´óÏó´«Ã½

Hi Will,

I'm not exactly clear what the argument you're making is here - just that artists are generous people motivated by passion and commitment? But we know that already, that's why they work in the arts, and not (easy target, sorry) banking, for example. If they weren't passionate people who thought they could in some way change the world they'd follow the money.

Their reward, surely, is that they feel good about themselves and get you writing columns which reinforce that feeling. And I must disagree with you that career and PR considerations did not play a part.

The calculation is simple - at least if you want to help the charity. If you earn more than the carers at the hospice then you give your money; if not, then you give your time. That is why bankers usually give money rather than time: it is the most efficient use of resources to help the charity. But attending a fundraiser is not - emphatically not - giving your time. Giving your time would be spending the evening looking after the children so that the carers could have some respite. And it probably wouldn't involve alerting the media to your good deed, either.

There are many excellent reasons why nearly all the major religions prefer that charity should be given in private. This has been one of them.

#2 Two small flaws in your argument I'm afraid.

1 ) Miranda and co didn't attend the fund-raiser, they WERE the fund-raiser. That theatre probably holds around a thousand people all of whom paid to see them and none of that money went to the celebs.

2 ) I follow Miranda on Twitter and she made no mention of this at all! Hardly the actions of someone who's interested in getting stories published along the lines of 'Look what I did. Aren't I good.'

More exposure for Miranda Hart.
Thanks Will.

It is very easy to look at a line up and say "Oh how lovely. A nice respectable, middle class line up. How they put the rest of us to shame...". I suspect were the line up to be Frankie Boyle, Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross your blog today would have had a very different flavour. Probably how foul mouthed bad tempered artists are shaming the nation and why charities are turning their backs on artists.

Hi Will,

I understand you're point, that perhaps artists are using their status and networks to promote a cause close to their heart, however I feel it's unfair to say that businesses are shying away from their responsibilities, or that the private sector simply applies charitable causes to theor CSR checklists.

I work in the legal services sector in Cardiff and have just returned from a packed launch by Arts & Business Cymru - an organisation that successfully partners the private sector with arts organisations and charities. The point of this exercise is to build a relationship between the two sectors, rather than a money-throwing or PR profiling exercise. Take a look at last year's winners of the Arts & Business Cymru awards - a regional yet nationally replicated scheme that highlights how the private sector has, and continues to offer more than funding and a name check to charities and the third sector. This could be financial sponsorship, training, mentoring programmes or a place on the board of trustees.

If businesses are to be encouraged to get involved in a tough economic climate then organisations such as Arts & Business are well placed to ensure that both aprties get more out of the relationship, as well as changing attitudes about the arts and charitable sectors. So yes, I agree, it's not simply about money. However, neither is it about the goodness of people's hearts. But is there really anything wrong in getting value out of an arts / business collaboration if it improves the company's values, reinforces a relationship with charities and 'deserving' projects and communities, as well as diversifies the role and experiences of those people working in the organisation?

So what your really saying here Will, is that celebs give up their time to raise money for charity, in the same way that lots of non celebs do day in day out.
I am swamped by invitations from friends who are organising charity auctions, cake bakes, bring and buy sales and family fun days to raise money for causes close to their hearts. Causes that they want to support for no other reason than the fact that they want to help.
I have always been under the impression that celebs are human beings too and would expect them to feel the same way about some causes as the non celebs amoungst us. So, I am not certain as to why you written this article without making reference to the common folk.

Although highly commendable, I think the example of millionaire comedians doing a charity gig for a childrens' hospice has little to do with the arts needing their "knight in shining suit".

As someone who has had a fleeting experience in arts management, I think the biggest financial supporter of the arts are those talented and passionate individuals at the coal face of arts, working for a fraction of their commercial earning potential for their whole careers. Undoubtedly they get imense satisfaction from their work but to use the examples of high profile millionaires is rather crass when you compare this to a lifetime of unrecognised contribution from people who are often on little above minimum wage..

