metropolis m

In the Netherlands, most museums are almost entirely financed by government subsidies. Nonetheless, the influence of private individuals on the policies of these public institutes is gradually increasing. It is a trial-and-error effort, as the recent history of the Amsterdam Stedelijk Museum demonstrates.The Amsterdam Stedelijk Museum cannot depend on private collectors. In 2006, the most recent year for which an annual report is available, the Stedelijk received a grand total of three donated paintings. The first, by the Moroccan-Dutch artist Rachid Ben Ali, was donated by Geurt Imanse. Imanse is himself a curator for the Stedelijk, so this hardly counts. Nor does the second, Bouwrijp by Ad Snijders, as it was a gift from the artist. There remains one work, a painting by Ger Lataster, from 1989, donated by a Ms. Jannie Smit-Lub of Amstelveen. In 2005, the yield was hardly better, with just two paintings donated in the course of that year.The American situation, in which donations by private collectors, charitable organizations and companies are largely responsible for building collections, is a long way off for the Stedelijk Museum. This can also be seen in the sources of the museum’s budget. In 2006, almost €12 million came from government, out of a total of €14.7 million; in other words, nearly 80% in subsidies. Sponsoring brought in no more than €840,000. To give a comparison, in 2006, the Museum of Modern Art in New York received $241,000 from the government, out of a total budget of $133 million. That is 0.18%. And where did the rest of that budget come from? Among other things, it came from investments that had been built up in the past by private individuals and which now generate income from interest ($17 million), gifts and other contributions by individuals ($18 million) and ticket sales ($21 million).The question is how tenable the domination of government in the Netherlands’ museum policy can remain. The public debate has in any case shifted, compared to a decade or so ago. At that time, it was all but a mortal sin to even question that domination. In the meantime, even amongst the artists and the institutions themselves, it is accepted parlance. The economic context in which museums operate, both nationally and internationally, also makes it clear that greater independence for private individuals is unavoidable. It is no news that at auctions dealing in old masters, museums compete against the world’s incredibly rich, who often can and will pay several times as much for top works. But it is new that this now also holds true for contemporary art. According to a pricing index by Artprice.com (the most important data provider for the international art market) the average auction price for a top-level contemporary work of art is now 18 times higher than it was in 1985. For the young British artists of the 1990s, for example, or artists from the Leipziger Schule during the last decade, it is now the case that their work is sold for thousands, while their careers as artists have only just begun. The result is that art museums in the Netherlands are able to purchase less and less with their already modest acquisitions budgets (which in the case of the Stedelijk is about €1.2 million). It would certainly be naïve to expect government to increase acquisitions budgets at the same rate that prices are rising in the international marketplace.For the museums, there is no other option than the choice between yet more of the provincialism of Ger Lataster and Ad Snijders, or a further Americanization of Dutch collection policies. If the choice falls for this second option – and for convenience, let us assume that private parties are prepared to play a more prominent role in the Dutch establishment – the museums still have something to learn. Private individuals inevitably have interests of their own, and before you know it, the museums find themselves at the behest of their individual gain. It would not be the first time that a Maecenas finally decides to pull out his or her works on loan to a museum, in order to put them up for auction, or tries to exert influence on exhibition policy, preferably in a way that spells an advantage for the Maecenas’ own private collection.The initial steps in the direction of the American model by the Netherlands’ most important museum for modern art, the Stedelijk, show that the museums are not yet very skilled at dealing with those interests. First, there was the minor matter of the sponsoring contract that the museum signed with ABN AMRO Bank. In 2006, after a lot of tying up of loose knots, when the contract was made public, it turned out that ABN AMRO were able to take advantage of the museum’s curators and conservators for their own company collection, free of charge. At New York’s Museum of Modern Art, because of the conflict of interest that such service would entail, such a thing would be utterly impossible.Late last year, the twosome again received