PATRONAGE – WHO NEEDS IT?
The issue of corporate sponsorship is clearly an area fraught with difficulty for the art world, given the eternal tensions between the art world’s continual need for funding on the one hand, and the need to maintain artistic integrity, on the other. Last year protestors poured tar and feathers outside the Tate in protest at BP’s sponsorship.
However, it seems to me that when considering the pros and cons of sponsorship arrangements, or indeed any form of patronage, that there is another equally important issue to consider in addition to the implications of being associated with a particular brand or institution; namely, the extent to which such sponsorship will interfere with artistic freedom and development, both of the individual artist themselves and of society in general. This is what I will attempt to address here.
History
Derived from the Latin for ‘father’ (pater), the term ‘patron’ originated in Rome to describe, amongst other things, the relationship which arose when a Roman citizen agreed to vouch for and protect a ‘cliens’, normally meaning someone of a lower social status. Today, the term patronage is used almost exclusively to describe either the bestowing of offices or favours of a political kind (probably more a topic for another blog!) or to describe the practice of providing support (typically financial) to the arts.
Patronage in the arts has a long and distinguished history, which has included the sponsorship of Byzantine art by the early Christian church under Constantine and his successors, the emergence of more secular patronage with the rise of the Italian city-states during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, through to the rise of middle class patrons in seventeenth century Netherlands and the state sponsored museums of today.
Turning to the issue at hand, I am going to try and analyse the impact of patronage on artistic development by dividing patronage into three principal categories, which I will call: ‘Patron as Fan’, ‘Patron as Client’ and ‘Patron as Arbiter’.
Patron as Fan
What I have in mind here is the least contentious of the three categorisations and refers simply to a person who seeks to acquire an item purely because they admire the artist’s work, whether by commissioning a new work, purchasing an as yet unsold item from the artist or through the secondary market (i.e. from existing owners of the work).
Where the patron is simply buying an existing piece of work, the impact on the artist should be minimal other than to provide some helpful cashflow, and so would not appear to give much cause for concern.
However, where the patronage involves the commissioning of a new work, then clearly the impact will be greater.
Firstly, he is causing a painting to come into existence that may not otherwise have been produced (and potentially preventing the creation of an alternative painting that the artist would have created absent the commission). This all seems a bit too philosophical to worry about here!
Secondly, the patron may, depending on the commission, seek to influence the subject matter to be painted and potentially even the style to be adopted, with the effect that the work ceases to be solely a product of the artist’s self expression. However, this need not necessarily undermine the artistic process as any such reduction in the artist’s self expression is arguably off-set by the self- expression of the patron, with the effect that the work, in effect and to varying degrees, reflects the passions and interests of both the artist and the patron. It is a kind of artistic joint-venture.
In any event, given that an artist is normally commissioned for his or her particular style, then although the subject matter might occasionally be requested, the actual style and manner in which this subject is depicted is normally left to the artist. For you wouldn’t commission Constable to paint you a particular scene if what you really wanted was a cubist take on the matter!
As such, the impact of patron as fan seems minimal.
Patron as Client
The key distinguishing feature of this type of patronage is that the principal (not necessarily only) motivation for bestowing patronage is for a reason other than simple enjoyment – what I have in mind here is the commissioning or sponsorship of a piece of work for the purposes of promoting the patron in some way (i.e. to make the patron or an affiliated party ‘look good’).
These client patrons have historically taken many forms, most notably religious institutions, royalty of some description, wealthy individuals or commercial organisations (including the modern multi-national, that current bete noir which so invoked the ire of those Tate protesters). Their patronage can involve either the purchasing of existing work, commissioning of new work or the sponsorship of an exhibition.
Some examples of client patronage would include:
- Holbein’s portrait of Henry VIII in 1537.
- Carravagio’s “The Calling of St Matthew” (above) completed in 1600 for the Catholic church in
- George Lambert and Samuel Scott’s “The Company’s Settlements”, a series of six oil painting depicting the principal ports and settlements of the East India Company, painted in about 1732.
- David’s “Napoleon at the
- Vincent Cavallaro’s commission by NASA to paint a series of pictures depicting the Saturn V Apollo programme in 1967-8.
Turning to the specific effect that such patronage has on the artistic process………..
As with the patron as fan, the patron is having an effect on the artistic process to the extent that he/she is causing a painting to come into existence that may not otherwise have been produced. Very often, this has turned out to be a good thing – imagine how deprived we would have been (albeit unknowingly) if Julius II had not coerced poor Michaelangelo into painting the Papal Apartments!
Generally, though, although the patron may request a specific subject matter (such as Charles I astride yet another horse!) the artist is normally left alone to decide on the style, that is to portray the image as they see fit. That is not to say that an artist’s style will not be challenged from time to time, as Caravaggio allegedly encountered when he was berated for depicting St Paul’s horse more prominently than the venerable saint himself in “The Conversion of Saint Paul”, supposedly leading to this exchange between the painter and an frustrated official of the commissioning church, Santa Maria del Popolo.
Official - "Why have you put a horse in the middle, and Saint Paul on the ground?"
Carravagio - "Because!"
Official - "Is the horse God?"
Caravaggio - "No, but he stands in God's light![1]
But, notwithstanding such difficulties, artists generally retain the discretion to execute paintings in the manner they see fit. Again, you engage a particular artist because you admire their style (or at least believe it appropriate for the objective you are trying to achieve). Consequently, in artistic terms, the impact of client patronage on the artistic process will often be minimal.