Whoopee for them. I'm an amateur actor. I give up my evenings for free to entertain others all the time. As a special constable, I also give up my time for free to police my community. I do it because I enjoy it. And, let's face it, they do it because they enjoy it. Why should we treat professional entertainers as something special because they do what the rest of us do.

So have you done any actual analysis or research in support of your hypothesis rather than cobbling a few words together on the basis that you saw a bunch of 'celebs' giving up their time for a worth cause last night?

It should be pretty easy to do some quantitative analysis of the income of say, the London Symphony Orchestra and come to a conclusion. Even just flicking through LSO programme should given you an idea pretty quickly.

It's difficult to bemoan anyone giving their time to charity. However.... It's not so easy to get a celebrity endorsement as it would appear. It's as much about who you know as much as the charity the fundraiser is for. I guess every charity needs funds (Especially with cuts from Government) and those with the best connections will survive whilst others will fall by the wayside.

There are many charities that should be supported with Government funds rather than charitable donations (Hospice's - Cancer Charities - Help for Heroes) We, the public are expected to give our time and money because the Government does not spend the money we give in taxes in a socially justifiable way, choosing to spend these funds on war and bamkers bonuses (Albeit indirectly)

When I read the headline I thought the article was going to be about the massive amount of time and energy most artists put into the creation of their work without hope or expectation of big profits, because if they demanded even minimum wage for the true hours they put in then most projects would never get off the ground.

But no, it's about some famous and wealthy people giving up an evening for a charity fundraiser. As if nobody else has ever done that!

Businesses will sponsor the arts that they think will get them the best corporate exposure and networking opportunities within the demographic that they want as customers. That's why fast food chains don't sponsor opera houses and high-end investment banks don't sponsor pop festivals. Philanthropy is only useful to them if it makes them look good to the right people and ultimately earns them more money, as the be-all and end-all of a business is to act in the best interests of its shareholders.

Individuals can be more truly philanthropic because they can act purely on their own whims. If their whim is to support the arts that they love then that's great, and often they do it without blowing their own trumpet. However if their real desire is to get a nice title to retire with then you can bet that they'll only be donating to the right kind of causes to carry favour with the people who bestow all those Knighthoods and Damehoods.

People who give their time to make the arts happen with little or no reward are the most philanthropic of all IMHO.

I think it's also worth mentioning that even the non-famous in the arts world contribute a huge amount.

Actors in particular, but also other artists, often work for nothing or for very little, in order to make artistic events happen. Arts managers are well known to work very long and very unsociable hours.

Young people trying to get into the arts often work for nothing, for as much as a year or even more.

It's not classed as philanthropy or volunteering but it's certainly going above and beyond the job description, and it helps the arts to thrive.

I can imagine some poeple would say, so what, it's their vocation and they enjoy it. But many people work in jobs they love or do work that they believe in. That doesn't make the work less hard or the hours any shorter.

Will, you are right philanthropy is more than giving money. It's also about giving time, using influence and bringing important networks to bear (including celebraties and the fabulous 'witterati' as you mention who gave their time to fundraise).

A question: what is the issue with philanthropists receiving something in return for their efforts?- whether it's a feel good factor, good pr, tax breaks, or indeed, as in some new approaches to philanthropy, commercial return. Why is there such a problem in accepting this? There appears to be no problem in accepting the concept of return for those involved in less worthy practices such as business.

One of the big barriers to conspicuous philanthropy - and therefore more philanthropy - is the stream of bile directed at those who do good. One only has to read the comments that follow a ´óÏó´«Ã½ news story on a major donation from a wealthy philanthropist to witness the cynicism that surrounds philanthropy. It really does seem to stick in the nation's craw. Yet in the US philanthropy is celebrated and seen as a mark of a successful person.
There is a lot of talk about culture change around philanthropy - many read that as getting more people to give, which is important. But just as important is getting more people to celebrate those who do give, instead of knocking them.
Ok....cue inevitable stream of bile...

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.