Page View
Kamarck, Edward (ed.) / Arts in society: the arts and the black revolution
(1968)
Hoover, Richard
Book reviews: usufruct, pp. 344-[347]
PDF (3.0 MB)
Page 345
by heart by any art group that is intending to apply to corporations for funds. The following chapter, "The Dialogue and Dilemma of Social Responsibility," also contains material which I consider to be of great value to those who would look to corporations for financial help. There is no question that a primary responsibility of corporations' management is to turn a profit for the stockholders. Neither is there any doubt that many stockholders would prefer that management have no other interests. A very conservative viewpoint would be that a corporation serves the community best by sticking to its knitting and providing maximum employment through profitable operations. But as Professor Eells points out, the corporations historically began taking an interest in affairs other than those related to the operations of the company during the First World War and have expanded their support and interest in education, medical and other welfare problems of their respective communities with increasing vigor in the recent years. This sense of responsibility for the world around them has only recently extended into the world of arts in terms of support for projects not directly related to promotional or public relations operations. Professor Eells says emphatically and frequently that the relationship between corporations and the arts should not be conceived as a one-way street. There is a tendency in our society to minimize the corporation's role in giving, in the sense that it is usually thought of as one in which the corporation simply reacts favorably or unfavorably to a proposal, and, if the former, it hands over the money without further ado. The fact is that this kind of cut-and-dried relationship is not likely to be very productive or viable. Certainly some funds will be made available on a charitable basis because of the personal interest of a corporate officer or for some other reason that makes it expedient to think in terms of outright donations. But the healthiest relationship is one wherein the corporation comes to view the artistic goals of the donee as contributing to its own larger goal of stimulating an expansion of thought, understanding, and cultural development. A criticism of Professor Eell's work might be that he makes too few specific suggestions. He writes in broad generalities, few of which are arguable, but the practical problems are largely ignored. To anyone who has had experience in the corporation- arts relationship, the path to corporate support often seems very much like an obstacle course. The author hints at some of the problems, though he points out that enabling legislation has been passed which removes most of the legal barriers which in times past might have prevented or discouraged such associations. About as specific as he gets is in referring to the corporation as "a user of the arts, a promoter of talent, and employer of the resources of art institutions." In spite of the lack of specific suggestions, Professor Eell's work undoubtedly has great value simply in helping to weight future conversations on art with the business community. In summary he says, " . . . today arts, science, humanistics and business are sitting around the same table - and they are actually enjoying the experience." Editorial Note: It is pertinent to note that, under the - 345 .. - A.. - - . - A.. - - . - A.. .. - e - . - - . - A.. - - . - A.. - . - . . - e - . - - . - A.. - - . - A.. - . -
http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/| Copyright, 1968, by the Regents of the University of Wisconsin.| For information on re-use, see http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/Copyright