There you are, in the concert hall, doing the gig. After a number of curtain calls you’re backstage, packing all your shit. You’d arrived to the sound check directly from another gig, so along with your instrument you’re hauling a worn-looking backpack consisting of another outfit (which you bought second hand from a thrift shop and have already worn three days in a row), a makeup bag, and an assortment of snacks you didn’t have time to eat. You carry all of this with you as you follow everyone else into the green room where the drinks are, trying not to look like you haven’t slept and travelled for two hours to get there. You dump your stuff on “the instrument pile” in the corner of the room, and suddenly it’s no longer your domain. No, ma chérie, now you are in the world of double-breasted trouser suits made from the finest Italian silk, camel-coloured cashmere sweaters, smooth penny loafers and understated stilettos, yachts and exclusive golf clubs and chateaus in the south of France. And let’s be honest: these people are not your people.
When you’re surrounded by your colleagues drinking free Chardonnay (the kind you’d never fork out your own money for IRL), bitching about how the gig really went, it’s tolerable — even fun* — but occasionally you are forced to exchange niceties with the barons who have paid good money to see their monkeys dance. When you are sufficiently (but not overly) inebriated, the charade commences. You nod and smile politely as Joe Bloggs AC soft-brags to you about the wonderful close relationship they have with X (the Artistic Director who secretly no one likes) and how fantastic they are and how X is a regular guest at their Margaret River estate. Your role, it goes without saying, is to talk about how excellent your life is as a musician and how X is doing the Lord’s work through this ensemble.
Obligatory relationship-building with those in the upper echelons of society is part and parcel of being an artist. You do it because you have to, but there really is something very weird about it. You can’t quite put your finger on it; all you know is that you always leave these things feeling slightly dirty and depressed.
Apart from this hobnobbing at lavish gala dinners and post-concert functions, most of us have very little to do with the aristocracy otherwise, and were it not for our chosen profession we would almost certainly not have the “opportunity”. However, especially in light of recent events**, we should recognise that we are not as far removed from the inner circles of power as we think.
*JTLYK, the older you are, the less fun it gets
**Submit your best guesses to a board of directors near you!
It was 2024 and it was Australia’s best ever performance in any Olympic Games, which was in no small part thanks to our “Patron Saint”(1) of sport, Gina Rinehart. As the government reduced public funding for sport, a billionaire stepped in to fill the gap to the tune of an estimated $80 million.
Ah yes, Olympians! The embodiment of discipline, perseverance and hard work. Symbols of collective effort, with backing from coaches, psychologists, nutritionists, teammates, family, friends and their communities at large. Rinehart, whose vast wealth was inherited and then significantly expanded through the labour of others, often promotes ideas such as hard work and self-reliance. She is critical of welfare, although perhaps she should clarify that clearly she supports selective welfare — so long as it is the kind that benefits her public image. And boy, does she need a positive public image, what with all that raping of the environment and such.
While Rinehart mostly splashes her money at things like sport and health, from time to time she has also been known to dip her finger (or more accurately, the white of her nail) in the arts pie. Most recently, this was evidenced by her commissioning of Vincent Namatjira’s portrait, displayed in the National Portrait Gallery — a vanity project which quickly turned sour when poor Gina saw how she had been portrayed.(2) She promptly chucked a bit of a tanty, attempting to censor the artwork. This, however, had the opposite effect and created a collective schadenfreude which only grew as the story began making headlines around the world.
Parallels are often drawn between the lives of artists and athletes, and for good reason. These disciplines involve blood, sweat and tears. Cooperation. Frequent failure and rejection, persistence, grit. High highs, low lows. Artists and athletes are global citizens, competing and playing on the world stage, experiences which affect awareness of and sensitivity to social and environmental responsibility. So it’s rather unsurprising that these groups generally tend towards progressive views.
Sport and art are not only linked to politics — they are all about politics.
Not to mention the fact that, famously, we’re rolling in dough (the athletes who turned to OnlyFans as a means of funding their participation in the Paris Olympics(3) just want attention, you see).
There is a rather bitter sense of cognitive dissonance that emerges when relying on patrons whose activities and values (or lack thereof) are fundamentally at odds with everything these fields represent. The wealthy have always ‘facilitated’ art, but they have also always warped, censored and shaped it to their liking. Equally, pissing off one’s patrons is a tale as old as time, from Michelangelo and the Medicis to Goldin and the Sacklers.
