In a message dated 02-03-03 02:27:33 EST, Deb Fuller wrote:

<< The irky thing isn't so much naming a theater after the company that
donated
 but the fact that the theater was RE-NAMED after the company that donated. >>

To me this is a very important issue.  When a corporate donor's name is given
to an institution or other entity which already has a name--especially one
intended to honor someone's achievements--that leaves a very bad taste in my
mouth.  Removing someone's name from an institution, when the name was given
originally as an honor, is, in my opinion, dishonoring that person's name or
memory.  It's a slap in the face.  You can, after all, give donor credit
prominently without having to rename the entity.  What would people think if
the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts were renamed, say, the Microsoft
Center, just because the corporation gave a huge gift?  And what if a big
donor insists on having a presidential library named after himself or his
company instead of the president?  Impossible?  Absurd?  Maybe that's what it
would take to stop this ridiculous spiral.

Actually, I don't have a problem with new institutions being named after the
donor, unless the name would cause some sort of scandal or PR problem--in
which case it would be worth considering whether the gift should be accepted
at all, with or without the name.  The Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden
is often cited as a precedent for naming rights by way of defending new
"naming rights" for donors, but there's a big, big difference: that museum
wouldn't exist at all without Joseph Hirrshhorn's collection and money.  In
fact, the collection--since it was in fact the Hirshhorn collection--would
have made the name appropriate even without his funding.  As I recall, some
of the objections at the time concerned the issue of how Hirshhorn made his
money--and if that had been a sufficient concern, the gift should not have
been accepted at all (Mother Teresa's famous statement that she didn't care
where the money came from notwithstanding).   Renaming an existing
institution after a big donor is an entirely different issue, I think.

The galling thing about the naming issue is that a lot of museum directors
and executives are insisting that this is the "new philanthropy" and it's the
only way you can get big donors to pony up.  Yet there are still enough
instances of donors who DON'T insist on naming rights to demonstrate that it
ain't necessarily so.  Excuse my suspicious mind, but I can't shake the
feeling that in many cases directors and fund-raisers have OFFERED this perk
early in the fundraising game to encourage donations, rather than donors
demanding it.  Once such an enhancement has been offered, it's hard to
rescind it.  And once the precedent has been set, donors WILL expect or
demand it.  It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Obviously I can't prove my
contention, but it would certainly make an interesting research project,
wouldn't it?  Whoever started this nasty ball rolling is responsible for
letting it bounce around in a steadily increasing number of institutions.

When donors pay for discrete chunks of your institution, I don't have a
problem with seeing their names emblazoned on the chunks, although it can get
a little silly.  In a visit to a West Coast museum last year, I was much
amused to note that nearly every wall, nook, and cranny in exhibition
galleries bore a donor's name.  I can't recall the exact wording of the
attributions, but I believe the titles were something like "The John Doe
Wall".  Touring offices, I half-expected to see donor's names on wastebaskets
and desks, although it didn't get that silly.  But the names were in the
public spaces.  (It appeared that the naming had been the result of an
organized fund-raising campaign.)  Notably, the names were all individuals
rather than corporations.  While I was amused, I wasn't outraged because this
approach seemed logical and straightforward.  If the donor in fact paid for
the wall, I don't object to seeing his or her name on it.  But they haven't
REnamed the entire museum for a big donor--yet.

When I was growing up, I noticed that each stained-glass window in my
family's church bore the name of the donor.  But if someone had donated
millions to the church, I think the best they could have expected would have
been a plaque commemorating the gift--or if they paid for a new auxiliary
building, perhaps the building would have been named after them.  I don't
think anyone would ever have considered renaming the whole church for them.
Perhaps things have changed nowadays: there may be a Microsoft Methodist
Church (or whatever) down the road for us.

Similarly, I hope museums and other cultural institutions will resist the
temptation to rename their already-named facilities to honor big benefactors.
 Where will it end?  If a donor of $100 million to an institution succeeds in
getting it renamed for him, do we rename it again for a $200 million donor?
Stadium naming rights already raise the hackles of hometown fans--must we do
the same thing to museums?

You can joke about being a "whore" to get contributions, but the name is apt.
 Some people claim they have to prostitute themselves to survive.  That
doesn't make it acceptable or right.  But whether it's true or not, it's
evidence that there's a problem crying for a solution.

David Haberstich

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).