The deal to rename the Miami Art Museum for Jorge M. Perez, the South Florida real estate developer who pledged $35 million in cash and art to the museum last week, came down to one thing: It was the best offer on the table.

And that, say those who advise the wealthy on their giving, is how it should be.

“Fundraising is, in its own way, a business, and you look at what the market will bear,’’ said Leslie Lenkowsky, professor of philanthropic studies at Indiana University.

Given South Florida’s relatively young philanthropic history, and naming rights purchased for comparable cultural institutions in the past five years, including the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts, and the Frost Museum of Science, $35 million is probably the right price to rename Miami’s art museum, Lenkowsky said.

Yet the announcement of Perez’s gift and the museum’s name-change, delivered at the height of South Florida’s cultural apex — Art Basel Miami Beach — was greeted with criticism from many in the arts community, including prominent collectors and members of the museum’s board of trustees, three of whom resigned in protest over the decision.

Past MAM President Mary Frank and her husband Howard, chief operating officer and vice chairman of Carnival Corp., took out a full-page newspaper ad opposing the plan. And collectors Rosa and Carlos de la Cruz penned a Letter to the Editor in the Miami Herald criticizing the name-change and warning that it would hurt future donations.

“This is not a personal thing against Mr. Perez,’’ Rosa de la Cruz said. “This is when a community puts up the money, you don’t change the name. If they want to change the name of the museum, there should be a referendum.’’

So why did no one raise similar objections when Miami philanthropists Adrienne Arsht, and Patricia and Phillip Frost announced naming gifts to two local cultural institutions that received more public dollars than the art museum?

Part of the answer is timing, said Melissa Berman, president and chief executive of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors in New York.

“The Occupy [Wall Street] movement really is part of the spotlight that’s on situations like this,’’ she said. “The sense that the vast majority of Americans are being left behind … So it makes them much more critical of the actions that smack sort of elitism and special opportunity.’’

Another possible explanation, Berman said, is that many people are not familiar with what it takes to fund most art institutions – a combination of borrowing, public funding and private philanthropy.

The Arsht Center, for instance, was built using about $440 million in public funds and $48 million in private donations.

The science museum, scheduled to open in 2014, is earmarked to receive $178 million in public funds, and its board has pledged to raise $100 million in private donations.

The art museum, planned to open in 2013, is slated to receive $103 million public funds, and its board has pledged to raise $120 million in donations. Even with Perez’s $35 million pledge, the board still has $52 million to go.“Part of what’s needed is to have some clear information ... about how most art institutions fund themselves,’’ Berman said.

But, she added, “That doesn’t mean that some people will not still be critical.’’