The symbolic equation of artists with aristocrats and their comparable lack of integration with the industrial work world, suggested moral laxity and parasitism as well as purity and "superiority". The artists, most of came to the Institute with a history of only fleeting, irregular contact with bureaucratic work organizations, could be exasperatingly "irresponsible" from an administrator's point of view. In indulgent moments, staff members spoke of the artists as "irresponsible" but fascinating children had to be gently trained. The paternalistic theme of the artist as child was reiterated by trustees as much as by the lay staff. Like parents, they were expected to provide support in exchange, at best, for diffuse respect and a relationship which would make them "proud"'. Trustee philanthropy exhibited a rhetoric of patriotism and service to society— a concern with the social integration and usefulness of art— which was disagreeably alien to Institute faculty.