|
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!
|