Artists find themselves between a rock and a hard place: the ever-dwindling reserves of public money versus the money of private benefactors. Sure, this has always been the way. But consider this against the backdrop of intensifying war, political unrest, poverty and environmental destruction — a time of the “unprecedented”. What should we expect?
When art and money collide
“Art is in thrall to money, and is thereby deformed.” — Liu & Tyler
In 2021, the Kunsten Museum of Modern Art in Denmark commissioned artist Jen Haaning 534,000 Danish krone (USD $84,000) to recreate two of his earlier works representing average annual wages in Denmark and Austria.(4) Instead, he presented the museum with blank canvases titled “Take the Money and Run”. Haaning described the new version of the artwork as a conceptual critique of the exploitation of artists, and that due to the high costs involved, he would have ended up in debt had he recreated the original works.
“The work is that I have taken their money,” he said. “It’s not theft. It is breach of contract, and breach of contract is part of the work.”
Despite demanding that Haaning return the money, the museum went ahead and displayed the pieces anyway, its exhibition guide stating that “Haaning’s new work Take the Money and Run is a recognition that works of art, despite intentions to the contrary, are part of a capitalist system that values a work based on some arbitrary conditions”.(5)
Speaking of “intentions to the contrary”, it’s not the first time an artist has been stifled by the chokehold of capitalism. Although the Mexican artist Diego Rivera was a committed socialist, he was considered something of a controversial figure among his socialist contemporaries. Suspected of being a Trotskyist, Rivera was first ousted from the Mexican Communist Party (where he had also met his wife, the now more famous artist Frida Kahlo) in 1929, and then was booted out of the Communist Party USA for having accepted the financial support of patrons such as the family of the notorious oil tycoon, John D. Rockefeller.(6) The Rockefellers were aware of Rivera’s political views, but nonetheless approved the commission of a fresco for the new RCA Building at the Rockefeller Center in 1932. Titled Man at the Crossroads, Rivera featured Lenin in the mural, as well as other anti-capitalist “propaganda”. Following backlash from John Rockefeller’s son, the public and the press, the decision was made — by the Rockefeller Center’s management, it should be noted — to have the mural destroyed.
And let’s acknowledge, that obviously much of Michelangelo’s work would not exist without Europe’s most powerful Renaissance family, the Medicis. But Michelangelo was a Republican. He joined Florentine forces against the Medici dynasty when they were thrown out of the city in 1527, helping to design fortifications to defend it from the Medici-backed army,(7) and his later works feature subtle critiques of the family. Leonardo da Vinci also received Medici patronage for a time, although not to the same extent. In 1515 da Vinci wrote in a margin of his diary, “Li medici mi crearono e distrussono” — “The Medici created me and destroyed me”.(8) Okay, so it’s unclear whether he was referring to physicians (the Italian word for which is “medici” and of whom he was also known to be critical), or his wealthy patrons. Nevertheless, the sentiment is fitting in this context.
We could also talk about any number of classical musicians defying their aristocratic patrons. A most notable early example is Mozart, who after a heated argument with the Archbishop Colloredo, resigned from his position as a court musician.(9) His freelance career was marked by hardship and poverty, but interestingly enough, the precariousness of his situation was never reason enough for him to return to the court — even during long periods of depression and despair. Had he known that his decision would prove to be a significant step towards the rise of the independent artist in the coming decades, it might have provided him some consolation.