bad press when Rijkman Groenink, former CEO of ABN AMRO, which had been taken over in the meantime, and chairman of the museum’s Board of Supervisors, made the Stedelijk Museum his accomplice in an attempt to gain control of the bank’s art collection. If the trio that had acquired ABN AMRO (Santander of Spain, the Dutch-Belgian Fortis, and Scotland’s RBS) were to decide to liquidate or divide up the collection, a new agreement would come into effect, which would make the Stedelijk Museum owner of the ABN AMRO’s core collection, for the purchase price of one euro. The Stedelijk would be delighted to receive the collection, which includes important works by Constant, Karel Appel, Marlene Dumas and others, but as a museum, it had best stay well away from such takeover conflicts and the personal vendettas with which the men with the big money engage one another. Moreover, should the management of the foundation that watches over the ABN AMRO art collection find itself in difficulty, the Stedelijk has the right to appoint new board members. This new stipulation was single-handedly added to the statutes by Rijkman Groenink, who is again chairman of the Stedelijk, as well as of the ABN AMRO art foundation. Could conflict of interest be more glaringly evident?Another example of the toilsome trek across the terrain of the public and private mix is demonstrated by the presentation of the Stedelijk’s newest love, the Monique Zajfen Collection, put together with funding from the Broere Charitable Foundation. The foundation of the Dordrecht shipping family, the Broeres, purchases contemporary art and gives it on loan to the Stedelijk. The same foundation awards a biennial prize for art, the Vincent Award. Although the award was written about at length in the Stedelijk Museum’s 2006 annual report, no text or explanation could to be found concerning the 13 works that the museum had received on loan from the Broere family. Since then, the Stedelijk and the Broere family have been a bit more open about their collaboration. The loans are in principle in effect until 2010, and will probably be extended until 2020. For its part, the Stedelijk is expected to organize an exhibition concerning the purchases or nominations for the Vincent Award.It will no doubt be a question of time – with scars to show for it – before the Dutch museums are better able to cope with the wishes of private parties, avoid conflicts of interest and succeed in reaching transparent agreements with their new partners. Paradoxically enough, these associations will be easier if there are numerous private donors on board. That would mean a reduction of the influence that each donor can individually exert. The prima donna behaviour of the parties first at the starting gate, such as ABN AMRO, will hopefully be a thing of the past.One obstacle that is far less simple to resolve is the perverse role that government will play in the Americanization of museum structure. In the United States, government is hardly ever able to give money directly to the arts sector. Indirectly, it certainly does so. This is because the donations of individuals (money or works of art – it does not matter) can for the most part be deducted from income tax. Because of these donations, the government does lose tax income, which for economists is the same thing as indirect subsidy. According to estimates, in 2000, those indirect subsidies, also referred to as tax subsidies, totalled $1.6 billion in the United States. That is 17 times as much as the US federal government spent on direct subsidies for art in that same year.In the Netherlands, gifts to museums can also be deducted from taxes, potentially far more generously, simply because the maximum level of taxation is far higher (52% as opposed to about 35% in the US). If a wealthy donor gives a painting worth €10,000 to the Stedelijk Museum, the government here pays a de facto €5,200, at least if the donor is relatively clever when filling out his tax return. Because so little is donated to museums, the Dutch government still provides very little support of this nature, but should the Americanization of museum structure continue, indirect subsidizing of museums will also take off in the Netherlands.This is problematic, because indirect subsidies do not fall under the democratic control that applies to direct subsidies. In the case of indirect subsidies, it is not Parliament or city councils that decide where the tax money goes (as is the case with direct subsidies), but a small group of primarily wealthy donors. This is inconsistent with the public institutions that museums are expected to be. There consequently must be conditions applied to the greater role of individuals in the structure of Dutch museums: tax deductions for gifts to museums need to have strings attached. There can be no question of any real Americanization, in which government subsidizes museums by way of the tax forms filled in by a wealthy upper class.Olav Velthuis