Could it be the question of what makes art become and stay solid good, grow in monetary value? What we appreciate in general and in art is what is good in general and in art or what we haven’t become to notice and pay attention to make art good, interesting and worth while? It is something to expect or a surprise. Or something ordinary depicted in a different way, multiple ways to see something is also good for art or to play it safe? When art is used to benefit a cause will we see evolving art or art in use to benefit the cause firstly? What do you think? I think when bureaucrats see their job to solve the issue of good art and make art promote a city for example it is never benefit of art. It is because bureaucrat sees himself/herself superior and artist inferior, a servant, even though it should be the bureaucrat who is a servant. Artist who may be a curiously interesting field study, funny oddity and specimen to put in use, to talk about. It is not a case of community serving arts or artists having an important role other than making an image, pretty preferably.