What is Collective Patronage? As the name suggests, it require a ‘collective’ of people to make it happen. A group of individuals brought together to support an artist. Patronage means providing financial support to artists. The dictionary defines patronage as “the financial support provided to hotels by its customers” – in historical terms, it is most often associated with the renaissance period in the 15th century, when wealthy merchants such as the De Medici family would act as patrons of the arts.They would provide an artist with financial support in exchange for his ongoing production of artistic works. Note that the De Medici were not necessarily purchasing the artworks themselves but rather, were supporting the artists financially thereby facilitating the ongoing creation of such works. Otherwise, the artist would have to find some other means of supporting himself, which would naturally take up their time and prevent them from focusing their full attention and time on their art. It was a fantastic system, if not without its own issues. The biggest issue was perhaps the increased definition of class distinction as a result. The artist had nothing in economic terms, while the patron had everything. Financial wealth. Power. And through their generosity, they used their power to facilitate the creation of art, thereby taking credir in part for the finished work and of course, the benefits that went with being associate with l’artiste du jour.
So, fast-forward 500 years and we now have an opportunity to improve the patronage model through the use of networked technologies. What I call collective patronage, involves a critical mass of ‘patrons’, supporters or fans providing an artist or group with micropayments, which collectively add up to enough so that the artist can concentrate full-time on making music/art, while still being able to pay the bills. The idea would be that an artist would have a profile on a website and a Paypal account. Users of the site could then send money (any amount they choose) to the artist, which would go to a collective fund – and every month the pot would be divided among artists who continue to produce new music. You don’t produce, you don’t receive financial support. The system could be quite open.
The concept of collective patronage would need to be regulated or controlled in some way. Having a completely open network that relies on its users to make it work is probably overly idealistic. The internet itself is an open network that can be used by anyone in any way, within the limitations of the technology. Allowing people to pay money directly into an artist’s individual Paypal account is problematic. It is open to all sorts of abuse and corruption. First of all, it would in some ways replicate the current sustem in that a tiny few would be the most popular and therefore would receive the cast majority of donations. They may be the artists who can afford to advertise most and use existing wealth to generate more wealth by playing the system. People wsould give money to artists they like general, artists who are already successful and don’t need the money, while the lesser-known and up-and-coming artists would receive infrequent and small payments on a sporadic basis, thus negating the point of the whole concept. The core idea behind collective patronage is that artists / creators of cultural works have enough money so they don’t have to work a day job and can concentrate full-time on producing more art – art of merit – thereby increasing the quality of the current wave of ‘amateur’ work. It would, however, not be a meritocracy in the strictest sense, as the quality of the work produced should not be the only determining factor in whether or not the artist receives financial support.
There are potential problems with both options. So, if artists have their own payment page and fans pay them directly, the system fails. No, there needs to be a central fund, which can be divided up among qualifying artists. So, imagine there was a registered charity, collectivepatronage.org, who could receive charitable donations, which it could store in a bank account, connected to a Paypal account. The ‘pot’ would then gradually build over time and if sitting in a deposit account, at least partly, could generate interest, perhaps could be partially invested, to increase the pot. A constant aim would be to keep the pot on the increase. A charity to support the arts, in Ireland initially, by providing collective patronage to individual artists. Potential problem – bands and production teams – should each member be paid, no ‘pay’ is the wrong word. ‘Patronised’ (Prepare to be Patronised.) Or do you provide funding on a per project basis? I think individually, but how to measure qualification? A musician has to produce an album off their own bat, a director a feature-length film, an author a 300 page minimum book – then they receive enough to live on for a year, monthly.
SMART – Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Time-Based. A musician receives monthly funding from the pot, no strings attached, except that they have to produce more work. The idea is that their full-time job is to produce new work constantly. If no work is forthcoming, the funding stops. How much would someone need? Let’s say €25,000 per year. It’s not wealthy, but it’s certainly enough to live on. Approximately €2,000 per month. Sounds like a lot? There probably wouldn’t be tax issues, as it is for the creation of art. The idea is not to attract people who want to be rich and famous, but rather people who want to spend their time being crearive but have to work day jobs to pay the bills. The pot would pay the bills. And if the artist continues to produce new work, they continue to receive funding. A couple of issues – where does the funding come from? Users give money to the pot via Paypal. Problem- users want to give their money directly to their favourite artists, or at least have some say in how their money is being spent/distributed.