Where this form of patronage could give rise to issues is where the fact that the client patron is, by definition, using the picture merely as a means to an end (such as to convey the might and prowess of a particular institution) rather than to create the work for its own sake, renders the exercise somewhat artificial with neither the artist nor the patron sufficiently invested in the work (from an artistic perspective). This, in turn, can undermine the ability of the artist to retain the passion and sincerity which is so fundamental to maintaining the integrity of the artistic process – Rothko’s acceptance and subsequent repudiation of the Seagram Murals commission suggests itself here. Clearly, it is down to the artist to identify any such instances, as and when they arise, and take the appropriate steps to resolve the situation (such as ceasing the commission or insisting on artistic independence etc).
Even this proviso is riddled with exceptions, though, for sometimes one has the distinct impression that a patron, far from adversely limited the artist’s individual expression, positively enhances it, the rampant energy evident in David’s pictures of Napoleon being an obvious example.
In any event, it is with my next and final category, namely that of ‘Patron as Arbiter’ that I think the most significant issues arise.
Patron as Arbiter
This category of patron potentially straddles both fan and client patron categories and consists of those patrons whose acts of patronage have an impact on the arts beyond just themselves and their immediate environment. Examples could include Abbot Suger, Cosimo di Medici, Adolf Hitler, Peggy Guggenheim and Charles Saatchi, with the merits of their influence being largely a matter of personal preference.
These patrons typically influence events by either commissioning large scale projects (such as the Medici’s transformation of Florence - see the Medici Laurentian Library steps by Michaelangelo
But it is not the scale of their commissions or sponsorship which mark them as arbiters. Rather the two defining characteristics of these patrons are (1) that they are in a position of influence and (2) that they are regarded by other as having ‘good’ artistic judgment
For example, Lambeth Council might commission a large volume of civic architecture but this is unlikely to have a significant influence on the artistic landscape of the nation (although the same, unfortunately, cannot be said of its effect on the physical landscape of Lambeth). As such, the Council would not constitute an arbiter, despite having a significant degree of influence.
Equally, Hitler’s patronage of Albert Speer and his Welthaupstadt Germaina project to rebuild Berlin in that infamous oversized monumental style, whilst clearly backed by a not insignificant degree of influence, would probably not have had any meaningful impact on the wider development of Western art (other than out of pure coercion) since Hitler would be unlikely to have been regarded as a connoisseur of artistic taste.
In contrast, Peggy Guggenheim’s considerable impact on the emerging Abstract Expressionist movement, through her New York Gallery “Art of This Century”, was achieved not only by virtue of the fact that she had influence (through her considerable wealth) but because she was perceived to have astute artistic judgement. The same could be said for Lorenzo and Cosimo Medici (and who could argue!).
As regards the impact on artistic freedom and development, well presumably, if you are a Michelangelo, a Clyfford Still or a Damien Hirst you are pretty happy to have your work lauded (and funded) in such a public way. But the most significant impact caused by arbiters is not on the artists they do patronise but rather on those they don’t. This is by virtue of the fact that the ability of arbiters to set trends and fashions which define what is current, acceptable and desirable has an obvious corollary – they also partly define what isn’t.
As such, in contrast to the other two categories of patron whose involvement in the artistic process is usually minimal, arbiters do have considerable ability to affect artistic freedom and development.
But, in considering the impact of such patrons, let us not forget that patronage can take many forms, and does not necessarily require any direct economic nexus with the artist . For is there any more powerful arbiter than the art critic, where writers such as John Ruskin and Marcel Duchamp have had a hugely significant effect on how different genres of art are received.
Whilst we are at it, let’s not forget the power of galleries (with their decisions as to who to exhibit) as well as those institutions on whom we depend for so much of our shapers of new talent, the art education establishment, whose frequently dogmatic and myopic agendas are well documented. Anyway, that’s enough for one day, so I’ll try and reach some form of conclusion.
Conclusion
Although I appreciate that my attempts at categorisation above are overly simplistic (and that, more often than not, patronage will not fall neatly into any of these categories) there is one thing that has struck me during the exercise and that is the somewhat perverse conclusion that, from a purely artistic perspective, the more impersonal and remote from the art world the patron is, the less the interference in the artistic process, and hence the better. And vice versa.
For example, when BP sponsors an exhibition its impact on the artistic process is minimal, because BP is not seen as an arbiter of artistic tastes or merits and hence does not influence the artistic landscape in any meaningful way. Conversely, an acerbic article by a prominent art critic can mark the death knell for a particular artist, whilst an impassioned lecture by a charismatic (but ideologically driven) lecturer can send hundreds of art students down an ill-lit artistic cul-de-sac.
Maybe we have bigger things to worry about than whether or not an oil company should contribute funds to an art exhibition.
www.galleryviolet.com
Art for the Nation: Sir Charles Eastlake at the National Gallery (020 7747 2885, nationalgallery.org.uk) runs until October 30. Open Sat-Thurs, 10am-6pm; Fri 10am-9pm; admission free. The biography, Art for the Nation: The Eastlakes and the Victorian Art World, by Susanna Avery-Quash and Julie Sheldon is published by the National Gallery, £25.
