How Much Art Is Too Much?

I recently read this article, NEA chairman provokes heated debate: How much art is too much?, by Peter Marks of the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/11/AR2011021105534_pf.html

In this article the chairman of the NEA, Rocco Landesman, asks the question: Does the country have more outlets for the arts than it can handle?

I find this to be fascinating. First of all it is not an issue that I had even thought of before. Can there really be too many theaters, art galleries, dance companies, symphonies, etc? You always hear about how arts programs are being cut down severely or completely eliminated when it comes to public funding in our schools. So it only seemed natural that the private sector would step up to the plate to bridge the gap. And in these times of recession with lowered donor and grant support and lower ticket sales, you would think that organizations that are not doing well would come to a rather natural ending without outside help asking for them to just close up shop. If a struggling arts organization is able to stay afloat through whatever means, is it right of us to say, "Look your on life support, it's time for you to go into the light and stop taking funding and ticket sales away from healthier organizations." Surely if they are able to stay afloat there is a real desire out there in the community for them to stick around a while longer.

Is our only choice really to "decrease supply" as suggested by Mr. Landesman. He suggests that it is not possible to increase demand. Yet if these arts organizations are able to keep the engine going, doesn't that indicate that there already is a very real demand for these lesser organizations? Why can't they build on their foundations and increase demand?