Ninety lawmakers are co-sponsoring legislation introduced by Representative John Lewis of Georgia and 23 senators are backing Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont’s measure to change the tax code so that artists can take a deduction for the fair market value of their work when they donate it to a museum, as collectors do.
ARTKABINETT social network for fine art collectors believes that the overall comunity benefits when artists have liberal working environment -- just like other business enterprises.
Before a 1969 change in the tax code, artists did enjoy the same tax benefits as collectors. Now they can deduct only the cost of tools used to create the piece of art, like brushes and canvas.
Representative Lewis, who sits on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, said in an e-mail that “the current tax code has the end result of robbing this nation of so many highly celebrated works.”
In the three years up to 1969, according to art-advocacy group Americans for the Arts, the Museum of Modern Art in New York received 321 gifts from artists; in the three years after, the museum received only 28 works from artists -- a drop of more than 90 percent.
Supporters of the tax break hope to use the weak economy to bolster their case that donations to museums will increase if artists have an incentive to part with their paintings, books and musical compositions.
While the economic climate might be ripe for the artist’s argument, the political climate isn’t.
Everybody upset
“The idea of tax cuts now has everybody upset,” said Washington-based contemporary artist Sam Gilliam (shown above), whose colorful draped and folded canvases and fabrics sell for $50,000 to $90,000. “How can you possibly solve the problem for artists when the president can’t solve the problem for the country?”
Gilliam’s studio is a large, sparsely furnished space just off Washington’s U street corridor, a thriving area of galleries, shops and restaurants.
During an interview there, the artist said he went to Capitol Hill four years ago to lobby lawmakers. Now he’s disillusioned.
“If I made automobiles, I would be honored. If I were an investor, I would be honored. But if you’re an artist you aren’t,” said Gilliam, 76.
Artists backing the legislation are seeking a “double benefit,” said Wendy Gerzog, a law professor at the University of Baltimore. She said that instead of selling their work -- their primary source of income -- they would get the benefit of not having to pay income tax plus a tax deduction. She said collectors use after-tax money to purchase art, so it isn’t a fair comparison.
Incorrect Premise
“Ms. Gerzog’s point is based on an incorrect premise,” said Mia Brownell, 39, (seen here) an emerging artist living in New Rochelle, New York. Her paintings of still-life elements mixed with swirling strands of DNA sell for $1,000 to $20,000.
“Most artists do not sell their work as their primary source of income,” said Brownell, whose husband is also an artist. “I teach in order to live. My sales, if I’m lucky, cover the cost of running a studio and developing my career. There are only a handful of artists that sell enough to live on.”
As for the “double benefit” Gerzog mentioned, Brownell said, “That’s a laugh.
My husband and I currently pay income tax in three states. We live in New York but travel to New Jersey and Connecticut to teach.” (Her work is shown below right)
Ultimate Beneficiary
“The public is the ultimate beneficiary here,” said Roland Augustine, co-founder of the Luhring Augustine Gallery in New York. “Changing the law will broaden collections and make it so that institutions will have to put less money into acquisitions and can use that money for education and exhibitions.”
“Acquisition budgets are at an all-time low in this environment,” said Laura Millin, executive director at the Missoula Art Museum, a small contemporary-art museum in Montana whose budget has been cut by 20 percent since the recession set in. Its acquisition budget is about $6,000 this year, she said.
Contemporary artist Anne Appleby wants to make a $60,000 gift of paintings, drawings and prints to the museum but she says she can’t afford to unless she gets a tax deduction, Millin said.
Appleby’s gift “would put this little museum on the map nationally,” said Millin, adding that the tax code leaves “all museums at a great disadvantage, but I think a small museum is going to be hurt even worse because resources are so limited.”
Buys vs. Donations
Last year U.S. museums bought, on average, 91 works apiece, down from 126 in 2005. The vast majority -- 782 pieces per museum -- were donations, according to Andy Finch, co-director of government affairs at the Association of Art Museum Directors.
Brownell said that since her New York solo show opened at Sloan Fine Art two weeks ago, “I have been approached by three not-for-profit charities for donations of artwork. Although I wished I could help all three, I could not afford to do so.”
She settled eventually on the Rema Hort Mann Foundation, which provides support for cancer sufferers and for artists in need of funds. She reserved a small $900 painting for the foundation’s coming benefit auction.
“I don¹t decide whether to give based on a deduction, but not being able to get a deduction is a financial burden that I have to take into account,” Brownell said.
“There’s no doubt that the window is closing for this Congress, but it’s not shut yet,” said Finch of the Association of Art Museum Directors.
“If a bill comes to the Senate floor that is open to amendments -- a big if, as you recall from the ’don’t ask’ fight last week -- then there is still an opportunity to pursue. We continue to talk, most recently to Senate Finance staff. No door is definitively shut.”
courtesy, Kate Andersen Brower/Bloomber News
