Comments on: Donation schmomation

By: Lauren

Fri, 26 Sep 2008 03:16:32 +0000

Why are artists willing to put up with this kind of thing in the name of “keeping the peace” with the right kind of people? This is why artists get taken advantage of in the first place, because we let people get away with stealing our work! And yes, I said stealing.

]]>

By: Tracy

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 02:13:35 +0000

Sari, I like that idea. I wonder how may non-profits would dig into their coffers and do that?

]]>

By: Sari Grove

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 02:09:26 +0000

Carol McArdle you are right (& love the spirit) , except that what Christine DeCamp was beating around was the main point about all of this , which is the word ” charity ” … kicking & screaming at charities doesn’t look so good … again , sorry for the border , but here (in Canada) the government is shutting down charities who are guilty of taking in more than they are giving out … the corruption here got to be too much & in 2008 a policy was instituted about funds going in not getting stuck in the wallets of the employees or volunteer workers … ( an inquiry into how much did that event cost including goods & services compared to how much money did you raise is not an impertinent question …) & an evaluation of how much did a work of art sell last year compared to the gallery pricepoint last year is very helpful …( after a low selling point year at a silent auction I prefer not to re-give the next …)

]]>

By: Michael Lynn Adams

Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:52:04 +0000

I agree with you Carol, the Chairman’s action was an outrage. My suggestion was to make something positive from a bad situation, since the other alternatives could harm the artist even more. However, the TAX LAWS ARE THE REAL OUTRAGE. They put artist at such a terrible disadvantage and discourage artists from being even more generous than they already are. We need to change the law. Write your Congress person to support H.R. 1524 – The Artist-Museum Partnership Act. It is easy to do through Americans for the Arts Web site. It might be a good idea to wait until after the elections. I think congress has other thing on their mind a the moment.

]]>

By: Alyson B. Stanfield

Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:25:17 +0000

Carol McArdle for president!

]]>

By: Carol McArdle

Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:45:59 +0000

This has touched a nerve in me. Everyone who made comments is being so understanding about this. I just want to say very loudly, this is OUTRAGEOUS! Sadly it is just another example of how artists are too often taken advantage of. When are we going to stop letting people walk all over us? It is degrading to Artists, degrading to Art, degrading to any working person. Can you imagine if this was a car that had been donated? Can you imagine the outrage and outcry? This is WRONG! As artists, our time, effort and skill deserve a whole lot better. If we believe that creating and selling art is a valid livelihood we will fight for our rights. Perhaps we still buy the lie that we are not doing a “real” job. Otherwise why are we not fighting back against this kind of fiasco. Artists, you deserve better.

]]>

By: Christine DeCamp

Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:04:48 +0000

Unfortunately this kind of stuff happens quite often. I have experienced it & know other people who have, as well. Michael’s solution is excellent. Resolving such a situation can be tricky–many people in the “Chairman” positions are big collectors or on boards of museums, or other art nonprofits that can affect your position as an artist.(If you are trying to get grants, etc) I would like to think otherwise, but I am afraid the politics of the art world take prescedence over ethics and morality.

]]>

By: Sari Grove

Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:25:48 +0000

The way we were … The correct method used to be 1) charity buys painting from artist 2)artist donates that money back to the charity 3)charity issues a tax receipt in that amount to the artist … the end … at least that is how it was spelled out in an older legal document I found about artists & charities , the Canadian version of course … the idea was that the asset’s value needs to be established , otherwise it is a barter situation , which causes misunderstandings… ahem … the next time around , just sell your painting in the normal manner & earmark that money for your favorite charity , or sell directly to the chairman & re-donate the money back … ( you can tell charities this when they solicit you , the artist , & give them the opportunity to buy the painting if they want it so bad , & you will re-give the charity the money …once the painting is owned by the charity , like any other collector , the dissemination of the property is sort of their own business , unless you specify a person rather than an organisation in the transfer of ownership during the sale … p.s. just an opinion btw , the ball is in the artist’s court here , so you have many choices actually …

]]>

By: Alyson B. Stanfield

Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:11:41 +0000

Michael: It’s not true that most people who work for nonprofits are volunteers. They are paid staff. I was one of them. Yes, there are volunteers, but it doesn’t excuse the Chairman (with a capital C) from accepting a gift that wasn’t intended for him. That is unethical. I do like this, though–very much! ” Then ask them to write a letter to their members along with a press release announcing the generous gift the artist gave to the organization to be used as a gift of great honor and value to the chairperson.” Excellent idea. Scott: I agree. I don’t think it was a deliberate scam, but an enormous error in judgment. The whole thing could have been avoided by going back to the artist and asking if it would be okay to give the painting to the Chairman. Again, we don’t know all of the details here. But I did just find out it happened last April. It’s always best to act on these things quickly. Otherwise, they fester.

]]>

By: Scott Bulger Photography

Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:32:10 +0000

I don’t think that I would refer to this as a “charity scam”, more like an error in judgment.

]]>