Quote of the Day (John Taylor, on Libraries vs. Art Museums as Objectives of Philanthropy)

“Art museums generally are more prestigious than cultural institutions like libraries, because books—most books, anyway—have some practical purpose, which means as a whole they lack the wastefulness necessary for a pure act of conspicuous consumption. Also, art is more expensive than books, and thus provides a greater opportunity to sustain pecuniary damage.”—John Taylor, Circus of Ambition: The Culture of Wealth and Power in the Eighties (1989)

For all the seeming changes in policy and personnel across the Reagan, Clinton, Bush I and Bush II administrations, a few things held constant, at least until recently: the subservience to the superrich, especially in the financial sector, as a source of American wealth and power, as well as campaign contributions; the attitude of these “new rich”; and the institutions that craved their largesse. If you doubt me on the last point, take a look at today’s plutocratic periodical, Portfolio, then call to mind its short-lived counterpart in the Eighties, Manhattan Inc.

At least one chapter is John Taylor’s book was excerpted in Manhattan Inc. while it was still around. The quotation above, of course, with its invocation of “conspicuous consumption,” smacks of Thorstein Veblen .When I first read it, it made me think at first that art museums receive more money from the wealthy than libraries. That may well be true, but I haven’t been able to check on it, one way or the other.

As a librarian, however, I can testify to the usefulness that Taylor notes in what professionals now call “information centers.” Industries and individuals can find all kinds of essential information for staying solvent—including, most crucially now, job information. Don’t be surprised if you start seeing more people in libraries for just this purpose—then ask yourself if you really want to see public funds for these kinds of institutions cut.

So, what are the new trends in philanthropy, aside from this? One good place to start is with this article on the “New Economy” giving, by Christine Cavicchio.

She points out that, besides the levels of giving today, there’s another major difference between the past and contemporary philanthropic scenes: The early robber baron-philanthropists came out of the “infrastructure industry”—steel, railroads, oil—so they poured their money into “concrete infrastructure” such as libraries, museums, and universities. On the other hand, contemporary philanthropists such as Bill Gates, Pierre Omidyar, and Jim Barksdale—products of an information economy—have concentrated on “intellectual infrastructure”—Internet access, education, medicine, and community building.

I would love to see another Andrew Carnegie come along and make a crucial difference in the life of libraries, because God knows that politicians get this gleam in their eyes whenever budget time comes and they need to cut something. Case in point: Philadelphia is closing 11 of its 54 library branches.

Many of my friends believe that only a Republican would be so cold-hearted as to deprive kids of these vital after-school facilities, the poor of job-seeking data, or underpaid (they get psychic income, hadn’t you heard?) librarians of their paychecks during the holidays.

But it turns out that the mayor of the City of Brotherly Love is a Democrat. Oh, yeah—did I mention that his plan is intrinsically anti-union, since he has proposed that volunteers run branches (I mean, who needs all these professionals with library degrees?) and that the city, according to the New York Times, has discussed with private organizations about “their taking over management of the swimming pools and libraries scheduled for closing”?

Between the laissez-faire plutocrats and the budget-ax-swinging liberals, libraries need more “friends” than ever. That means you and I, faithful reader, are going to have to get busy…