Sebastian Smee and Peggy McGlone go over the BMA saga in the Washington Post. They end up here:
"But there’s one thing the Baltimore episode made clear: even the most noble of causes, including paying the mostly minority guards a living wage and improving access for the community, can’t be funded by monetizing the collection."
Leaving aside that there is one noble cause that everyone agrees can be funded by monetizing the collection (buying more art), that really is the question, isn't it? Is the correct moral principle that, no matter how noble the cause, it can never be funded through the sale of art?
