User talk:Hibrow

Since nobody is arguing with me, I guess I'll have to argue with myself. Which means I've had some second thoughts about what I so thoughtlessly said. That is, I've realized that our situation vis-a-vis patronage has actually changed quite a bit due to modern marketing techniques, and the institutional forms of patronage described in the article are largely unnecessary. Instead, it has become possible for creative individuals to establish a direct personal connection with their audience so that they can do without the help of highly placed sponsorship (though it can't hurt to have a good agent). For example, think of Picasso. Or Hemingway. Or even Mozart or Shakespeare. They're doing quite well without patrons, though of course they don't benefit personally since they're no longer alive. To be successful it's not really necessary to be alive, it's as if those guys have become time travelers. We may not even understand what they were trying to tell us (Who really understands Elizabethan English anymore?) but a goodly number of us like the sound of it and like to feel that our appreciation of that stuff makes us cultured. But I digress. My point is that the Wikipedia article on patronage doesn't explore the subject deeply enough and look at its implications and so forth. Right? Hibrow (talk) 03:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)