when someone can't understand you, that's poor writing.

you disagree with my premise.  To recap, that is that the selection of something that truly aesthetically beautiful is not something the mob is capable of, and left to their own devices will likely choose things that are ugly.

I made a prediction to that effect, and feel pretty confident that it came true.  As you've made no attempt to refute the objective beauty/ugliness of the chosen artwork, I consider that a given.

So, does the DeVos family have the right to spend their money however they want within reason?  Of course.  Is it a good use of their money?  I would say no.  Was it effective?  Clearly not.

And the American revolution was not about telling "statist thinking pricks" too go away.  Rather, the revolution was a way to replace one set of elites with another, and whereas George III wasn't choosing our art, now those with money do.  

DeVos's artprize was different in that it allowed the masses to choose the winners.  That was the innovation, that was what was unique.  I think it's the most basic of questions to say whether that's wise.  Especially on a website like this set up for open discussion.

I'm not dismissing you, and in your closing I think you caught yourself in what you were really doing: reacting viscerally to a pretty simple and pleasant discussion.  And your use of arguments like:

1. my statist beliefs
   
2. continuing to post after it's over (hilarious considering you keep doing it yourself)
   
3. some desire to be a serf

it's silly, childish and un-American.