Our local newspaper sounded the outrage about a relatively
minor government official who bought “over $1000 of art” for their office.  Now there are several things wrong here, so
let’s look at them in no particular order. 
“Over $1000 of art” is obviously meant to enrage the taxpayer that so
much of their money was spent on art. 
The amount was actually something like $1027, yes, over $1000, but
$1000? That’s not a lot of art. The Phactors have several pieces in their
living room (well, at least 4) that cost more than $1000 each.  So what are we talking here?  Oh, 5 or 6 Art.com framed prints or something
like that for just over $1000, so just about nothing. Now the real outrage should be that tax money
was spent on cheap-ass, knock-off  pseudo-art that was probably bought to match their sofa.  But that isn’t the most troubling part.  What kind of cultural Philistine thinks art
in a public work place is some kind of outrageous waste of tax money even if it
is art.com stuff?  This is a university
city, so starving artists abound, and buying one nice piece of art from a local
artist would be a better expenditure; local economy, quality of life, support
the arts, and all that. Apparently if your workplace is a public one,
then you should just live with the blank, institutional-pastel walls and be
content in your bleak, soul-sucking, gray cubicle.