10_EN.pdf
Négrier, Emmanuel (1997) ‘French Cultural Decentralization and International
Expansion.Towards a Geometrically Variable Interculturalism?’ International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research 21 (1), 63–74
O’Hagan (2003), ‘Tax Concessions’, in R. Towse (ed.), A Handbook of Cultural
Economics, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Sargeant, Adrian, Stephen Lee, and Elaine Jay, (2002), Major Gift Philanhtropy –
Individual Giving to the Arts, Centre for Voluntary Sector Management, Henley
97
Management College. Commissioned by Arts & Business 2002. Available at
http://www.aandb.org.uk/Asp/uploadedFiles/File/Philanthropy.pdf
Schuster, J. Mark (2004) 'Dedicated State Lotteries for the Arts and Culture –
What Have We Learned About the State of the Arts?’ in Carla Bodo, Christopher
Gordon, and Dorota Ilczuk (eds.), Gambling on Culture: State Lotteries as a
Source of Funding for Culture –the Arts and Heritage, CIRCLE publication 11
Amsterdam: Boekman Foundation
Smith, Terry (ed), Contemporary Art and Philanthropy, Sydney: UNSW, 2007, incl.
essays by Rupert Myer and Gene Sherman
Sharpe, Emily ‘A quantum Leap’ for Australia, The Art Newspaper, 3.4.08, Issue
190. Available at http://www.theartnewspaper.com/article.asp?id=7737
Sosnierz, Anne-Marie (2007) Le Mecenat culturel en Nord-Pas de Calais: pratique
actuelle et perspectives, Entreprendre Culture
98
Glossary of selected UK organisations and initiatives
The Art Fund: The Art Fund is an independent charity committed to saving art for
the nation.
Art Fund International: Launched in 2007, a scheme with £5 million funding for the
creation of collections of international contemporary art over the next five years.
Collecting Cultures: Heritage Lottery Fund invested £3 million to fund a
programme of strategic acquisition for museums and galleries with MLA
accreditation.
Contemporary Art Society: The national non-profit agency that supports artists
through the promotion of collecting and commissioning by individuals, and public
and private bodies across the UK.
Enriching Regions: A collecting scheme supported by £130,000 from the Esmée
Fairbairn Foundation, to make a sum of £45k available to museums in the East of
England, East Midlands and West Midlands.
Esmée Fairbairn Foundation: An independent grant-making foundation in the UK.
Around £30 million is given in grants annually to improve the quality of life for
people and the community in the UK, through support for the UK’s cultural life,
education and the natural environment.
Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF): A distributing body of money raised by the National
Lottery for Good Causes. Administered by the Trustees of the National Heritage
Memorial Fund (NHMF), which allocates around £10 million per annum to the
national heritage, acting as a fund of ‘last resort’.
Museums Association (MA): Represents the people and institutions constituting
Britain’s museums and galleries. The Association has over 5,000 individual
members and 600 institutional members.
Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA): A non-departmental public body
(NDPB), sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). It is
the strategic body working with and for the museums, archives and libraries
sector.
99
Renaissance in the Regions: The MLA’s programme for England’s regional
museums to raise standards and support education, learning, community
development and economic regeneration.
Museumaker: An East Midlands initiative in 2006-07. The £310,000 programme
brought together British craftspeople and 20 museums across the region. The
programme was a major collaboration between Arts Council East Midlands, East
Midlands Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (EMMLAC) and Renaissance
East Midlands. See www.artscouncil.org.uk/pressnews
National Museum Directors’ Conference (NMDC): Represents the leaders of the
UK’s national museums and galleries.
www.nationalmuseums.org.uk
Outset: Established in 2003 as a philanthropic organisation dedicated to
supporting new art. Outset focuses on bringing private funding from its supporters
and trustees to public museums, galleries and art projects.
Philanthropy UK: established by The Association of Charitable Foundations (ACF),
and with funding from the Cabinet Office, Philanthropy UK is a resource to
promote new philanthropy. www.philanthropyuk.org
Special Collection Scheme: Awarded £2.5 million by Arts Council England to set
up the Special Collection Scheme, the CAS worked with 15 museums in England
to develop their collections of contemporary art and craft over five years.
Visual Arts and Galleries Association (VAGA): A membership body for
organisations and individuals concerned with the exhibition, interpretation and
development of modern and contemporary visual art on behalf of the public.
www.vaga.co.uk
List of International websites
100
Germany
Foundation Pinakothek der Moderne: http://www.pinakothek.de/pinakothek-dermoderne/englisch/englisch.htm
PIN.: www.pin-freunde.de.
Stichtung Museum Kunst Palast, Dusseldorf: http://www.museum-kunstpalast.de/SES86974031/lang1/doc60A.html
MARTa Herford Collection, Herford:
http://www.martaherford.de/pages/en/marta/concept.html
Hamburger Bahnhof – Museum für Gegenwart, Berlin:
http://www.hamburgerbahnhof.de/cont/conte/
The Foundation of the Association of the Friends of the National Gallery for
Contemporary Art: http://www.vfn-stiftung.org/
Deutsche Guggenheim, Berlin: http://www.deutsche-guggenheim.de//e/
Museum für Moderne Kunst, Frankfurt: http://www.mmkfrankfurt.de/mmk_e/03_ausstellungen00_ix.html.
