why the rich finance art

is anybody doing anything interesting with their money anymore?

As I’ve visited unique and interesting palazzos and art museums throughout Italy, I’ve always been struck by the investments the aristocracy made in painters, architects, and sculptors. Da Vinci, Michelangelo, and others would not have become famous artists had they not had institutional and individual benefactors.

Today, in places like my hometown of Philadelphia, the major media corporation Comcast invests millions into arts programs around the city. From sponsoring major art museums like the Barnes Foundation, to the Suzanne Roberts Theatre on the Avenue on the Arts, Comcast has donated to the art institutions that put Philadelphia on the cultural map today. They have also changed the architecture of the city itself, constructing the famous Comcast Technology Center in 2017, the tallest building in the city of Philadelphia and the State of Pennsylvania. Today, companies like Comcast donate for tax write-offs, advertising, and maybe an obsession with legacy.

Photo by Chris Henry on Unsplash

Back in medieval Italy, I’m not sure the aristocracy had the same motivations. In Florence, the House of Medici, rich from banking and politics, hired the Renaissance’s most famous artists and architects to decorate the city. Michelangelo’s David stood outside the Palazzo Vecchio, the main residence of the Medici family. The famous dome of the Florence Cathedral was commissioned by Cosimo Medici and carried out by Brunelleschi, who accomplished architectural feats never before seen. It seems rich people financed art for their own personal status symbols. They wanted to flaunt their power, and public displays of art was one way to do it.

Photo by Tuna Ekici on Unsplash

During a recent visit to Lake Como, we climbed up the giant hill from Lenno to see Villa Barbierinello. It was last owned by Count Guido Monzino, a rich Italian man who accumulated wealth from his father Franco’s business, La Standa Grandi Magazzini, an Italian department store. He bought the mansion in 1974 and built escape rooms knowing that he would be targeted for kidnapping due to his wealth. He lived from 1928 to 1988, and when he died left the property to Fondo Ambiente Italiano (FAI), the National Trust of Italy.

Maintaining Villa Barbierinello as a piece of Italian history was impressive, but Monzino was also interested in exploration. He was the first Italian to lead a trip to Mount Everest and the first Italian to reach the North Pole. On one of the top floors of the palazzo, he had a billiards room with treasures from all of his explorations. My initial impression was that of respect and esteem for Monzino. His financing of these explorations has allowed people to achieve their dreams.

But then I worried - was Monzino the inspiration behind billionaires going to space and rich people paying $250,000 for a seat on the OceanGate submersible to see the Titanic? Can exploration be considered, “art”? Or is it simply another way to showcase the grandeur of the ego?

Recently, the billionaire broligarchy takeover of US Policy has left many Americans wondering what is going on. Their interest in policy seems self-serving and greedy, designed only to line their own pockets, which are already full. Three single men (Bezos worth an estimated $241.9 billion, Zuckerberg $254.1 billion, and Musk $394.2 billion) are exponentially richer than even the ultra-wealthy. It’s hard to understand just how much money they have, so Matt Korostoff created this simulation to help people understand how incomprehensibly rich Bezos and Zuckerberg are (in fact, it hasn’t been updated since 2021, and Bezos has had a 30% increase in his personal wealth). These billionaires could do anything they wanted, including lifting every single American out of poverty, and yet they opt to focus on getting richer.

So do rich people do anything interesting with their money anymore? Or has that tradition died in the Renaissance? I am impressed by Sabrina Williams, the most winning tennis player in recent history with a net worth of $340 million (just .14% the wealth of Bezos). She started her venture capital fund called Serena Ventures when she heard that women receive only 2% of venture capital funds. She is focusing her firm on a commitment to investing in black and minority-owned businesses. She committed to learning a new business in her forties and has expanded her career.

Similarly, in the documentary “Angel City” actress Natalie Portman, worth apx $90 million, talks about her journey to move into the soccer business. She saw how underpaid and underrepresented women in soccer were and wanted to make a difference. Portman was one of the main investors in Angels City FC, the LA football club that competes in the National Women’s Soccer League. In 2023, Angels City FC generated the highest revenue of any women's team in the world.

Or Reese Witherspoon, a dropout of Standford, who loved books so much she created a book club that has flipped the publishing industry. She has changed the careers of many of the authors by rocketing book sales for those included in her selection. Organized by her production company called Hello Sunshine, the company is valued at over $900 million.

All of these wealthy people are doing interesting things with their power and money to support and invest in other artists and entrepreneurs. At the same time, creatively they are learning new things and creating second careers for themselves. They aren’t limiting themselves to their specific domain of expertise. Natalie Portman said, "I never thought I would be involved in a professional sports team. But co-founding ACFC has been one of the great joys of my life. It’s been incredibly rewarding professionally and personally." (Source)

I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a completely altruistic way to pursue an investment in the arts. Yet whatever their reasoning, rich people have been investing in the arts since the dawn of time. In nearby Pompeii, built in the 8th-9th century BC, scientists can tell which families were rich because they left frescoes, grand residences, and pottery flaunting their wealth. Modern millionaires could be a bit more generous with their purchases, creative with their careers, and indulge in the humanities to enrich their lives in more ways than just money and greed.

What do you think about the connection between wealthy people and artists? Do you know of any hip rich people who love art? The wealthy people I’m talking about here have already accomplished their “bucket list” items - they’ve bought a beautiful house and maybe another vacation one, retired their family, paid off all of their loans, and invested in their children’s education. The question is - what next? What would you do with your life if all of your material dreams had been met?

• This podcast episode had me thinking about the ethics behind who you are accepting money from as an artist. I was really moved and inspired by Kendrick Lamar’s Superbowl halftime show. It was a real work of art, proven when Google searches for “forty acres and a mule” spiked in Google (the difference between art and entertainment is highlighted here). Lamar wasn’t paid for the show (no artist in recent history has been paid) but the costs were financed by the National Football League, corporate sponsor Apple Music, and Jay-Z’s production company Roc Nation. Is it ok to take money from any institution as an artist? For example, many museums are now rejecting money from the Sacklers, the family behind the opioid epidemic.

• Some thought-provoking quotes from Matt Korostoff’s impactful visualization from 2021:

  • “The 400 richest Americans own about $3.2 trillion, which is more than the bottom 60% of Americans.”

  • “There are more Americans living in poverty than the entire population of Canada.”

  • “Every single person in America could be lifted above the poverty line with a one-time cash subsidy of around $10,000 per impoverished family (and about $7,000 for impoverished individuals). The total cost would be $170 billion, a little over 5% of the wealth currently controlled by 400 individuals.”