>>Im curious why are museum professionals astonished that an artist might want
 to be paid for the display of his/her work? ....<<

I don't think this should be a confrontational issue between museums and
 artists, after all we depend on each other, but I would like to give a
 museum's side.

For example, we are currently organizing an exhibit on a local artist, who has
 been working for 20 years, but isn't well known.    The museum went out and
 raised $38,000 in corporate funds (the corporation was our contact, not his)
 to produce a poster, exhibit catalog, prints, invitations, opening reception,
 educational materials for teachers, promotional signage and media materials
 for this exhibit.   We have arranged media coverage of the exhibit, including
 two leading magazines.   Through our operating budget, we purchased the
 exhibit's signature work from him for our collection at his price.  And this
 doesn't count all the people-hours working on the exhibit.

For this, the museum is able to fulfill its mission of bringing cultural events
 to our visitors, providing educational materials for school groups, and giving
 visability to local artists.   (We do not charge admission, so we get no
 monetary reward.)

But the artist also benefits through the exposure.   Your argument would seem
 to indicate that we should now  pay him a fee for the privilege of spending
 over $50,000  showcasing his work and promoting it.

I don't think we are taking advantage of this artist, and I am sure he feels
 the same way.

P. Fox