And then, of course, there’s Beethoven, whose well-noted unpleasant disposition is perhaps not difficult to understand when taking into consideration his distaste for the aristocracy. On the one hand, he was known for ignoring etiquette and would simply stop playing if patrons talked during his performances. However, he did allow people to assume that the “van” in his name implied he was of noble descent.(10) He wasn’t. Many historians have seen this as a contradiction in his character, implying that he must have had some kind of underlying desire for noble status. They also reference his close relationship with the Archduke Rudolph of Austria, whom he gave music lessons, as further evidence of this. But Beethoven was no sycophant. His irreverence for social hierarchy and insistence on being treated at least as an equal is clear. In a letter to Prince Lichnowsky, he famously stated: “Prince! What you are, you are by circumstance and by birth. What I am, I am through myself. Of princes there have been and will be thousands. Of Beethoven there is only one.”(11)
Not dissimilar to the way in which the state can control or influence art (as I have previously explored a bit), artistic output begins to homogenise when the aesthetic tastes of the bourgeoisie are perpetuated through their patronage. In other words: any trends in the type of art that is being commissioned can easily be mistaken for what is stylistically “popular”. The increasing institutionalisation and commodification of art over the centuries that has come as a result of capitalism has also gradually made it a less effective tool for radicalism and social change. Today, billionaire collectors drive the production of art that is chiefly about investment potential. The work of Jeff Koons (a salesman, not an artist), for instance, whose kitsch productions are not created by him personally but by a large team of highly skilled artisans, are among the most expensive contemporary art on the market.(12) Having faced numerous lawsuits for copyright infringements, Koons has been described as “a darling of the global economic elite.”(13)
While the world of visual art is indeed a unique beast, the bourgeoisie also recognise the “investment potential” of the performing arts and act as “collectors” of the institutions which they support. I’m not just spitballing here; it was Boulez who first foresaw this commodification of classical music. The advent of the symphony orchestra as a full-time institution in the 20th century, according to Boulez, was the point at which “the organisation of society began to influence concerts and standards began to be adopted.”(14) In a lecture he gave in 1968, he stated:
“There is an economic factor in music, and this factor always tells in favour of conservatism.”(15)
But what about the good rich people?
In 2023 Taylor Swift’s fans began anointing her the world’s first ethical billionaire.(16) Failing to acknowledge how their (weird, if you ask me) parasocial relationship with the pop star may have somewhat clouded their judgement, they cite a number of reasons for this: she is a “self-made artist”, a champion of fairness in a notoriously unfair industry, a generous philanthropist, a feminist icon, and an advocate for minorities.
Yeah, see, here’s the thing… billionaires and centi-millionaires should not exist. There is simply no way to make a fortune of this scale without exploitation on some level. Profits come from any, or usually all, of the following: inequitable labour practices, mass extraction of natural resources, the externalisation or shifting of costs, regulatory manipulation, monopolisation and tax avoidance.(17)
Here are some fun little stats for you:
The richest 10% emit 50% of the entire world’s carbon emissions(18)
Ten of the richest men increased their wealth from $700 billion to $1.5 trillion while 160 million people were forced into poverty during the first two years of the pandemic(19)
The investments of 125 billionaires (and that’s not even all of the billionaires) emit 393 million tonnes of CO2e each year —the equivalent of France— at an individual annual average that is a million times higher than someone in the bottom 90% of humanity(20)
In 2023 the U.S. weapons industry made $238 billion in profit, marking a 16% increase from the previous year(21). Meanwhile, more civilians were killed or wounded in Gaza in 2023 than in any other year for a decade, and more women and children were killed by the Israeli military in 2024 than any other recent conflict in a single year(22)
Gina Rinehart owns 23,969,000 hectares of land, making her the largest individual landowner in the world(23)
A quarter of all property investments in Australia are owned by 1% of Australian taxpayers(24)
The richest 10% of Australian households own 64% of Australia’s wealth(25)
Around 60% of inflation in the U.S., U.K. and Australia is driven by increased corporate profits(26)
We have been so desensitised to extreme wealth that it is largely seen as achievable, enviable, and an inevitable or even necessary part of society. It is none of these things. Even considering the few individuals who genuinely do or try to do some good (or have “worked hard for it”, as the argument often goes), these staggering statistics prove that wealth is still grossly unjustifiable, and that any good the wealthy do is heavily outweighed by the sheer scale of the destruction their existence causes. Taking advantage of others is handsomely profitable, and without limits on how much money can be made from it, it is simply too tall an order to expect any sincere community-mindedness from the rich.
It is at this point that we could discuss what kind of society has enabled all of this to happen. But that’s a story for another time (and you can bet there will be another time).
Okay, but what about the nouveau riche? And what about the cool and hip young heirs of wealthy dynasties? They’re just normal people born into an abnormal situation, so we should cut them some slack, right? New generations of the rich are often lauded for their “progressiveness”, with some active in sectors such as sustainability. But even with the best of intentions (to give them the benefit of the doubt), this amounts to nothing more than greenwashing. Unless they are vigorously, vocally and persistently advocating for the abolishment of billionaires and centi-millionaires, calling on governments to dramatically reign in their wealth by taxing the living bejesus out of them, they haven’t earned any brownie points. No sir.
Where is all the money?