Should everyone receive the same amount of money? If attempting to produce a film, should the director receive as much as an actor, a sound guy or an editor? It’s not quite as clear cut as patronizing an artist to produce oil paintings, or sculptures, perhaps. It almost assumes the idea of the sole, lonely genius in an ivory tower. Often not the case these days. Collaborative work is the norm – and who may claim authoriship of the finished piece? The idea is that more work hets created. So, it is all relative. Everyone has the same minimuym living expenses, so I guess it depends on the type of work being produced. Collective Patronage is aimed at providing ongoing financial support to artists in exchange for regular production of new creative works. So, it must be initially restricted to authors, artists, directors, msuciains, designers – individuals who are capable of delivering a finished piece, whethere that is a book, an album , a feature-film, a computer game or an animation. The collective patronage pot is not there to fund projects, e.g. pay a camera crew – it is there to provide a director with a financial incentive to get their film made, which includes seeking and acquiring funding from a variety of sources to pay the camera crew. The criteria would need to be very clear of what is required by each artist in order to continue receiveing patronage. There would be quite a lot of admin involved. If I was doing this full-time, how much should I be earning? The organisation would need to be transparent, open, accountable.
Another issue, obviously for the first while, there would not be enough money in the fund to patronize anyone. In olden days, wealthy individuals could use their money to be patrons of the arts. So, it would be necessary to have a certain amount in the pot before any of the funds could be released to artists. So, perhaps fundraising would be a constant activity – people could contribute to the pot, however mush or however little they wished. € 1000 from the 100 wealthiest people in Ireland would be a good start. €100k, could finance maybe 5 people for a year. If the pot went too low, then artists would have to wait a while befoe reciveing their funds – what if they were producing work – would they feel like they were owed the money? From the point of view of the fans if they didn’t keep giving money to the pot, their favourite artists may stop producing new work. A new album every 3-6 months. Technologies and equipment are so affordable now anyone can purchase recording / production gear.
The collective patronage fund is not intended to fund projects. The money should not be spent on hiring cameras, actors, sound people locations etc. Rather the money is meant to be used by individuals to pay their living expenses – accommodation, utilities, food, socializing and so on. Enough money that the artist may otherwise have to work 40 hours a week to earn in the conventional way. Some ambitious individual might feel that they can apply for patronage by recording an album and uploading it or linking to their profile but then continuing to work 40hrs a week at a day job, writing and recording the music in their spare time and essentially double-dipping. If they can manage to produce the work on an ongoing basis, so be it. Should this be allowed? Would it not open the flood gates to corruption, where already wealthy individuals would use the fund to top up their monthly incomes? There could be some kind of rating system. On another point, say a director receives patronage – €2,000 a month. It is up to them to then raise the finance they need to produce the film separately. Digital technologies make it more affordable, but film-making still costs money. The pot pays the bills, freeing up the artist’s time, rescinding the need for a day job and allowing them to become a full-time film-maker. Payback for donators / patrons? More art.
Big issue – the user’s payback is free access to music, games, films, books – should it be a requirement that benefactors of the pot must publish their work on the network and make it freely available? The artists may feel that they should be able to make money by selling their work. Double-dipping again. What are you selling? A copy of a digital file? Ridiculous. In the renaissance, an artist might sell their painting – a unique, one-off artifact. Digital files are infinitely reproducible. They can’t be sold as copies. There are no originals! There is no issue with artists making supplemental income, however, they must make their work available for free on the collective patronage network. Perhaps you have to donate regularly in order to continue your access to the content. You can donate a minimum of 1 cent, no even 0 cent. But you have to donate at least once a month via Paypal to continue receiving free content. Perhaps some people will pay 0. And some will give €100. Collective patronage – knowing that you can take partial credit for the production of new artwork.
What if someone is receiving patronage and their work is complete crap? Needs to be a rating system of some kind. Number of fans? Or panel of experts. Definitely the latter. What makes an expert? Who decides? So, you could have a pyramid system, or perhaps a ring – or more palatable, a network of nodes. That would be most appropriate. Should collective patronage be a decentralized network? Partly. Some aspects are decentralized, but key parts are highly centralized, much like Facebook. It is a form of philanthropy. I would possibly need to put in a certain amount of cash myself. If I was able to draw €3,000 a month or so, I could work on it full time. We could have a headquarters in Dublin, like the Factory. Perhaps I should make some real money first. Think of an artist – they could on the dole or get a job or perhaps try to get grants and funding from the arts councils. We would need to be masters of fund-raising. In a way, competing with the arts council. By making the fund transparent, perhaps we could avoid corruption. It would definitely generate a lot of interest. The pot gives monthly payments of €2,000 to authors, in exchange for the creation of new artworks. Mainstream media.