When looking at the health of Irish Arts it is easy to see the tip of the iceberg glistening in the sun and glory of Oscars, BRITs, BAFTAs, Booker Prize, and Gucci advertising triumphs. But, as glamorous as the Irish arts look on the red carpet, the true health of the arts in Ireland is below the surface. We have a wealth of innovative and impressive arts organisations in Ireland and many of them make up the main body of the iceberg; out of the spotlight, submerged, and combatting the warming saline waters of financial unsustainability.

A way to cool the waters that has been overlooked for too long is philanthropy. Often misconstrued as a pursuit exclusively for the super wealthy, philanthropy is what enables many arts institutions, big and small, to stay in operation.

On and behind the screen, stage and page recent Irish success has been sensational. However, the brightness with which Irish stars are shining obscures our perception of the reality, which is that many artists and arts organisations in Ireland are facing a critical lack of funding.

Although Irish people are instinctively charitable and there exists a number of brilliant philanthropic institutions in Ireland, there does not exist a culture of philanthropy. Part of the explanation for this is that many people in Ireland are not familiar with what philanthropy really means, and how it differs from charity.

‘The true health of the arts in Ireland is below the surface.’

When it comes to the arts, we are facing an uphill battle. Both the arts and philanthropy have an image problem that has resulted in chronic underfunding. So when it comes to arts philanthropy, it should come as no surprise that much more needs to be done to cultivate not just greater financial support but a culture of it.

A culture of good philanthropy involves ‘good giving’ and ‘good taking.’ In the context of the arts in Ireland, the United Arts Club has a role to play as a catalyst, a hub, and an example for good arts philanthropy in Dublin and in Ireland.

In the last year, there has been a strongly discernible Irish flavour to awards ceremonies in film, TV, literature, theatre, and music. If they were not already internationally acclaimed artists, in the last few years, figures such as Murphy, Scott, Mescal, Ronan, Keoghan, Farrell, Lynch, Rooney, Keegan, CMAT, Hozier and Horan have created a lively Irish community in the town of Stardom.

There have been a number of newspaper columns and press interviews that have asked the question: why is Irish culture so hot right now?

When posed this question by an interviewer, Cillian Murphy admitted he was asked it frequently, but conceded: “I don’t have a good answer.” His best effort at an explanation was that “Irish people tell stories very well… We have a long history of it… We are a people comfortable with story, with song, with poetry.”

A plethora of articles attempting to explain Irish success in the arts point to themes such as soft masculinity, biceps, and Brexit. But no-one, it seems, can really explain Ireland’s explosion in talent; why so many and why now? Whether it is a coincidence or there is something in Hibernia’s water, it should be celebrated, for this is a golden age in Irish arts.

However, as the Club’s President, Lenny Abrahamson, warned in an interview last month that given the financial and institutional difficulties that young artists are facing, “we are in danger of losing a generation of talent.”

Despite the government’s generous funding of the arts during the pandemic and increased funding for the Arts Council over the last few years, the arts requires other means of investment for survival.

Generally, every country’s arts sector has three forms of funding: state funding, commercial revenue, and private investment (which includes philanthropy). The arts in the United States is funded less by state funding and more by private investment. Continental Europe, by contrast, receives a greater proportion of state support. As always, Ireland’s position as piggy-in-the-middle means that its cultural sector gets less government funding than its European counterparts and less private investment than the Arts in America.

It is only when this reality is acknowledged that you understand that the perception of philanthropy in Ireland needs to change. It is in defining the difference between philanthropy and charity that many people’s misconceptions can be seen. Charity is the voluntary support, typically by financial means, to those in need. Philanthropy, on the other hand, strives to use funding to solve problems from a long-term perspective.

‘Philanthropy is defined not by how much you give but how you give it.’

It is generally true that Irish people are better at giving in response to crisis than they are to giving to more embedded cultural and societal causes. In the wake of the humanitarian crises in Ukraine and Gaza, for example, more so than in most other European countries, the Irish population answered emergency appeals swiftly and generously.

There is a culture of charity in Ireland, but it is not an exaggeration to say that there is not a culture of philanthropy. Ireland only has 164 philanthropic institutions. Compared to European countries with similar sized populations, Slovakia has double the number of philanthropic entities as Ireland, Finland has over triple, Norway has forty-six times as many (7,612), and Denmark eighty-five times (14,000).

These comparative figures from Europe demonstrate that philanthropy in these countries is not perceived as a pursuit exclusively for the very wealthy. Importantly, philanthropy is defined not by how much you give but how you give it.

The few occasions when philanthropy enters the public domain is when an individual or a foundation makes an eye-wateringly large donation to a certain cause. Incredible though those sorts of donations are, they distort people’s perceptions of philanthropy. In fact, to a smaller arts organisation, a donor who quietly gives a few thousand euros annually can have a transformational impact.  

