A brief survey of the social and technological evolution of patronage in the arts

At CROWDX, our goal is to give creatives access to sustainable funding for their endeavors while strengthening their ongoing connection to their supporters through a distributed patronage system. We believe that innovation in artistic patronage has stagnated given the current capabilities of technology and that in order to evolve further we must interrogate the fundamental notions that have accumulated around the pursuit of art over the years. The history of artistic patronage goes back hundreds of years and tracing that history yields insight into how creative commerce has transformed with the evolution of society and technology.

As we examine patronage solutions past, present, and future, we must always ask the following: Where does the money come from? How is the money allocated? Who benefits the most? What does the artist sacrifice in this process, if anything? Basically, we have to follow the money.

Patronage in the Past

A historical figure often associated with the role of patron was Gaius Maecenas (68 BC — 8BC), trusted friend, advisor, and ambassador to the Roman Emperor Octavian (Augustus) and wealthy patron of the arts. Later in life when he retired from his political duties, he cultivated a literary circle of poets including Virgil, Horace, Propertius, and Ovid, playing a pivotal role in shaping what would later be called the “Golden Age” of Roman literature and poetry. Maecenas represents the prototypical figure of the patron as a figure of status and wealth capable of shaping an entire creative scene. setting a model that has persisted for years with the role of patron played by families, churches, corporations, and governments.

The Medici family in seventeenth-century Florence are another historical example of traditional patronage in the arts and sciences: a wealthy, aristocratic family capable of elevating individuals like Leonardo da Vinci and Galileo from mediocrity to legend. They are perhaps more interesting than Maecenas because of their lasting influence on commerce itself (we’ll return to this in part three of this series). Like the Golden Age of Rome centuries past, the rich and powerful bankrolled the Renaissance. The explosion of the merchant class during this time is an important part of this story as it directly lead to another innovation with the advent of the joint-stock corporation on both sides of the Atlantic during the Industrial Revolution.

The common theme here is that artists throughout the centuries have repeatedly found themselves under the protective wing of institutions of power in order to pursue their craft. In this relationship, the artist does not have true creative freedom as any work that shakes up not only the status quo but also the whims and biases of the patron can compromise the implicit/explicit contract in effect, cutting off their line of support.

And what happens when artists are unable to find a wealthy patron? For the artist, not acquiring or not retaining patronage meant a rough life toiling in lower-class labor and obscurity. For example, William Blake’s poetry and illuminated manuscripts have left an indelible mark on the cultural consciousness, yet he died in poverty largely unknown until many years after his death. While he did have a few patrons throughout his career, his radicalism may have hindered his willingness to bend to the will of others despite their wealth in connections and coin. As Blake put it:

“I must create my own system, or be enslaved by another man’s; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create.”

Companies, Contracts, Markets

The rise of the joint-stock corporation before the turn of the century is nothing short of momentous. This byproduct of the Industrial Revolution shaped the game of commerce by setting rules of business that are in effect to this very day. This lead to the rise and propagation of powerful entities wholly concerned with accumulating capital by any means. The core political discourse that echoes to the present day began in this time. Who owns the value generated by the factory? Some say the owners. Some say the workers. The reason this is relevant to charting the evolution of artistic patronage is that all of the record companies and film studios that formed in the early 1900s were corporate entities by design. While their productions were not oil or steel, the same power imbalances persisted between the executives and the artists. The incentives of “ patronage” shifted further from the social signalling abound in Rome and Florence towards surviving within the leviathan of the market.

The music industry represents a particularly interesting case study of how rapid social and technological changes can cause creative industries to evolve quickly. In 1906 the first mass-market phonograph was released by The Victor Company, but it was not until the 1920s that individual records started to gain popularity over the device itself. The rise of rock ‘n roll and R&B in the late 1950s was an unprecedented cultural shift that gave the major record companies whiplash in the form of a precipitous drop in market share. Dismissing a cultural movement as fleeting turned out to be a costly mistake. This lead to smaller record labels forming that catered specifically to the popular scene, more nimble and less risk-averse compared to their legacy counterparts.

The media through which music was experienced changed rapidly in the last half of the century. In the mid-60s, the cassette was introduced as a much cheaper medium of music distribution than cutting vinyl, Sony’s release of the Walkman in the late 70s introduced portable music to the world unconfined by record players or in-vehicle cassette players, and finally the CD format marked the last significant advancement in music distribution before the 21st century.

The structure of the music industry did not change all that much in the last half of the twentieth century. Artists would contract labels to handle the management of the more complex areas of the creative supply chain, such as distribution, IP management, and royalties. It is important that we highlight the word “contract” here. In contract law, there is a concept of “contracts of adhesion” whereby the person who drafts and offers the contract has an implicit advantage in the negotiation of the deal. Artists did not draft up there own contracts and may not have ever read them line-by-line or understood their contents. After all, that is just business.

It is easy to criticize the structure of the creative industries in the previous century, but the reality is that these new economic spaces formed with the tools available at the time. Information and communication technologies — while constantly evolving — had limited capabilities, and as Melvin Conway once stated, “Organizations which design systems … are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations.” The industry gatekeepers played a vital role for artists in a less connected and integrated world, but it was not until the arrival of the Internet and the World Wide Web that a viable alternative could present itself.

Enter Internet: Sharing, Streaming, Social Networking

The turn of the next century marked a watershed moment in the creative industries as Internet platforms began the transformation of the music industry into an increasingly digital enterprise. When Napster entered the scene in 1999 and provided users a platform to share MP3 files freely with one another, many in the music industry practically rioted against the change. Infinitely replicable content was incompatible with the current business models. While the new global distribution mechanism did not go unnoticed, many established artists railed against Napster for its facilitation of rampant piracy which resulted in substantial loss of revenue. Once it became obvious that digital was here to stay, many enterprises formed to capitalize on the trend. Apple released the iPod in 2001, the digital evolution of the Walkman. The first subscription-based music provider, Rhapsody, launched that same year. In 2004, following the success of the iPod, Apple launched iTunes, a platform for purchasing and downloading individual songs. This model dominated the industry for years until the launch of streaming services. Spotify launched in 2008 across several countries and quickly gained traction with millions of subscribers. Apple, quick to notice a profitable trend when they see one, launched their own competing streaming service, Apple Music, months later. Other platforms such as Bandcamp gave independent creatives and labels more room to breathe with lesser fees and flexible pay-what-you-want options.

As digital music and streaming services continued to transform the creative economy, social networks also rose to prominence. Platforms like MySpace, Facebook, and Twitter provided a platform for artists to connect and engage with their fanbase beyond static mailing lists. Following a band was replaced with following their profile page(s). Social media’s impact in the creative space cannot be underestimated. Separate islands of communities throughout the Internet and throughout the land were connected into an active global network. This is powerful.

So far we have covered key elements that constitute the current creative supply chain: social media (networking, audience engagement), agreements (collaboration, ownership, IP creation/management), business entities (major/indie/personal, marketing, PR, tour organization), and distribution (manufacturers, streaming platforms). For a while, the role of patron was fragmented between legacy models of labels and publishers and the digital platforms that threatened their obsolescence. To establish runway, artists had to either sign away most of their future revenue in the old world or give up much of their earnings on various distribution platforms (Apple Music, Spotify, Google, Amazon). Around 2008, a new funding method caught on which is now the go-to approach to launching all manner of creative endeavors.

Part Two: Crowdfunding

Part Three: Future of Patronage