“All of that may be true, but please shut up before they decide to stop giving us money,” I hear you say.
Why am I so intent on digging up the dirt on the people who fund our entire profession?
Well let’s firstly get one thing straight: they’re not even giving us their money. Not really. Remember: these people literally have billions, or hundreds of millions, of dollars — the kind of money not even they themselves can comprehend.
Most of the world’s billionaires are U.S. citizens.(27) In 2023, Giving USA reported that charitable giving was decreasing not only among individuals, but also that it was decreasing across the board.(28) It also found that “mega-gifts” from the ultra-wealthy few are growing, and warned that organisations should “avoid overreliance on major donors”. Its 2024 report stated that while individual giving was a little more stable through 2024, more of the overall share of philanthropy came from corporate and foundational giving.(29) This “generosity crisis”, as some have described it,(30) is attributable to the effects of late capitalism and the state of the global economy. It is the exact mirror image of income inequality statistics: the poorer the masses, the more the rich hoard their wealth.
With the death of the middle class, there is now a sense of desperation within arts organisations to secure funds from the only class of people who can now afford it. The people who are, bizarrely, stingier than ever. When the generosity of the aristocracy dwindled during the Austro-Turkish War, Mozart was paid in snuff boxes instead of actual currency — well, maybe in future we can expect to be paid in Stanley cups before Israel is done with its obliteration of the Middle East.
What’s more, the arts are apparently not so high on the list of things that the super-rich are looking to support anyway nowadays, according to another study from the U.S.’ National Center for Arts Research (NCAR). This study found that, after accounting for inflation, individual, trustee, and corporate support steadily decreased over the five-year period between 2019-2023.(31)
If that’s what the data in the U.S. is saying, then you can bet it’s more extreme here in Australia.
Australian billionaires and centi-millionaires don’t contribute as much to the arts as do their counterparts in the United States — not by a long shot. In the U.S., the arts are funded primarily by private patronage. A 1998 paper stated the astonishing detail that “among all the nonprofit subsectors receiving public support (e.g. health, education, social, civic and legal services), the arts are the least dependent upon government subsidy.”(32) According to the National Endowment for the Arts, that still appears to be the case today.(33)
Australia’s comparatively weak culture of arts philanthropy also makes it difficult to analyse any data on the issue. Philanthropy Australia’s most recent 2022 report lacks depth of data and makes no mention of the specific sectors than receive philanthropy, let alone the arts.(34) Another report by the Australia Council for the Arts says that private sector support for the arts declined 11% between 2018 and 2022.(35)
The bourgeoisie of today behave differently to those of the past in one key way: that is, to avoid a reiteration of the French Revolution, they must carefully manufacture a public image that is modest and relatable because they are so grossly wealthy. Classical music has long had a bit of an image problem with its reputation as a pretentious luxury for the upper class, you say. So is there then some kind of fear that supporting the arts will be seen as an excessive display of wealth in an economic climate in which most people are struggling to meet their immediate needs?
Nah, that can’t be it. Not if Japanese billionaire Kaoru Nakajima’s 70th birthday bash(36) is anything to go by. Nakajima hired out almost the entire Sicilian city of Palermo, including its opera house and theatre, forcing the city’s orchestra out and causing all scheduled performances to be cancelled. The backlash he received from an irate local population didn’t seem to have much of an effect, although his good mate Riccardo Muti seemed happy to help by conducting a performance of Mozart’s Don Giovanni, at the request of the billionaire, in the Teatro Massimo.
Crunch those numbers, baby
The financial reports of the major full-time Australian orchestras over the past 10 years show, of course, that the majority of funding is still covered by the government.
But perhaps all that is about to change.
One particular stand-out exception to these trends, for example, is the Australian Chamber Orchestra, which in 2023 received just under $10.7 million from private sponsors, as opposed to the $3.7 million it received from the government.
According to these numbers, private sponsorship for the ACO has completely out-paced its government funding by a whopping 40% during this ten-year period. As it stands, no other full-time orchestra in Australia receives more private money than public.
But the others are working hard to catch up. Compare this with the financial reports of the Sydney Symphony and Melbourne Symphony Orchestras — the two other most-funded orchestras in the country:
Over this same ten-year period, the SSO saw a 23% increase in government funding, while the increase in government funding for the MSO was only 16%. To account for inflation, those increases should have been around 29.9% (this is an approximation based on the Reserve Bank’s average annual inflation rate of 2.6%). We can see here that government funding for the SSO was closer to matching the rate of inflation.
