Art Sponsorship Isn’t Necessarily a Bad Thing

Regarding the Philip Morris Cos. Inc. sponsorship of the recent exhibition “Memory and Metaphor: The Art of Romare Bearden, 1940-1947” at UCLA’s Wight Art Gallery (“Coalition Fuming Over Philip Morris Sponsorship,” Dec. 6):

It should be noted that the history of art sponsorship and patronage is old and often controversial. In virtually all cases of art sponsorship or patronage, there exists some motive. Motives range from promoting artistic taste and fashion, through the selling of art, as product, to manipulating art as political or economic propaganda.

These motives have paralleled and intersected the efforts and interests of the world’s artists. In the case of the Bearden exhibition, it seems silly and simple-minded to conclude that participants of this or any other artistic enterprise underwritten by Philip Morris are going to be influenced to smoke, drink or in some other way change their purchasing patterns.

Philip Morris and other companies supporting the arts are to be commended for providing a badly needed public service. It is clear that our government provides little support for the arts, and what little it does provide is very often tainted with a thinly veiled censorship. Without corporate and individual sponsorship, U.S. arts would quite literally dry up and die.

Please understand, I am not so naive as to think that companies such as Philip Morris do not understand the public relations value of their generosity, but I am also aware that their money could just as easily be spent promoting their own products, lobbying legislation or championing some other cause.

Instead, Philip Morris has demonstrated a strong and unwavering support of the arts--and, because of its efforts, millions of Americans have been able to experience ballet, symphonic music, theater and other artistic endeavors.

In a more perfect world, when motives are not as important as the art they produce and support, this kind of issue would be a thing of the past. However, if history provides us any perspective on the future, patronage of the arts will forever be steeped in a certain kind of controversy. Yet we must never lose sight of the fact that it is art, ultimately, that is important and not who fronted the money for us to experience and judge it.

GREGORY J. BISHOPP, Dean of Fine Arts and Communications

Saddleback College

Mission Viejo