From the fall of 2024 through the spring of 2025 I conducted research on data cultures and philanthropy as they relate to the arts. This final report, "Philanthropic Paradigm Shifts," brings everything together - tracing the dynamic relationships between organizational data management, digital transformation, and the increasingly formalized systems of institutional philanthropy, I attempt to gain an understanding of how these shifts alter and inform the tactics used in justifying subsidies for arts & cultural organizations. Sociolinguistic analysis, economic data, cultural commentary, and industrial case studies are used to capture an image of the field and support the broader study of historical and contemporary issues within arts funding in the United States. The following offers a summary of the report, which you can download as a pdf or view online. Whether you’re curious or deep in the field, please let me know what you think.
Historically, measuring the arts has been a complex challenge, but legal and economic shifts in the 20th century, including the rise of industrial foundations and government arts councils, gradually brought the arts into the economic sphere. The establishment of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) in the U.S. in the 1960s led to significant growth in nonprofit arts institutions, which increasingly competed for standardized federal and foundation funding. Arts and cultural nonprofits often operate in multiple markets, balancing earned income with contributed revenue from various funding regimes. Success for these organizations increasingly depends on a proactive market orientation and effective data use. However, arts organizations have historically shown slower adoption of data analytic methods, indicating weaker data cultures, often due to budgetary constraints, lack of training, and resistance from leadership who fear a purely commercial perception of the arts. This data-driven environment, especially with demands from funders, can lead to a "cycle of disempowerment" for nonprofits, characterized by an erosion of autonomy, data drift (shifting focus to funder metrics), and data fragmentation (juggling disparate databases for various funders).
A historical analysis of philanthropic paradigms reveals significant shifts in how philanthropy is understood and practiced. By examining attributive adjectives associated with "philanthropy" in the Google Books corpus from 1700 onwards, a clear movement toward more neutral and less subjective language is evident, suggesting a broader societal shift toward the formalization and depersonalization of philanthropy. Early periods (1700-1770) frequently used terms like "divine" and "Christian," indicating a strong religious connotation. By the 20th century (1920-2000), these terms were largely replaced by more secular and institutional descriptors such as "Practical," "Modern," "Preventive," and notably, "Corporate". This linguistic transformation signifies a secularization and institutionalization of philanthropy, with the creation of modern corporate foundations in the early 1900s playing a pivotal role in this shift. The erosion of positive emotional tone and increasing objectivity in the language used to describe philanthropy also points to its linguistic "dis-embedding" from purely social or personal virtues to a more neutral, formalized method of addressing societal issues.
In the contemporary U.S. landscape, private philanthropy remains the primary funding source for the arts, vastly outweighing direct government funding, although tax policies do provide a substantial public subsidy for private giving. This reliance means that philanthropy effectively governs the arts by financially influencing institutional priorities and demanding proof of impact. A significant contemporary trend is the rise of Effective Altruism (EA), which prioritizes quantifiable returns and "saving lives," often critically viewing arts and cultural initiatives as less efficient uses of funds compared to direct humanitarian aid. This mindset challenges the traditional justification of art for its intrinsic aesthetic value, instead favoring artistic endeavors that demonstrate clear social or political impact. To adapt, arts organizations are exploring new justification strategies, such as highlighting the health, psychological, and community benefits of artistic engagement, potentially positioning the arts as addressing more fundamental human needs. The demand for data and measurable impact has also led to the development of national arts indices (e.g., SMU DataArts, NASERC) and the emergence of consulting firms as data brokers, providing specialized metrics and knowledge. Looking forward, the development of new philanthropic matchmaking platforms offers a promising path, as they can connect nonprofits with a diverse range of donors, allowing both efficacy-oriented and passion-driven philanthropists to find projects that align with their values, potentially fostering a more democratized and grassroots approach to fundraising.
The report offers a 66-page, deep dive into the changing face of data culture and philanthropy.