I just don't think that the differences you make by donating to a museum or an art gallery really compare to the differences you make by donating to the charities that fight global poverty.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Most philanthropists would still rather donate to elite schools, concert halls or religious groups than help the poor or sick.
I struggle with the idea of comparing people's work and art. The notion of giving awards or putting a competitive spin on something that is a relative art form is sort of odd to me.
I'm all in favor of supporting fancy museums and elite schools, but face it: These aren't really charities as most people understand the term.
Much corporate giving is charitable in nature rather than philanthropic.
Most museums - with all their burdens to pay for exhibitions, administration, and security - really don't have any money really to acquire art, with few exceptions.
I believe in the democratization of the arts. What do I mean by that? I think museums, with some exceptions, have a responsibility to educate a much broader public.
I think most art comes out of poverty and hard times.
As I see it, most major philanthropists have been bullied into giving. They feel social pressure to give. It has become a cost of doing business.
If you're an enthusiast and you love the world like I do, it comes naturally. But I think charity must become more fun to give, more interactive and imaginative.
If you compare charitable donations, you name it, religious tithing, giving, Americans trump citizens of the world hands down.