With Strings Attached

[Undertoad]

A well-constructed dilemma sir, what with its many layers!

Is it strange to think that, in "real life", there would be so many more layers? The political interests... the secret drinking problem, and thus, low life-expectancy of the top donor... the spiteful board of directors... the finicky first violinist's refusal to play anything stained with corporate crime.

Looks to me like the thing is constructed to turn sort of inside-out? Which do you value most: the continuance of the GVO? The integrity of the name of the GVO? Of the integrity of the art of the GVO?

The artist knows the integrity of the art. The false artist confuses the integrity of the name with the integrity of the art. The laid-off artist is delivering potato chips to convenience stores at 4AM.

So, it seems to me, the best choice is for the GVO to take corporate money, and to recover any of its lost integrity in its name through charity work in schools.

That being my own answer and surely part of the point is to develop an answer and not the answer, I can see many sidetracks where the thing can be derailed. The complicated ethics of selling tobacco to people whose life expectancy is only 45 anyway. The price of tickets and how the people come into the money they use to pay for those tickets. Whether the value to the audience is integrity, or merely an enjoyable night out. The value in even auditioning the kid to see what he's got. The irresistible "take both" proprosition.

Good stuff! Moar!

[smoothmoniker]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Looks to me like the thing is constructed to turn sort of inside-out? Which do you value most: the continuance of the GVO? The integrity of the name of the GVO? Of the integrity of the art of the GVO?

I think the heart of the matter is right there - what's the difference between the two associations? If GVO takes money from a company with socially irresponsible business practices, I don't think there is a return of social capital from the orchestra to company. In other words, GVO doesn't transfer some of their goodwill to Altria, and then GVO has less and Altria has more. Rather, I think Altria is trading against the general public goodwill toward philanthropic support of the arts. GVO doesn't lose in this case, but Altria does gain.

The transaction between GVO and Wagner (the rich aunt) is a very different thing. There, the orchestra is actually trading away some of its social capital to the young nephew. Their is an implied agreement between the patrons and the orchestra that the music selected for the program is selected on merit, because of the musical director's assessment that it will provide a certain musical experience for the audience. The agreement to perform the work trades on that implied agreement, and subverts it.

If that's not clear, think about the difference between the case as present, and a possible alternate. In the alternate, the aunt spends the $6 million to rent a hall, hire musicians, promote the concert, and give away tickets. It's an identical performance to the first case, the only difference being that it's not actually under the auspices of the GVO name. I think it's pretty clear that the alternate case wouldn't have the same impact on the composer's career, and would not be an acceptable solution for the Aunt. She wants the name; she wants to trade on the presumption of merit. That association between the GVO name and the performed work has specific value that is different, and more damaging, than the association between GVO and Altria.

[ZenGum]

If we are worried about where Altria's money comes from, shouldn't we also be worried about where the rich aunt's money comes from?
What if she's involved in companies that use sweatshops and child labor or produce dreadful pollution? What if she is a shareholder of Altria???