Amanda Parker is an Olivier Award-winning arts and cultural consultant. She proposes a new approach to corporate art patronage. She says down with ego, out with gatekeeping; let’s reimagine a more equitable future of arts funding.

As the seemingly never-ending Sackler/Purdue scandal stumbles its way to the Supreme Court, it serves as a timely reminder of why arts organisations have grown more diligent in scrutinising the source of donations. It’s been almost a decade since high profile actors and artists led the creative sector’s conscious uncoupling, with arts organisations rejecting gifts from funders with origins in pharma, fossil fuels and other sources they deemed ethically questionable. The Sackler scandal represents – we hope - the nadir in philanthropic giving. The family itself still has ‘legacy’, even though their name has been removed from many of the arts organisations they’ve funded. But that legacy is far from what they’d set out to achieve in providing millions of dollars to cultural institutions.

Legacy remains the motivation for many, but it's high time philanthropists re-write their expectations around giving. Current global trends indicate a need to comprehensively review the creative sector’s stance on donations too.

Since George Floyd's murder in 2020, funding bodies have dialled up their desire to make grant-giving better contribute to social equity. It’s been fascinating to see some grasp the real meaning of this: true social equity necessitates equity in decision-making.

Following this logic means a move away from the current grant-giving model that distributes to the ‘needy’ according to the assessment of those positions of power.

The Lankelly Chase Foundation has grasped this in radical, game-changing style. Their response to this uncomfortable quandary has been to announce a redistribution over five years of all its assets - and its closure. Why? Because, in their own words, they “view the traditional philanthropy model as so entangled with Colonial Capitalism that it inevitably continues the harms of the past into the present”.

Conscious of the power-hold that exists across philanthropic giving, Lankelly Chase have decided to write themselves out of the picture and instead foreground the social need they seek to serve. There’s so much to learn from such radical action.

Wouldn’t it be amazing to see a system emerge in the UK whereby philanthropic giving becomes detached from individual organisations, where the names (of companies, or persons) behind those gifts are dialled down, and the impact of gift giving dialled up in public narrative?

The truism (so well-known that it’s never mentioned in polite company) is that those with wealth surround themselves with wealthy, or ‘trusted’ others. This can lead to a habitual mistrust of those who aren’t perceived to be ‘like them’ or already known to them. Wealth, like fame, can understandably make one uncertain of others’ motives. This not only makes for a delicate, oftentimes fraught space shared between both donors and development managers, it also means that the world of fundraising remains persistently, stubbornly lacking in diversity! Often, donors and grant giving bodies will speak to those fundraising professionals already known to them (so many trusts and foundations state this explicitly) – and many successful fundraisers would rather pull their own teeth than share with others either contacts or funds established through their own hard work - irrespective of the need they'd be supporting if they did. No time soon will they introduce others who, through their social status or protected characteristic, are less likely to know high net worth individuals. The result, perversely, is that well-supported organisations, who already have donors with deep pockets, become even more favourably placed to receive additional funds, and those working with marginalised communities remain perpetually outside the loop.

It doesn't have to be this way. What if, for example, 10% of every £1 donated to a named organisation by a named individual or company, was redistributed via a central fund, that smaller organisations could not only access, but also collectively assess who would benefit from that giving?

Such an approach would make giving more equitable, less ego-centric, and have an additional benefit by democratising the nature of fundraising itself, diversifying the decision-makers and improving the fundraising skills of marginalised communities in one fell swoop. This is entirely possible, and requires a collective approach to social equity, led by those large cultural institutions with the highest profile, and the deepest pockets. Most philanthropists are open to the idea of seeing their gifts go further, and knowing their power, could ask that a percentage of their gift is redistributed to those who don’t have the means to court them directly.

The UK needs to reimagine arts funding. Just as public funding has declined, private investment has also atrophied: in 2023 the Charities Aid Foundation reported a decline in charitable giving from the UK’s largest listed companies – a 17.5% drop over six years. And compared to other causes, charitable giving to the arts has been hammered: arts data firm Tessitura reported a whopping 25% drop in giving to the arts since 2016.

By operating in a cultural sector that’s partially funded by the state, both observers and those in the sector have relaxed into the belief that our cultural engagement will be bolstered by the cushion of taxpayer’s money – but those days are, I suspect, numbered.

The UK can't afford to rest on the laurels of public funding. Public purse is shrinking fast: according to the Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre, England’s local authority spend – and therefore its investment in the arts - has fallen by more than 30% in the last decade.

We need to get better at seeking private funds and embrace relationships with commercial investment opportunities. And this means getting our heads around the British ambivalence about both commercial giving - and receipt of such gifts. Those seeking to greenwash their
dubious business narratives through cultural engagement, or raise profile and influence through aligning with arts production, need to embrace the radical change that’s already in train.

There is a sea-change in attitudes to giving. And it’s one that true philanthropists will embrace wholeheartedly. It’s one where status and recognition are removed from the act of giving, where donors are not just content but delighted to not be named in the programme, above the gallery entrance, or on the donor’s wall. Where their gifts are disbursed collectively, equitably, and reach beyond the ‘known’ entry routes before them.In conversation recently in London, Darren Walker, head of the US Ford Foundation, shared an anecdote that both challenged preconceptions of what philanthropy looks like, and illustrated succinctly what a gift’s legacy can be.

Walker shared a tale of how, as a young man raised by a single, low-income parent, he once received a $500 bursary – a sum that came from a group of siblings who held modest jobs, but who annually clubbed together to offer Walker’s college this gift, in memory of their father who had attended the same college. “That gift made it possible for my mother to see me graduate, and without it she would definitely not have been able to afford to do”, he explained.

A small sum by many standards, from donors without profile or influence. But a sum large enough to make a lasting impression – setting the compassionate tone, and possibly the professional pathway, of arguably one of the most well-known African American philanthropists.

As Darren Walker exemplifies, a radical, collective approach to giving can have legacy far beyond any of our lifetimes, and can change the very nature of giving.


Explore other articles from Artiq Annual Volume 2 or read the full annual online here.