But what’s most interesting about this is the fact that in 2023, the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra raised more private money than did the Sydney Symphony Orchestra. Granted — the margin here is minimal, amounting to little more than a couple of hundred dollars — but it becomes more significant when we consider the funding climates of these two cities.
Recently, former Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews encouraged Jewish donors to withdraw their funding from arts organisations if they show any opposition to Israel, stating that “no state has a better developed culture, endowment and philanthropic giving than Victoria”.(43)
The subtext: wealthy Zionists make up the majority of arts philanthropy in Victoria.
Andrews made these comments as he accepted the Jerusalem Prize, given to him jointly by the World Zionist Organisation, the Zionist Federation of Australia and Zionism Victoria,(44) adding, “I would ask each of you to respectfully, continue to review your giving. Check and check again that those who so happily benefit from your generosity are not in real terms pretend friends or worse, actually working against the Jewish community and decency itself.”
This conflation of anti-Zionism and antisemitism is one to which many Jewish people themselves are opposed.(45) But the pro-Israel lobby has heavily influenced Australian political parties — the Australian Labor Party being more the rule than the exception.(46) What’s more, perhaps such deliberate obtuseness from this left-leaning ex-politician can also be put down to the fact that Andrews, along with former Prime Minister Scott Morrison, has now gone into business with the Zionist billionaire and patron Anthony Pratt(47) (and we’ll get to that dude later).
I’ll leave you to further consider the ramifications of these circumstances, again, in light of recent events. But suffice it to say — while one can point to these notable differences, make no mistake that all arts organisations are under the same pressure and are vulnerable to the same forces.
Why should we care about the activities of the rich?
Despite the Industrial Revolution’s promises of a utopian future, the world today is becoming more impoverished and more violent. For the first time in decades, life expectancies are beginning to decline,(48) while birth rates are falling.(49) With a collapsing ecosystem and war breaking out over the earth’s remaining natural resources, it is very telling that billionaires are building “luxury bunkers”, buying remote islands and hiring private militaries,(50) sensing that a day of reckoning may be somewhere on the horizon in this lifetime.
Whether or not the likes of Haaning or Rivera or Michelangelo were justified in their actions against their patrons mentioned above, these incidents highlight the inherent tension that exists within the patron-artist relationship. This tension is becoming more pronounced, the proverbial “strings attached” more taut than ever in the current climate.
It doesn’t matter how much they are praised for being “altruistic” or “smart” or “innovative”: the ultra wealthy are not ideologues, and they do not give a quarter of a shit about politics. They will go wherever the wind is blowing, or make the wind blow, if it serves their interests. Playing politics in the public eye can be a risky move, because if the people aren’t buying what you’re selling, you see, they may call for blood. We might hear about it, we might not. But it is safe to assume that the rich are always and heavily involved in politics — despite what they themselves may say, or what your boss or your friend or The Daily Telegraph says about it.
The example that instantly springs to mind here is of course Elon Musk, a supervillain so literally on another planet to the rest of humanity because of his wealth that he can make reality shift around him depending on how he feels that day, ratifying the Trump-Musk political partnership as a match made, truly, in the fiery pits of hell. Musk wouldn’t care if Trump called himself a Marxist. All that matters to him is that Trump is his best bet towards a total fascist plutocracy, and since the recent results of the U.S. election, well — that writing is now solidly on the wall.
Philanthropy is, mostly, a farce. It is a convenient way to distract us from the clandestine activities of the ultra wealthy, a calculated ploy to conceal the ways in which they are directly responsible for much of the world’s suffering. We have been lulled into a kind of cultural malaise — gently laced with the poisons of nescience and apathy — a malaise that primes us to excuse or even defend them under any circumstance, all the while signing our own death warrant.
The rich are happy to pin art to their lapels while it shines for them like a jewel. They will tell you, the artist, how great you are, tell you about their specific passion for that kind of music and why they’ve been a long-time supporter of the Awesome Orchestra, maybe give you a little stint in their impeccably furnished North Shore apartment with water views, and show you a picture of their grandchildren. But when art becomes too ugly, too radical, you will be swiftly reminded of where the real power in society is concentrated.
This is really no joke.
