The rich used to have their portraits painted by great artists. Even ordinary businessmen were immortalized in this way. Your comment shows how times change. Today’s “art patrons” are content with paying to have their name written on a wall. But maybe that is for the best. In the department where I worked at MIT, there was a terrible portrait of the couple who had funded the building I worked in.

If you ever go to Siena, check out the main art museum for insight into mass-production artwork in the context of the 14th century patronage system.

Artists working on commission often explore the same theme over and over, because that is what patrons can see in existing work.

The key difference between the mass production of the commissioned work and that for the gallery is that in the latter case, there is no certainty that the work will sell.

Earlier you commented that you see no need for deadlines or contracts to push you to finish your work. Are you able to pursue a major work for six months, with certainty that there will be a buyer? And without changing directions (which is natural, because you grow in the process of working)?

Artist don’t need deadlines to paint a straight forward picture, but if you think of doing a major work over a long time period, a little external pressure can be a big help.

Your point is important. A rich patron commissioning a work for his or her own pleasure will find an artist to make something that is appealing, at least to that patron. Much of the great art in Western civilizazion was produced in this mode, as mundane as it seems. If a foundation supports art that no one really wants, it is not surprising that the results please few. I think foundations would do better to give money away to individuals for the express purpose of buying art. I wrote a piece along these lines which I will try to find and put on-line. Thanks.
14 Oct.

One thing that I didn’t see mentioned in your essay was the role of foundations and public support programs in the patronage system. I live in Pittsburgh, which has an extraordinary number of foundations that support art in all disciplines. There is a definite influence in the region on what kinds of art are presented because of this patronage. Since the foundations are generally supporting issues beyond the expression of art, what they support reflects those values too.

For instance, numbers are a large part of how the foundations judge the effectiveness of supported programs. Especially numbers that reflect the attendance of diverse populations. Hence, every presenting organization slates a show that will draw out that population.

Another type of project that the foundations tend to support are those that otherwise might not be seen because the content is too challenging for the general consumer.

Both of these types of projects are worthwhile and I am not maligning the foundation’s efforts to expand the offerings in the arts to our community. However, because the projects are generally geared to small demographics within the community, it has served to alienate a large part of the public and has also impacted the commercial arts negatively.

Next time you go to a place where “arts patrons” hang out (museum, ballet, symphony) look at the plaques on the walls. Every wing, room and courtyard is named after someone.

I had to think about this question for a while and here are some thoughts in relationship to how I work.

My approach to making art is to work in a series. Not because I think that sells (I’m not yet pursuing gallery representation - I want to just focus on developing my work for a while) but because I think this is the best way for me grow as an artist.

Some of the work in my series is very forumulaic - and while not produced for a gallery could be considered what Carl describes as “mass production”.

I don’t view this as a bad thing. I believe with each new piece, even if I’m not really pushing the edges, that my skill improves just a bit more. It’s about training ones eye, muscle memory, becoming an expert at the technique.

Everyone now and then I’ll have a big “ah-ha” moment and make a big stride forward in the work. Then I’ll take that new idea and work it for a while to see where all it will lead me.

Through repetition of similar work I believe I become a better artist. I feel this is how I can push myself to the edge and beyond. I see a lot of parallels to what we discussed on an earlier thread related to the book “The structure of the scientific revolution” - but on a smaller, single person scale.

If I were in a patronage system of the past then I would have no control over the content of the work and would not have the opportunity to explore a subject in detail. From my point of view I believe this means I would never become as proficient as I would if I were able to control the content.

Now I can see that there are downfalls if one does have gallery representation and one is producing a very successful series of work. It would be very hard to make a giant leap forward in a different direction. The gallery and collectors might not want to make that leap forward and so the artist is torn between the cash the growth.

Which leads us back to Carl’s comment “He does not paint “for the sake of art”, but for his own sake. Perhaps this is the best way to make great art.”