Collecting art, buying theatre tickets or going to a gig constitutes patronage of the arts. Being a member of an arts organisation such as the United Arts Club means being a patron, and that is vital to supporting their commercial viability and the arts community more generally. However, in patronage there is a fair value exchange: you buy art or tickets and in return you get spiritual nourishment, intellectual stimulation or simply, a good time.

To be an arts philanthropist, what you give must be, however you quantify it, more than what you get back in return. As a rule, the nearer to parity the value of the gift and the benefits are, the less charitable the gift is.

French sociologist Marcel Mauss said: “gift-giving can be both a concern for others and an expression of self-interest.” Whether that self-interest is the warm feeling you get from having given, from the heartfelt appreciation you receive, or the access to shows or networks that the public do not get, it is undoubtedly important that the donor feels like they are recognised for their support.

‘Good philanthropy is about good giving and good taking.’

Leslie Ramos, in her recent book on arts philanthropy, emphasises that “nobody is obliged to give.” If organisations want to attract donors and encourage them to give regularly, in addition to proactive gratitude, benefits in the form of access, networks, or recognition are often necessary.

That said, transactional giving can lead to bad philanthropy, which can do more harm than good to arts organisations. Good philanthropy is about ‘good giving’ and ‘good taking,’ which are best explained as the antitheses of ‘bad giving’ and ‘bad taking.’

A donor might be accused of ‘bad giving’ if they burden an institution with time-consuming or labour-intensive special access requests, requiring excessive reporting on their donation’s impact, or placing too many restrictions on how their money is used. It can be incredibly hard to turn down any donation when facing financial difficulties; however, it can be damaging to accept ‘bad giving’ for organisations that are already over-stretched. ‘Good giving’ means donors care more about how they can help than what they can get in return and trust the work and processes of organisations they support.

Even though many arts institutions in Ireland have a paucity of donors, it will surprise you how many of them are ‘bad takers.’ An organisation might display ‘bad taking’ by not adequately thanking their donors, causing ‘donor fatigue’ by asking them for more money too often, or initiating fundraising programmes that do not raise enough funds to justify the time and labour the institution puts into it. ‘Good taking’ requires organisations to be thankful, transparent, and aware of what benefits they can afford to offer their donors.

As people are becoming much wealthier much younger, the demographic of high-level philanthropists is shifting. As a result, the approach to philanthropy is changing. Younger philanthropists have led a movement of Impact Philanthropy. Using data, donors are able to quantify how their money can make the most meaningful impact. Theoretically, ensuring donations are spent most efficiently is a good thing. However, arts philanthropy can easily fall into the crevasse of causes whose impacts cannot be measured in data form. It is vital that the societal value of the arts is championed by those who appreciate it.

It is equally as important that the arts are not just conserved but that change is supported. Arts institutions quickly descend into irrelevance when they do not adapt and embrace younger faces, new influences, and fresh approaches.

“Nobody is obliged to give.”

In explaining the financial difficulties facing many artists and arts organisations, Tracey Emin said: “You can blame the government, or you can blame individuals. I’m going to blame the philistines who have no regard for the arts.”

Emin’s puckish rhetoric might reinforce people’s opinions that the arts are elitist, but she raises an important issue. Some people have no interest in the arts, so more must be done by patrons of the arts to help cultivate a culture of philanthropy and encourage others, who may not do so already, to engage in the arts. Being a part of the inception of an Irish culture of arts philanthropy is believing that the country would benefit spiritually and socially from more diverse culture and thought and that Irish artists, through story, song, movement, and expression, are the vehicles to engender that change.

The history of good philanthropy is the history of quiet actions, motivated by an appreciation of the arts as an instrument for societal nourishment, that have inspired big change. The future of good philanthropy will follow the same formula: quiet action; benevolent motivation; big change.

With this in mind, what role do the United Arts Club and its members have to play? Unlike many other professions, artists have always been supportive of other artists. Seldom do you find an artist reluctant to give when they have the means. There are many wonderful examples of members who donate their time and money to the club and other arts organisations for the betterment of emerging artists and Irish communities.

Sadly, over time, the government and the public’s sense of responsibility for the arts has dwindled. Accordingly, an institution such as the United Arts Club must emphasise commercial viability and encourage good philanthropy, for the sake of its own health as well as for the health of the Irish arts community.

The United Arts Club is one of only a handful of arts institutions in Ireland that has the history, resources, and multi-disciplinary membership capable of pioneering real cultural change. The Club has all the ingredients to play a major role in leading and embodying a resurgence in arts philanthropy and community in Ireland.  

Members of the United Arts Club are custodians of everything the institution represents: the building it has called home since 1920; the history of its members, their societies, and their achievements; the principles on which the club was founded; and its role as a community that actively encourages creativity, performance, and the coming together of all types of cultivated people.

With the privileges of membership of such an historic club comes responsibilities for conserving its history and principles. However, if the iceberg is not to melt from the bottom and the arts in Ireland are to continue to thrive, it should also be the mission of every arts patron to channel the axiom of philanthropy: to give more than you expect back in return.

Cover Art is ‘A Rabaiotti Ice Cream’ by Aidan Hickey.

‍