Quote:
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.