We are currently witnessing the greatest class war in human history. Art is a crucial battlefront in this war — if we are not able to create art for arguably its most important purposes; that is, the purposes of challenging the structures of power and opposing those who threaten human welfare and freedom, then what is the point of it?
So what should we do?
Well, in the words of Haaning: take the money and run.
Let’s also consider Graham Greene’s advice:
“I would emphasise the importance and the virtue of disloyalty. If only writers could maintain that one virtue unspotted from the world. Honours, state patronage, success, the praise of their fellows all tend to sap their disloyalty. Loyalty confines us to accepted opinions: loyalty forbids us to comprehend sympathetically our dissident fellows; but disloyalty encourages us to roam experimentally through any human mind: it gives … the extra dimension of sympathy.”(51)
Launder your reputation for just a minuscule fraction of your overall obscene wealth with this one trick!
Run a pharmaceutical company which heavily promotes the sale of prescription opioids? Made your billions through an oil company? Price gouge food and grocery items because you control the majority of the market?
Safe to say, you’re probably not very popular with the general public!
Look, we can all identify the main bastards. We could talk about Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg, their respective corporate empires and philanthropic foundations they use to sanitise their image (PSA: if you are rich enough to start a foundation, you are too rich). We could talk about big art patrons such as the German billionaire Julia Stoschek, who has been under fire lately for her lack of transparency around her family’s Nazi history,(52) or the Sackler family, whose company Purdue Pharma is largely responsible for the opioid crisis in the U.S.(53)
Most of us may know the main ones here in Australia too. There’s Gina and her clan (although when it comes to music, the tap curiously runs dry). Then there’s Fortescue Metals mining magnate Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest and his wife Nicola — they’ve made significant contributions to the Western Australian Symphony Orchestra, West Australian Ballet and West Australia Opera, to name a few.(54) The Packer family, with their extensive interests in gambling through their Crown Resorts casino empire, has donated millions to the Sydney Symphony Orchestra,(55) as well as institutions such as the Australian Chamber Orchestra, the Art Gallery of New South Wales and the Sydney Theatre Company.(56) The Murdochs have recently made large donations to the Australian Ballet.(57)
But what about those patrons whose business dealings are less conspicuous? What about the “lesser” billionaires and multimillionaires? Do we know who they are and what they do?
I’m talking about the investment bankers, the private equity brokers, those with real estate or fashion empires. Those who operate subversively in the private sector. Those who were born into old money. Sometimes, they are the people who are the CEOs of our organisations, or the chairmen of our boards.
These people are experts at flying under the radar, and hide their assets through complex legal arrangements, such as offshore accounts, shell companies, or family trusts, which reduces taxable income and obfuscates the true extent of their wealth. They limit publicly available information about their holdings to reduce the likelihood of audits, and use intermediaries or private equity to purchase assets in order to distance themselves from the profits made from their transactions.
Furthermore, many of them have shady ties with questionable governments, such as the aforementioned Australian billionaire Anthony Pratt, who, having been a regular guest Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort has a close connection with the U.S. President and has been involved in an investigation into the sharing of classified information.(58)
It is not always clear, even looking at financial reports, where the money is coming from, or how much of it comes from the same source. Take the Besen dynasty, for instance. You mightn’t know, unless you’ve done your homework, that Naomi Milgrom is the daughter of the late Marc Besen, a well-known Zionist who helped fund the displacement of hundreds of Palestinian Arabs in the Negev desert.(59) Milgrom is on the donor list of many Australian arts organisations.
As Australian orchestras try to wean themselves off public money and increasingly look to the U.S. as a model of funding, it is going to be more and more important to put a magnifying glass up to the names on the donor lists of those annual reports.
Which, incidentally, is what we’re about to do. Don’t give me that… you knew this was coming.
Alternatively...
Saucy sources
Lemon, G (14 August 2024) ‘Gina Rinehart is the patron saint of Aussie sports. But it comes with weird strings attached’, The Age, accessed 3 September 2024.
Touma, R (21 May 2024) ‘Gina Rinehart tried to hide her portrait - it went global instead’, The Guardian, accessed 3 September 2024.
ABC News Australia (10 August 2024), ‘Paris Olympics athletes use OnlyFans accounts to help fund their dreams, as critics hit out over IOC’s funding model’, ABC News Australia, accessed 22 August 2024.