K21, Dusseldorf: http://www.kunstsammlung.de/en/collections.html
ZKM | Museum of Contemporary Art, Karlsruhe:
http://on1.zkm.de/zkm/e/MuseumfuerNeueKunst
ZKMAx, Munich:
http://www.muenchen.de/Rathaus/culture/museums/ZKMax/188623/index.html.
France
FRAC Bourgogne: http://www.frac-bourgogne.org/index.php?id_lang=1&reload=ok
FRAC Aquitaine: http://www.fracaquitaine.net/interface2.php
FRAC Lorraine: http://collection.fraclorraine.org/
Videomuseum: http://www.videomuseum.fr/
Centre Pompidou Metz: http://www.centrepompidou-metz.fr/
MOCA Lyon: http://www.moca-lyon.org/vdl/
Musée d’Art Contemporain, Marseille:
http://www.marseille.fr/vdm/cms/culture/musees/musee_art_contemporain_mac
Musee d’Art Moderne et Contemporain de la Ville de Strasbourg:
http://www.musees-strasbourg.org/F/musees/mamcs/mamcs.html
La Musée D’Art Moderne de St Étienne Métropole: http://www.mam-st-etienne.fr/
Collection Lambert en Avignon Musee d’Art Contemporain:
http://www.collectionlambert.com/
La Maison Rouge:
http://www.lamaisonrouge.org/en/rubrique.php?section=menu01&rubrique=1
La Fondation de France: http://www.fdf.org/jsp/site/Portal.jsp
101
Le Consortium: http://www.leconsortium.com/
Les Nouveaux Commanditares:
http://www.nouveauxcommanditaires.com/default.php
Italy
Galleria Civica d’Arte Moderna e Contemporanea [GAM]:
http://www.gamtorino.it/index.php?lang=1
Palazzo Grassi: http://www.palazzograssi.it/
DARC: http://www.darc.beniculturali.it/ita/direzione/compiti.htm
MAXXI, Rome: http://www.darc.beniculturali.it/MAXXI/english/museo.htm
Torino Internazionale: http://www.torinointernazionale.org/Page/t13/view_html?idp=2448
La Compagnia di San Paolo: http://www.fondazionearte.it/index.php
Fondazione CRT: http://www.unacollezionepertorino.fondazionecrt.it/
Fondazione Sandretto Re Rebaudengo: http://www.fondsrr.org/eng/fonde.html
Artissima Art Fair: http://www.artissima.it/?lang=_en
Castello di Rivoli: http://www.castellodirivoli.org/
Unicredit: http://uninews.unicredit.it/en/articles/page.php?id=9148
Museo di arte moderna e contemporanea di Trento e Rovereto (MART):
http://www.mart.trento.it/
Museo d'Arte Moderna di Bologna (MAMbo): http://www.mambo-bologna.org/filesito/eng/collezioni/collezioni-mambo/home.html
Museo d’Arte Contemporea Donna Regina (MADRE):
http://89.97.205.227/english/index-eng.html
Associazione Musei d’Arte Contemporanea Italiani: http://www.amaci.org/
Spain
ARCO Art Fair: http://www.ifema.es/ferias/arco/default_i.html
Museo de Arte Contemporáneo de Castilla y León [MUSAC]:
http://www.musac.es/index_en.php?secc=1&subsecc=1
Museu d'Art Contemporani de Barcelona [MACBA]:
http://www.macba.es/controller.php
Centro-Museo Vasco de Arte Contemporáneo, Vitoria [ARTium]:
http://www.artium.org/home_c.php
Centro Andaluz de Arte Contemporáneo, Seville: http://www.caac.es/
DA2, Salamanca: http://www.salamancaciudaddecultura.org:81/da2/
Museo de Bellas Artes de Bilbao, Bilbao: http://www.museobilbao.com/
102
Colección Fundación Coca-Cola Espana:
http://www.tupatrocinio.com/entidad_web.cfm/entidad/7725106004284952536756
4856484554.html
La Caixa Foundation: http://obrasocial.lacaixa.es/centros/caixaforumbcn_es.html
The Netherlands
Mondriaan Foundation:
http://www.mondriaanfoundation.nl/English/tabid/129/Default.aspx
Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam: http://www.stedelijk.nl/
Museum Boijmans van Beuningen, Rotterdam: http://www.boijmans.nl/en/5/manysided-museum
Van Abbemuseum, Eindhoven: http://www.vanabbemuseum.nl/engels/
Bonnefantenmuseum, Maastricht:
http://www.bonnefanten.nl/content/index.php?main=1&page_id=1
Australia
Australia Business Arts Foundation: http://www.abaf.org.au/
Australia Council for the arts: http://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/
Art Gallery of New South Wales: http://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/
National Gallery of Victoria: http://www.ngv.vic.gov.au/
Newcastle Regional Art Gallery:
http://www.ncc.nsw.gov.au/discover_newcastle/region_art_gallery
Melbourne Art Fair Foundation: http://www.artfair.com.au/2008/maf.htm
Queensland Art Gallery: http://www.qag.qld.gov.au/
Australian Centre for Contemporary Art (ACCA), Melbourne:
http://www.accaonline.org.au/
103