Discussions about the merits of the art itself are all well and good. I don't mean to defend the Gates as if it's the best thing since sliced bread. It isn't. And if you think it's bad or mediocre art, fair enough. I just think it's lame to attack it for its monetary cost. Throughout history there have always been floods, droughts, plagues, earthquakes, etc that have destroyed human lives and communities. Does that mean we should not have art? We can always make the excuse that there is something more pressing to spend money on. The Bush administration would have us all believe we don't need art, that it's an unnecessary extra that adds no value to the human experience while they wage wars in the name of "freedom" and "democracy". But it's not a question of milk for the orphans vs. a Picasso. One has nothing to do with the other. How much did it cost to make the Lord of the Rings trilogy, for example? Or artsier fare like Finding Neverland? Or trashy TV shows that we watch and love? Or even commercials or concert tours or state-of-the-art rides at Disneyworld? It's all relative. At least the Gates was financed privately and is FREE for the public. What more can be asked of the artist?