Acta est fabula, plaudite!

This week John Key announced that although the government is unable to fund a National Art Gallery at present, "wealthy philanthropists" have shown interest and the gallery may still go ahead.

And, for the top tax bracket, the other shoe drops. Who's he talking about? Not the Caugheys again; god, Harry, you should have accepted that contra offer from that rapist when you had the chance... Maybe they'll think we're the anonymous patron in the Auckland Arts Festival booklet. How much were they worth? Clever little Johnny. As well as inviting comparisons to Roman rulers for more than just his Caesar-cut and love of steam-rooms, by allowing a Munerator to provide the public with a spectacle (albeit one without a fatal ending, unless you pay enough and use the Vivian Street tunnel exit), he shuts up the Labour voters who say National doesn't care about the arts as well as those who thought the rise in GST and changes in personal tax rates were more than mere coincidence, and, most democratically, provides sport for all while the status anxious squirm in their Ermenegildo Zegna shirts and Louis Vuitton corsets (as much as they, and this morning's botox, allow), wondering if it was whoever John and Bronagh were busy with last Thursday, and was it because they ordered Speights not Peroni on Monday (completely forgot we're all supporting the South Island this month).

The gallery has been on the table for nearly a decade now, the previous gallery having been swallowed up by Te Papa in 1998, at which time its collection was either relegated to Te Papa's fifth floor or unceremoniously banished to storage. While this exemplifies New Zealand's laidback nature and abhorrence of showing off, most agree that to have the goods where we can see them would be well; not as a touring collection, as has been proposed, but in a National Art Gallery worthy of our art - a poolroom to call our own. The proposed site is beside Te Papa; Wellington has a reputation as New Zealand's arts and culture capital that it has been building for five-plus years (or whenever it was that Aucklanders started listening to Fat Freddy's), besides which Auckland already has too much to offer, Christchurch's plates can't be relied on, and Jetstar doesn't fly direct from Australia to anywhere else in New Zealand. On top of this, Auckland's memo was lost in the confusion of the party central debate, so its own gallery is already undergoing an extension with a projected total cost of $121 million, $33.4 million of which will be raised by the Auckland Art Gallery Foundation with donations from community funding agencies, corporate bodies, and private donors, who can 'donate a seat for art' to the auditorium for $2500.

So it's back to the wealthy philanthropists. If philanthropists are what they really are; what are the implications of allowing private donors to fund a National Art Gallery? Is it a simple philanthropic act of a wealthy citizen that we should accept and enjoy? A modern-day equivalent of the sponsors of Roman Munera that we should accept and remember next election (excusing the unlikely gang presented to us as 'cabinet' on its basis)? Or is it Michael Corleone presenting a cheque to the university in his son's name at his first communion that we should accept or risk never again visiting our favourite brothels in peace? Have your say.