The post to which I replied talked about billionaire board members and
falling-down schools, "private" institutions and "taxpayer money."  In
public policy debate, that's code for "irrelevant and elitist."  Perhaps
the post did not intend to convey that meaning -- though I rather think
it did.

Advocates for support for museums -- private support as well as public
-- always have to contend with other, "higher" priorities, from national
parks to starving children to public schools.  I don't  say that those
aren't important priorities.  But on the other hand, they already
command multiples of multiples of support compared to arts and culture.


If we can't say and believe that museums are important and deserving of
support, we may as well fold our tents and go home.

Andy Finch
AAM Government Affairs
[log in to unmask]

AN UNOFFICIAL COMMUNICATION

> the point was that MOMA has other financial resources
> and that it would have been more appropriate to spend that $65 million
> of
> taxpayer money  on public schools than on a private institution.
> It is inappropriate to accuse the author of the original message of
> attacking museums as irrelevant  because he/she thinks New York City
> public
> schools should be given priority in matters of financial allocations
> over a
> private museum,