Sherwood, H (29 September 2021) ‘Danish artist delivers empty frames for $84k as low pay protest’, The Guardian, accessed 15 August 2024.
Kunsten Museum of Modern Art Alborg (n.d.) Kunsten Museum of Modern Art Alborg, accessed 15 August 2024.
Zumoff, J A (2022) ‘Between a Rockefeller and a Hard Place: Diego Rivera’s Man at the Crossroads and the Left in the 1930s’, Anales del Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas, pp. 219–262, accessed 16 August 2024.
Cascone, S (31 October 2023) ‘A Secret Room in a 16th-Century Italian Chapel, Where Michelangelo Hid—and Drew—for Months, Opens to the Public’, Artnet News, accessed 19 August 2024.
<https://news.artnet.com/art-world/michelangelo-secret-room-museum-of-medici-chapels-2387647>.
Martinez, J (28 July 2020) ‘The Medici Family: Ultimate Power and Legacy in the Renaissance’, The Collector, accessed 25 August 2024.
Preda, R (2024) ‘Mozart’s letter to the Archbishop of Salzburg’, The Cantos Project, accessed 5 November 2024.
Solomon, M (1991) ‘Beethoven: The Nobility Pretense’, The Musical Quarterly, 75(4):207–224, accessed 14 October 2024.
Baumol, H and Baumol, W (August 2002) ‘Maledizione! or the Perilous Prospects of Beethoven's Patrons’, Journal of Cultural Economics, 26:167-184, doi:10.1023/A:1015689600727.
Mah, E (14 March 2024) ‘12 Living Artists With the Most Expensive Art Works as of 2024’, Prestige Online, accessed 5 November 2024.
Beukel, S (24 April 2023) ‘Will the super-rich soon determine the canon of art history?’, Folia, accessed 20 October 2024.
Judy, P R (1996) Pierre Boulez: Reflections on Symphony Orchestra Organizations, Symphony Orchestra Institute, Illinois.
Judy, P R (1996) Pierre Boulez: Reflections on Symphony Orchestra Organizations, Symphony Orchestra Institute, Illinois.
Elias, M (23 January 2023) ‘Taylor Swift is on the world tour that's tipped to make her a billionaire. Fans are torn’, SBS News - The Feed, accessed 24 September 2024.
Ventura, I (29 March 2023) ‘There's no such thing as an ethical billionaire’, San Francisco Foghorn, accessed 19 October 2024.
Oxfam International (2023) Richest 1% emit as much planet-heating pollution as two thirds of humanity, Oxfam International, accessed 15 October 2024.
Oxfam International (2022) Ten richest men double their fortunes in pandemic while incomes of 99 percent of humanity fall, Oxfam International, accessed 15 October 2024.
Oxfam International (2022) A billionaire emits a million times more greenhouse gases than the average person, Oxfam International, accessed 15 October 2024.
Stone, M (30 January 2024) ‘US arms exports hit record high in fiscal 2023’, Reuters, accessed 15 October 2024.
Oxfam International (2024) More women and children killed in Gaza by Israeli military than any other recent conflict in a single year, Oxfam International, accessed 15 October 2024.
Madison Trust Company (2024) The World's Largest Landowners, Madison Trust Company, accessed 30 October 2024.
The Australia Institute (2024) Negative gearing and capital gains tax driving up house prices, The Australia Institute, accessed 15 October 2024.
Davidson P, Bradbury B, Wong M (2024) Inequality in Australia 2024: Who is affected and how, Australian Council of Social Service and UNSW Sydney, accessed 15 October 2024.
Maitland, A (19 January 2013) ‘Welcome to the era of Greedflation’, Oxfam Views & Voices, accessed 14 October 2024.
Martin, D S (3 April 2024) ‘The Countries With The Most Billionaires 2024’, Forbes, accessed 20 October 2024.
Meyer, J (28 August 2023) ‘5 Strategies to Implement Based on Giving USA 2023’, Giving USA, accessed 1 November 2024.
Meyer, J (2 July 2024) ‘5 Takeaways and Next Steps from the Giving USA 2024 Report’, Giving USA, accessed 1 November 2024.
Ford, C (10 July 2024) ‘Are we actually in the middle of a generosity crisis?’, Vox, accessed 1 November 2024.
National Center for Arts Research (2024) As Relief Funding Dwindles, Arts and Culture Seek New Revenue Sources, Southern Methodist University, accessed 1 November 2024.
