Most of us are familiar with the image of artist as avant-garde outsider, relentlessly dedicating himself to pursue the creation of the edgy and unorthodox. And from the late 19th century to the present, this stereotype has been more or less true.
Most artists aren't mainstream. They create unconventional works. They doggedly seek to push aesthetic boundaries. These things, incidentally, have also given rise to the myth - or perhaps the reality - of the "starving artist". After all, it's tough to be at the forefront of intellectual thought and still convince average people to buy your offbeat creations.
Long ago, however, the artist-patron relationship was dramatically different. In the Middle Ages and Renaissance artists generally worked exclusively at the behest of rich and powerful patrons. A wealthy patron would employ a gifted artist for years, or even decades, at a time, providing him with funds to cover the cost of his supplies and living expenses, as well as a generous stipend. In return, the artist would complete works of art commissioned by his benefactor.
Although many of these Renaissance period artworks had religious themes, they were also intimately bound up with politics. Patrons would often demand that they be inserted into ostensibly historical paintings or frescos in order to emphasize the patron's religious devotion or importance.
A great example of this is the famous Italian Renaissance painter Raphael's greatest work, The School of Athens. This giant fresco, commissioned by Pope Julius II in the early 16th century, shows famous ancient philosophers and scholars debating in a mythical Classical setting. However, Raphael inserted the Pope's nephew, the Duke of Urbino, into the painting. Raphael was either instructed by his patron to make this anachronistic addition or did it on his own to curry favor with the Pope. In any case, this was commonplace in medieval and Renaissance art.
The Medici, a dynasty of wealthy bankers who dominated Florentine politics during the late Renaissance, perhaps best exemplifies the typical artist-patron relationship of the time. Immensely rich and powerful, the Medici family sponsored famed artists such as the legendary Botticelli and Michelangelo. Indeed, the Medici's home city of Florence reached its cultural apogee under their rule, in no small part because of their generous patronage of the arts.
But this traditional artist-patron relationship began to fundamentally change in the mid to late 19th century. Until this time, the French Académie des Beaux-Arts dictated trends in European art. Artists who won awards or accolades at the Academy were well placed to receive important commissions from wealthy patrons. But the institution was hopelessly traditionalist, valuing religious, historical and portrait themed paintings and sculptures rendered in a photo-realistic style above all else.
Starting in the 1860s, a small group of promising artists, including Claude Monet and Pierre-Auguste Renoir, rebelled against the rigid traditions of the Academy. After repeated rejections by the Académie des Beaux-Arts, these pioneering artists founded their own art show called the Salon des Refusé, or the Salon of the Refused. The works displayed at this unorthodox show later became the basis for Impressionism, the first truly Modern Art movement.
After the successful rebellion of the Impressionists from the Académie des Beaux-Arts, it became increasingly common for artists to reject the traditionalism that had dominated fine art from the Renaissance to the early 19th century. They were free to pursue whatever styles, concepts or mediums they desired. But this newfound liberty came at a steep price. Rich patrons no longer directly subsidized an artist's lifestyle.
Instead, artists effectively began creating works on spec, meaning they completed a piece of art first, and then tried to see if anyone was interested in buying it afterwards. But if an artist's style was too avant-garde, the public, including wealthy art collectors, would be initially repelled. This translated into few sales and a meager, hand-to-mouth existence for most artists. This was an unfortunate development for artists, considering how expensive good art is to produce.
The famous Dutch Post-Impressionist Vincent Van Gogh is perhaps the most well-known example of this phenomenon. Although he was tremendously prolific, creating over 2,000 artworks during his lifetime, he struggled to find commercial success. Although his works routinely trade for millions of dollars today, he ironically died a pauper, barely able to eke out a Spartan existence from his artistic talent.
The influence of these early non-conformist artists has persisted down to the modern era. But while the 20th century was dominated by the unfettered, iconoclast artist, I believe the pendulum of history is beginning to swing in the other direction. We are starting to see a variation of the traditional artist-patron relationship reassert itself.
This is most evident on peer-to-peer e-commerce platforms like Etsy. Etsy allows an aspiring artist to create a few works on spec to gauge potential interest, and then accept commissions from interested customers - really modern-day patrons - for custom work. This arrangement allows artists to tap the much-needed funds of well-to-do art aficionados, while simultaneously providing collectors a degree of control over the type of art they receive.
