So, there is this question now about money and art. Perhaps question isn't the right way to put. It seems to be this riddle about how much is too much, or whether it is money that corrupts or love of said money (which came first the chicken or the egg).
I think that the truth of the matter is that yes sometimes money and art are able to co-exist (and co-exist well). But there are some instances in which money is not the answer. There are some paradigms where raising a certain level of money requires a commitment not only to a certain structure of organization but also to a certain sort of programming, a certain sort of artistic approach... that doesn't always appeal to everyone, especially those who spend most of their time residing in the fringe. Adam Thurman is right in that people shouldn't fear money, they shouldn't fear organization. But Don is also right in that there are some types, methods, and ways of art and expression that can only be corrupted when too much money invades the priority of the folks involved.
Here is the great thing though. I don't have to choose. I can work with and embrace both kinds of ensembles as an artist and/or as an audience. The real problem isn't which road one chooses at which time. The problem is when too many of us get hung up (myself included) pointing fingers at the other convinced they are somehow detrimental to the scene, the community, what have you.
We have enough voices that we don't get to accuse anyone else of "drowning out" the "competition" when it comes to ideas about arts organization, etc. etc. Lets keep talking about different models when they work, when they don't (and admit that in some circumstances... they don't).