Another argument for state arts sponsorship

Read this article from the Times about "auctioning off" dancers at prominent ballet companies (in other words giving patrons the ability to sponsor particular dancers by "purchasing" them at auctions).

Um. Come again?

Isn't that a little dehumanizing? Here's a money quote from one of the money people about spending money on sponsoring a particular dancer:
"I had so much fun running up to John saying: `Guess what? I own you!' " Ms. Courts recalled. "He said, `What are you talking about?' I said: `I bought you at the auction. I'm your sponsor for the year.' We had a great time laughing and talking about that."

Look, sponsorship is great. Shakespeare enjoyed it, for one, but can anyone explain to me how using the signs and signifiers of American Slavery (that great blight on our history that still affects us today) is a good idea. I mean, maybe the dancers are able to take it as a joke in which case, bully for you Ethan Stiefl. But on some level, you are being bought and sold by individual donors and corporations in order to further your art.

What's next, you can buy a night of passion with Gillian Murphy for a million dollars?