The New Patrons of Dance

In an era of dwindling public arts funding, luxury brands are stepping into the breach—literally. Programs like Van Cleef & Arpels’ Dance Reflections and Chanel’s €100,000 Next Prize are not just funding dance; they’re redefining its future. But as these brands pour millions into contemporary choreography, they’re also reshaping what gets made—and who gets to make it.

With governments from the U.S. To the UK slashing arts budgets, dance—one of the most economically fragile disciplines—faces a existential crisis. Yet while politicians debate, luxury houses are writing checks. The question isn’t whether this partnership will work, but whether it’s sustainable—and ethical.

Why Luxury Brands Are Betting on Dance

Dance has long relied on public funding. In the U.S., the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) has been a cornerstone of support, but its future remains uncertain. Meanwhile, in Europe, post-Brexit austerity and ongoing budget cuts have left institutions scrambling. According to Arts Professional, UK arts funding has dropped by 12% in real terms since 2015, forcing organizations like London’s Sadler’s Wells to seek alternative revenue streams.

Enter luxury brands. Their motivations are complex: tax incentives, cultural cachet, and genuine passion. For Van Cleef & Arpels, dance runs deep in the brand’s DNA. Founder Louis Arpels was a ballet enthusiast, and the maison’s iconic dancer pins celebrate the art form. But today’s programs go beyond symbolism. Dance Reflections, launched in 2019, now operates globally, supporting everything from new commissions to education initiatives.

“With Dance Reflections, the idea was to give back concretely to a discipline that still gives us a lot.”

When Philanthropy Meets Profit: The Tax Angle

In the U.S., corporate donations to nonprofits are tax-deductible, a policy that dates back to 1936. For brands like Chanel and Hermès, funding dance isn’t just altruism—it’s smart business. Yet the line between philanthropy and PR blurs when brands curate what gets created.

Take Chanel’s Next Prize, which awards €100,000 every two years to emerging choreographers. The prize isn’t just about money; it’s about visibility. Winners gain access to Chanel’s global platform, aligning with the brand’s image of avant-garde sophistication. Similarly, Van Cleef & Arpels’ festivals often feature cutting-edge works—like Leïla Ka’s Maldonne—that appeal to young, fashion-conscious audiences.

But does this mean brands are dictating artistic direction? Not entirely. While sponsors may have preferences, they rarely interfere in the creative process. “The support is very transparent, just cash flow for production,” says Korean choreographer Sung Im Her, whose work 1 Degree Celsius was part of Dance Reflections 2025.

Dance as a Global Language

Luxury brands aren’t just funding dance—they’re using it as a tool for cultural diplomacy. In an era of rising nationalism, dance offers a universal language. Van Cleef & Arpels’ festivals have taken place in six continents, from Seoul to Los Angeles, fostering cross-cultural exchange.

For New York Live Arts, this international reach has been transformative. “We’ve had such a retrenchment in the past few years that our outreach to international artists has been curtailed,” says artistic director Bill T. Jones. “VCA’s support has helped change that.”

Jones highlights another benefit: exposure to diverse perspectives. “I’ve been really interested in the artists of color that have reached my theater, and to see how questions of race play out differently in Europe and here.” Dance Reflections’ 2026 New York edition, for example, featured works by Anne Teresa De Keersmaeker and Leïla Ka, bridging heritage and innovation.

Money, Morals, and the Tobacco Stain

Not all corporate patronage is created equal. In the 1980s, the tobacco company Philip Morris funded dance, sparking backlash. Today, brands like Hermès and Galeries Lafayette face scrutiny over sustainability and labor practices.

Some artists refuse funding outright. Others accept it with conditions. “It’s not a black-and-white line of morals and ethics,” says Oona Doherty, a 2024 Chanel Next Prize winner. “People come with different baggage.”

For FEDORA, Europe’s arts philanthropy network, due diligence is key. “We are very careful. It’s all based on shared values,” says Edilia Gänz, director of European arts philanthropy. The organization’s €100,000 biennial prize, sponsored by Van Cleef & Arpels, is selected by an independent jury.

Yet concerns linger. Some artists worry that accepting corporate money normalizes a system where public funding is replaced—not supplemented. “[Brand patronage] is not the same as having a New York State Council on the Arts,” says Jones. “It’s an expression of democracy.”

A Fragile Partnership

The biggest risk? Personality-driven patronage. Van Cleef & Arpels’ Dance Reflections was launched under the leadership of Nicolas Bos, whose personal passion for the arts drove the initiative. What happens when leadership changes?

“Nothing lasts forever,” warns Alistair Spalding, Sadler’s Wells’ artistic director. “We have to be ready for that.” The challenge is balancing private investment with public accountability. As Gänz puts it: “The future of arts funding will depend on a meaningful dialogue between public and private models.”

For now, luxury brands are filling the gap. But dance’s survival may hinge on whether governments step up—or if the art form becomes permanently beholden to corporate whims.