Wyszomirski, M J (1998) Sources of Private Support for the Arts: An Overview, Americans for the Arts.
National Endowment for the Arts (2012) How the United States Funds the Arts, National Endowment for the Arts, accessed 1 November 2024.
Philanthropy Australia (2022) Giving Trends and Opportunities, Philanthropy Australia.
Australia Council for the Arts (2023) Review of Philanthropy, Australia Council for the Arts.
Hooper, S (3 November 2023) ‘Japanese billionaire buys up Sicilian city for four-day birthday party for 1,400 friends’, Metro, accessed 1 November 2024.
Australian Chamber Orchestra (2013) ACO Annual Report 2013, Australian Chamber Orchestra Pty Ltd and its controlled entities, accessed 18 October 2024.
Australian Chamber Orchestra (2023) ACO Directors and Financial Report 2023, Australian Chamber Orchestra Pty Ltd and its controlled entities, accessed 18 October 2024.
Sydney Symphony Orchestra (2013) Sydney Symphony Limited Annual Financial Report, Sydney Symphony Limited and its controlled entities, accessed 18 October 2024.
Sydney Symphony Orchestra (2023) Sydney Symphony Limited Annual Financial Report, Sydney Symphony Limited and its controlled entities, accessed 18 October 2024.
Melbourne Symphony Orchestra (2013) MSO 2013 Annual Report, Melbourne Symphony Orchestra, accessed 18 October 2024.
Melbourne Symphony Orchestra (2023) MSO 2023 Annual Report, Melbourne Symphony Orchestra, accessed 18 October 2024.
Le Grand, C (3 November 2024) ‘Dan Andrews tells Jewish donors to cut funds to antisemites’, The Age, accessed 3 November 2024.
Staff, A (29 October 2024) ‘Leaders come together’, Australian Jewish News, accessed 3 November 2024.
Jewish Voice for Peace (n.d.) Our approach to Zionism, Jewish Voice for Peace, accessed 10 November 2024
Brooks, G (22 January 2024) ‘The Australian Labor Party Has Always Been Loyal To Israel’, Jacobin, accessed 1 November 2024.
McKenzie, P (25 July 2024) ‘Scott Morrison, Daniel Andrews and Anthony Pratt: Is it OK for ex-politicians to work for a billionaire?’, The New Daily, accessed 3 November 2024.
Austin E et al (2024) ‘Global age-sex specific mortality, life expectancy, and population estimates in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1950-2021, and the impact of the COIVD-19 pandemic: a comprehensive demographic analysis for the Global Burden Disease Study 2021’, The Lancet, 403(10440), doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00476-8
OECD (2024) ‘Society at a Glance 2024: OECD Social Indicators’, OECD Publishing, doi.org/10.1787/918d8db3-en
Rushkoff, D (4 September 2022) ‘The super-rich ‘preppers’ planning to save themselves from the apocalypse’, The Guardian, accessed 5 November 2024.
Greene, R (ed) (2007) Graham Greene: A Life in Letters, Little Brown, London.
Tran, Q (30 April 2021) ‘Top Collectors Don’t Like to Discuss Their Families’ Nazi Ties. Now, Artists Are Forcing Them to Confront the Past’, artnet, accessed 4 November 2024.
Keefe, P R (23 October 2017) ‘The Family That Built an Empire of Pain’, The New Yorker, accessed 7 November 2024.
Beyer, M (19 June 2024) ‘The gift that keeps on giving’, Business News, accessed 7 November 2024.
Sydney Symphony Orchestra (2024) Our Supporters, Sydney Symphony Orchestra, accessed 7 November 2024.
Lehmann, J (12 November 2013) ‘James Packer reveals $60 million arts gift for Sydney as Barry O’Farrell gives Crown’s Barangaroo casino the final nod’, The Daily Telegraph, accessed 7 November 2024.
Bailey, M (13 April 2022) ‘Murdochs back first new Swan Lake in 20 years’, Australian Financial Review, accessed 7 November 2024.
Peterson-Withorn C (6 October 2023) ‘Who Is Anthony Pratt, The Australian Billionaire Trump Reportedly Told U.S. Nuclear Secrets?’, Forbes, accessed 7 November 2024.
Davis, R (15 July 2019) ‘A desert promise realised’, Australian Jewish News, accessed 7 November 2024.
Comentarios