What do you think?
Rate this book
Trustees of Culture: Power, Wealth, and Status on Elite Arts Boards
Cultural trusteeship is a subject that fascinates those who wonder about the relationship between power and culture. What compels the wealthy to serve on the boards of fine arts institutions? How do they exercise their influence as trustees, and how does this affect the way arts institutions operate? To find out, Francie Ostrower conducted candid personal interviews with 76 trustees drawn from two opera companies and two art museums in the United States.
Her new study demonstrates that members of elite arts boards walk a fine line between maintaining their status and serving the needs of the large-scale organizations they oversee. As class members whose status depends in part on the prestige of the boards on which they serve, trustees seek to perpetuate arts boards as exclusive elite enclaves. But in response to pressures to increase and diversify the audiences for arts institutions, elite board members act in a surprisingly open manner in terms of organizational accessibility and operations.
Written with clarity and grace, Trustees of Culture will contribute significantly to our understanding of organizational governance; the politics of fundraising; elite arts participation and philanthropy; as well as the consequences of wider social policies that continue to emphasize private financial support. Ostrower's study will prove to be indispensable reading for not just sociologists of culture, but anyone interested in how the arts are financially and institutionally supported.
Her new study demonstrates that members of elite arts boards walk a fine line between maintaining their status and serving the needs of the large-scale organizations they oversee. As class members whose status depends in part on the prestige of the boards on which they serve, trustees seek to perpetuate arts boards as exclusive elite enclaves. But in response to pressures to increase and diversify the audiences for arts institutions, elite board members act in a surprisingly open manner in terms of organizational accessibility and operations.
Written with clarity and grace, Trustees of Culture will contribute significantly to our understanding of organizational governance; the politics of fundraising; elite arts participation and philanthropy; as well as the consequences of wider social policies that continue to emphasize private financial support. Ostrower's study will prove to be indispensable reading for not just sociologists of culture, but anyone interested in how the arts are financially and institutionally supported.
158 pages, Paperback
First published September 15, 2003
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
Read
September 28, 2022Only read half. Nothing too crazy here. If you become wealthy enough there's an expectation that you'll contribute to a cause. The trustees for art institutions consider the role prestigious. Most trustees are millionaires. Some are passionate about art. Others are outright philistines.
The same class-based meanings that motivate someone to join a board also shape their decision making once they're in place. The boards seem to generally have good intentions. They want to be open to the world. They're hobbled by the worldview that comes with their social position.
That all sounds about right. The meat of the book is whether boards are more influenced by class or by the dynamics of their organization. For instance, when the boards were WASPier they recruited Jews because they felt that the organization would benefit from their inclusion (even if they were an outgroup).
Boards are basically conservative. They view their mission as survival. And so they're most willing to change when they feel existentially obligated (lol).
Knowing these tendencies is helpful but insufficient to explain board action in general. The people on the boards aren't reducible to their class position. That said, if arts policy were to change too much these boards would probably withdraw their financial support. There are probably better ways to structure art policy but they seem unlikely with this form of patronage. When I say "better ways" I mean that the programing of most museums is disconnected from the community. The book never mentions this but my impression is that museums compete with each other for prestige. To become valid they collect the same well known names. Somehow I run in to the same few artists wherever I go. I refuse to believe that these few people are so incontestable. I suspect they're there because of name recognition. Anyway there are probably less glitzy choices that would resonate better with popular audiences. Also it'd be incredible to prioritize living artists. If someone is going to be famous they might as well be alive.
The book is everything you expect. Super short. Super clear.
The same class-based meanings that motivate someone to join a board also shape their decision making once they're in place. The boards seem to generally have good intentions. They want to be open to the world. They're hobbled by the worldview that comes with their social position.
That all sounds about right. The meat of the book is whether boards are more influenced by class or by the dynamics of their organization. For instance, when the boards were WASPier they recruited Jews because they felt that the organization would benefit from their inclusion (even if they were an outgroup).
Boards are basically conservative. They view their mission as survival. And so they're most willing to change when they feel existentially obligated (lol).
Knowing these tendencies is helpful but insufficient to explain board action in general. The people on the boards aren't reducible to their class position. That said, if arts policy were to change too much these boards would probably withdraw their financial support. There are probably better ways to structure art policy but they seem unlikely with this form of patronage. When I say "better ways" I mean that the programing of most museums is disconnected from the community. The book never mentions this but my impression is that museums compete with each other for prestige. To become valid they collect the same well known names. Somehow I run in to the same few artists wherever I go. I refuse to believe that these few people are so incontestable. I suspect they're there because of name recognition. Anyway there are probably less glitzy choices that would resonate better with popular audiences. Also it'd be incredible to prioritize living artists. If someone is going to be famous they might as well be alive.
The book is everything you expect. Super short. Super clear.
Displaying 1 of 1 review