Patronage

SPMiller's idea of patronage of the arts is interesting to me not because it proposes a radical shift, but because it shows an ignorance of how the arts are often funded even in this modern day and age. Those who believe that the patronage system is dead and gone haven't really been paying attention. It's still alive and well; it's just shifted from single individuals who are obligated to fund the arts because of their social position to a group of individuals who voluntarily contribute to the arts.

Take for example a couple of my favorite online comics: Girl Genius and Real Life. Do you notice the option to donate through PayPal on both of these comics? This is, in part, how these comics survive, how the artists are able to keep them alive. Look at AW, which also accepts donations and holds auctions so that it can continue its mission of assisting writers.

Do you think everyone that uses AW or that reads Girl Genius and Real Life donate? Or that only those who are able to do so and who believe in supporting the arts for the enjoyment of all do so?

The patronage system is alive and well. It's merely evolved to take into account that more individuals have disposable income and that there are more, sometimes less public, ways to donate and support the arts.

Yup, it must be my ignorance. That's why the donations aren't pouring in. I knew I was doing something wrong.

The first time someone donates money to me for writing, I'll let you know.

Hasn't happened yet, I can tell you that much.

So, because no one's offered to assist you or support you, that means it doesn't happen? That there's no type of patronage system out there?

The only access to "patronage" most writers have is to sell their work to publishers through agents. Which is fine for now, I guess, except for the whole unstoppable piracy thing. But I haven't deceived myself into believing it'll always work. Things change. The hands on the clock move.

I don't even know why I'm talking this out. I'm respectfully... out.

I'm not talking about customers has patrons. I'm talking about individuals who donate to artists, regardless of the medium and genre, so that art remains.

How do you think grants are funded? Online magazines? Do you think it's only through advertising? Or through individuals who are also willing to give of their money so that writers and artists have a way of being supported while they work? How do you think many school programs are paying for their art programs these days? Funding has been cut. In order to keep music and art programs, support must come through individuals.

That's not a customer-based model. That's a patronage system. Evolved and adapted, yes, but patronage nonetheless.

I've split the patronage discussion from the Internet Piracy thread.

In a free market system, entities that are unable to meet a demand with their product, or generate demand through innovation, are going to be unable to create a market, and consequently be unable to sustain itself financially. The free market takes care of itself. There's no need for "patronage" in a free market.

Sure, there's that old debate about art for the sake of art, and what if someone is talented but unable to create a demand, etc...

Well, there's no guarantee in life for anything. That's a big problem with the proposed model. To a certain degree, it seeks to reward everyone for simply showing up. People who hate capitalism always complain about working hard but still not being successful. I have yet to fail in any capitalist endeavor when I adhere to the fundamentals of free market economics.

If I am unable to generate a demand for my "art", then I guess that my "art" isn't simply good enough to warrant being financially rewarded for the effort.

I have no delusions about the fact that if some wealthy patron dropped a 20,000 pound block of granite into my back yard and handed me a set of chisels, the uninspiring result, "My Many Pieces of Gravel", will be without further financial reward.

There are TONS of grants available to writers---but they tend to apply to specific circumstances. Sometimes it's based on geographic location, or type of writing, or gender/race/nationality. But they're out there. I don't know if grants are "patronage" of the sort that's being proposed here, though. I've always thought of patronage as a life-long thing between two individuals, or a funded trust to a small group of people.

On a national level I think the concept would fail. Libraries, national parks and art galleries are about as close as the free market system has ever gotten. We pay for them as a nation, and also on a local level, and we all benefit. But for individual authors? Boy, that would be tough to swallow. It would be too easy to wind up with "preferred" genres or categories, depending on the administration in office. What if those in charge of the department didn't consider slipstream horror "worthwhile" as an art form? Or political parodies, or abstract literary novels?

It's one thing to fund libraries, because that's freedom of expression and supports the ideals behind the constitution. But to reward individuals, based on the perceived "quality" to the population?

I'd fear for the sanctity of that system.

Perks said:

Relocated by moderator, not me.

Click to expand...

Perks said:

And it's too bad the discussion on tangible alternatives have now been removed from the original thread. But, hey, I've always been good at ping pong.

Click to expand...

Okay, Perks, how long are you going to mutter and nitpick about the fact that you don't agree with how I split out this conversation? I'm just wondering.

Good. Then let's get back to the conversation.