After More Than 30 Years, President Margaret Ayers Steps Down from The Robert Sterling Clark Foundation

Looking Back at a World Tour: After More Than 30 Years, President of Arts Foundation Steps Down By PIA CATTON, Wall Street Journal

The Robert Sterling Clark Foundation, one of New York's small, but influential arts funders, will soon enter a new era: On July 1, President Margaret Ayers will step down from the post she held since 1979.

The foundation—which has an endowment of about $90 million and no permanent guidelines on how to spend it—was established by Robert Sterling Clark, one of four grandsons of the lawyer Edward Clark, who helped the inventor of the sewing machine obtain a patent. Edward Clark also headed the Singer Sewing Machine Co. and introduced the concept of buying the machines on layaway. Robert Sterling Clark died childless in 1955, leaving behind the foundation (incorporated in 1952) and the Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute in Williamstown, Mass.

During Ms. Ayers's leadership, the foundation has targeted its grants to entities in New York City or state that relate to three subject areas: improving the performance of public institutions, protecting reproductive rights and promoting international arts engagement.

Within the third category, it has supported, in collaboration with the State Department, projects including the Brooklyn Academy of Music's DanceMotion USA, which sent four dance companies to tour four regions of the world this year, and the Bronx Museum's smARTpower, which selected 15 American artists to serve as cultural ambassadors. In 2012, it gave 18 grants in this field totaling $2.2 million. The State Department is currently budgeted to spend between $10 million and $12 million for cultural affairs exchanges.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Ms. Ayers discussed the evolution of the foundation and its support for sending American artists abroad, particularly since the 1999 closure of the U.S. Information Agency.

When you arrived as a consultant in 1976, the foundation was funding cultural institutions, but also colleges, settlement houses, family-policy analysis and more. How and why did you focus the grant-making program?

I made the argument to the board that the foundation was very small, and if the trustees wanted to make an impact, they had to narrow the program areas. In 1976, there were 10 fields of interest. By 1980, there were three fields. And by 1985, those had become very pinpointed.

What did that mean for your arts support?

You have to go back to the 1970s when cultural organizations and libraries were closing. We went from funding lots of cultural organizations all over the country to looking at them in New York City. We helped countless organizations get into the direct-mail business and develop computerization, things that would improve their operations.

And that ended by about 2005. Why was that?

It became clear that this was not a unique thing that we were doing. A lot of other foundations were making these management support grants.

The attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, contributed to a new phase. How did that start?

We noted that global public opinion regarding the U.S. was at a high in the months after Sept. 11. However, after the U.S. sent troops to Iraq, global public opinion sank like a stone. Amidst the mounting calls for change, there were many that questioned what had happened to our public diplomacy apparatus. It was destroyed when, in 1994, Congress made the decision to eliminate the U.S. Information Agency. In 1999, USIA's cultural exchange programs were moved as a block to the State Department. However, there was no arts exchange program. It had been eliminated by Congress in 1996. By the turn of the century, little was happening on the international front with regard to sending American artists abroad. At this point, I began to consider moving our arts support to international cultural engagement.

What were your first steps?

We hired a consultant to research the level of foundation support in the field. We also conducted extensive research on public-sector funding in the field. Our research confirmed our belief that both private and public support were on the decline, and that this was an area where our philanthropic efforts could have impact.

How has the field changed over time?

International cultural engagement is becoming disentangled from state policy. Many would describe such engagement activities within the context of a "third space," in which creativity and new forms of collaboration among the various public and private participants in the field are enhanced. I believe all of this promotes international acceptance and tolerance—necessary ingredients for producing a more congenial world.