Questions 23-33 are based on the following
passage.
Rethinking Crowdfunding in the Arts
Crowdfunding is a popular way to raise money using the Internet. The process sounds simple: an artist, entrepreneur, or other innovator takes his or her ideas straight to the public via a crowdfunding website. The innovator creates a video about the project and offers, in exchange for donations, a series of “perks,” from acknowledgment on a social media site to a small piece of art. Many crowdfunding programs are all-or-nothing; in other words, the innovator must garner 100 percent funding for the project or the money is refunded to the donors. At Q23 it’s best, the system can give creators direct access to millions of potential backers. The home page of one leading crowdfunding site features a project to manufacture pinhole cameras on a 3‑D printer. Q24 The idea is obviously very attractive. An obscure method of photography may be made available to many with little expense. Within weeks, the project was 621 percent funded. In contrast, on the same page, a small Brooklyn performance venue is attempting to raise money for its current season. The venue features works of performance art showcased in a storefront window. Those who have seen the space consider it vital. Q25 However, that group may not be large enough; with just fourteen days to go in the fund-raising period, the campaign is only 46 percent funded. Artists such as these Brooklyn performers find that crowdfunding exacerbates problems that already exist. Q26 Work, that is easily understood and appreciated, is supported, while more complex work goes unnoticed. Q27 Time that could be used creating art is spent devising clever perks to draw the attention of potential contributors. Q28 In addition, audiences may contain many “free Q29 riders,” they did not make contributions. Ironically, the success of crowdfunding may weaken overall funding for the arts if people begin to feel that paying for the art Q30 loved by them is someone else’s responsibility. [1] One innovative playwright has woven the deficiencies of the system into her crowdfunding model. [2] Though the price for her tickets was higher than that of tickets for comparable shows, it was still affordable to most theatergoers—and reflected the real cost of the performance. [3] She presented the total cost for producing her play on a crowdfunding site. [4] Then she divided the total cost by the number of people she expected to attend the performance. [5] The result of the calculation was the minimum donor price, and only donors who paid at least the minimum ticket price were allowed to attend the performance. [6] By subverting the presumption that money used for her project is an altruistic donation, the playwright showed that Q31 our work has monetary value to those who enjoy it. Q32
Question Q33 asks about the graphic below