We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
This is a brilliant move. The entire staff and everyone associated with the museum will now learn a lesson that they could not learn any other way. I am assuming that the new diverse hires will come from that part of the population that has no other real skillset than being the right skin color and this will be a stunning failure needed ever more funding and propping up with specific and intentional lying to each other and to ones self about how successful the program is. It will be a colossal failure of course and the only real choice will be to endure it and keep lying about it forever or to replace it with actual intelligent and trained people.
The reason why this is brilliant is simply that if they had instead chosen to only hire minorities in the future or to hire 20% or 30% over time THEN the program would not fall flat on it's face because the capable people would take on more work and with greater effort and longer hours somehow make it all work. And then the people at the top could actually believe and argue that it worked. But, thankfully choosing to do it this way is an all or nothing strategy which is doomed to fail and the reasons will be obvious and leave no doubt in anyone's mind that simply being a minority is not a qualification.
Brilliant! Simply brilliant! I look forward to the inevitable failure and the weasel word explanations to come.
This is Chicago. The new docents will be paid ("to allow less wealthy people to participate"), and will get their jobs through clout.
Donations may decline, but that won't matter--they have various artworks in back that nobody normally sees anyway: Nobody will notice when they get sold off.
It's a "Diversity, Inclusion, Equity" bust-out.
I wonder how many of those unpaid volunteer docents were intending to make charitable (and tax deductible) contributions to the Art Institute of Chicago. Outfits like that only survive on grants and donors, and the AIC may have just poisoned the donor well.
[I posted this on october 18, the previous time you wrote about The Art Institute.]
Art of The Steal
A movie about the "theft" of The Barnes Foundation's priceless collection of modern art.
[from youtube commenter Robert Schlesinger]:
"..a superb documentary film about how the political and media powers that be, effectively stole the most valuable art collection in the world, worth tens of billions of dollars... This film is essential viewing for those in the legal profession, particularly art law and estate planning, and for those with major art collections. The best documentary on how politics and law may be used to effectively steal the world's most valuable art collection."
My view is that the Art Institute of Chicago is playing the opening moves in what will be a years long gambit to steal thousands of priceless artworks and cultural artifacts from the institute, parlaying them into the hands of private collectors at cut-rate prices; all it takes is the "failure" of the Institute. Opening move is to fire the current group of knowledgeable and dedicated docents, replace them with overpaid hourly workers who have no love of art; the result will be a long steady decline in attendence at the museum, loss of revenues, failed "bailouts" (with strings attached), piecemeal sell-off of the artworks at fire-sale prices to raise revenues, and a slow spiral into dissolution.
Hey, I wouldn't mind owning a $30million VanGogh for only a million. Create a crisis, reap the rewards.