However, this is simply one extreme patron in the wide spectrum of potential patrons. After governments you get plutocrats, then well heeled ‘friends’, and all the way down to kids with pennies for pocket money.

No-one seems to be considering that matching the long tail of art is a long tail of patronage.

It is only because people have a narrow, archaic view of patronage that they conclude it is the preserve of a wealthy few with esoteric or obscure tastes.

Unfortunately, people still veer towards taxation as a solution, rather than letting an artist’s audience deal directly with the artist.

“Ah, but…”, they say “we can measure the popularity of art in order to appropriately disburse the colossal fund collected from taxation to artists.”. Some marbled soviet floors in that plan methinks.

There are new kinds of markets for new kinds of conversations.

Collective markets to enable artists to converse with their audience en masse.

I’m working on a foundation to support such markets. I’ve called it the Contingency Market. It’ll be free, but poetically, I’ll be using it to accept any patronage people proffer.

Why not? Is there really a groundswell opinion among artists that says “I’d rather starve than accept any filthy lucre from those members of my audience most interested in my work”?

Artist, meet your audience.
Audience, meet your artist.

Why such a revulsion against patronage? It doesn’t even need copyright, nor does it require taking any kids to court.

Art for money, money for art.