Last Friday, Richard T. Stremme visited our class to discuss his experiences with music and art in New York City. I was expecting a boring, arrogant professor to waltz into the room and explain his thesis on art history. Fortunately my cynical expectations were proven wrong. I found it refreshing that someone with such an interesting background was so down-to-earth and genuine. Although Rich covered a lot of interesting topics, the topic I found most interesting related to his stories about Revs. His opinions on how graffiti art differs from high class museum art tied into our class’s previous discussions on “money and art.” What separates street art from the art found in a museum? Before this class, I used to believe that museum art required more skill, talent, and hard work. After staring at a blanket sitting on the floor in the Guggenheim, I changed my mind. The only difference between street art and museum art is the museum. And a museum takes money to build and money to visit. Before this class I never questioned the authority of museums to charge an entrance fee. Rich Stremme got me thinking that art should be free when he stated that “museums represent the corporate takeover of America.” He mentioned the extinction “cabinets of curiosity,” places where individuals would collect artifacts and artwork that interested them and show it to others. I wish they still existed. But if art was free, as Rich and Revs suggest it should be, then “artist” would no longer be a career. And, if musical and theatrical performances are included under the umbrella of what is art, then “musician,” “composer,” “director,” and “actor” would no longer be career options either. Professional artists, meaning those who have chosen art as their profession, rely on the money of the viewers as an income. I propose that art should be free only if the art is not the main source of the artist’s income. If we lived in a society where the previous statement was true, then there would ideally be no artists starving and no major museums, the corporations of art, making tons of money off of art that they did not even create. Both free art and expensive art represent extremes of opinion. So, should art be free? Sometimes yes, and sometimes no.