Who Paid for All this Art Anyway?
Author: Brian Hawkeswood.
“If It Were Not for the Patrons”: A History of Art Patronage from Pharaoh to the Present Day
Art, for all its transcendent beauty and lofty ideals, has always been anchored in economics. The creation of lasting, monumental, or even modest works of art requires time, skill, and materials—none of which come for free. At nearly every point in history, someone has paid for the artist to produce their work, and the motivations of those patrons have shaped what art looks like, what it means, and who it serves. Far from being just supporters in the background, patrons have often driven the direction of artistic innovation and cultural change.
- Pharaohs and the Divine Mandate of Art (c. 3000–1000 BCE)
- In ancient Egypt, art was a sacred instrument of power. Pharaohs commissioned massive temples, tombs, and statues not only to honor the gods but to immortalize themselves as divine rulers. Art served religious, political, and ideological functions—and its production was tightly controlled by the state.
Patron Example: Pharaoh Ramses II (r. 1279–1213 BCE)
- Artists: Though largely anonymous, the artists were trained specialists working in state-run workshops.
- Purpose: To demonstrate divine kingship and intimidate enemies with scale and permanence.
Another notable moment of Egyptian patronage was the reign of Akhenaten, who commissioned radically new art during his religious reforms. He and Queen Nefertiti
were depicted in unusually naturalistic poses, breaking with centuries of rigid iconography.
Art as Power: In Egypt, the patron’s identity was central to the artwork—literally inscribed on every surface. Art existed not as personal expression, but as ideological reinforcement.
II. The Church and the Wealth of Heaven (c. 400–1400 CE)
With the rise of Christianity in Europe, the dominant patron of art shifted from emperors to the Church. For over a millennium, bishops, abbots, and popes commissioned grand cathedrals, mosaics, manuscripts, and paintings. Art was meant to glorify God, instruct the faithful, and affirm the Church’s earthly and heavenly power.
Patron Example: Abbot Suger of Saint-Denis (12th century)
- Works Commissioned: The Basilica of Saint-Denis, widely considered the first Gothic cathedral.
- Artists: Stone masons, glaziers, and craftsmen working under the direction of the abbey.
- Purpose: To create “a paradise on earth,” filled with light and beauty reflecting divine glory.
Later, the papacy became a dominant force in art patronage, especially in Rome.
Patron Example: Pope Julius II (r. 1503–1513)
- Artists Patronised: Michelangelo, Raphael, Bramante.
- Works: The Sistine Chapel ceiling, the rebuilding of St. Peter’s Basilica, Raphael’s Vatican frescoes.“The Creation of Adam”. Michelangelo.
- Purpose: To assert the Church’s supremacy during a time of political turbulence.
While individual nobles and monarchs also patronised art, the Church’s influence was unmatched for centuries. Art served as both spiritual instruction and institutional propaganda.
III. The Renaissance: Wealth, Individualism, and Civic Pride (1400–1600)
The Renaissance ushered in a new kind of patron: the wealthy individual, often from commerce or banking. In Italian city-states like Florence and Venice, prosperous families commissioned art to display their taste, power, and piety—not just in churches but in private chapels, palaces, and public squares.
Patron Example: The Medici Family (Florence)
- Artists Patronised: Donatello, Botticelli, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci.
- Works: The Birth of Venus, David, Medici Chapel.
- Purpose: To cement the Medici’s prestige as de facto rulers and benefactors of culture.In Venice, the Scuole (lay brotherhoods) acted as civic patrons, commissioning monumental canvases from Titian, Tintoretto, and Veronese to decorate their meeting halls.
Artistic Consequences: Artists became more prominent, even celebrities, and began to assert their own identity and vision. Patrons still dictated themes, but a dialogue emerged—particularly with powerful, talented artists like Michelangelo, who argued with popes about creative control.
IV. Absolutism and the Glory of Monarchs (1600–1800)
As European monarchies consolidated power, kings and queens became the dominant patrons of the arts. Art served to express royal magnificence and reinforce political control. Palaces became stage-sets for power; paintings, tapestries, and sculpture broadcasted messages of divine rule and national glory.
Patron Example: Louis XIV of France (r. 1643–1715)
- Artists Patronised: Charles Le Brun (painter), André Le Nôtre (gardener), Jules Hardouin-Mansart (architect).
- Works: The Palace of Versailles, royal portraits, tapestries glorifying Louis as the “Sun King.”
- Purpose: To control the nobility, project grandeur, and shape public perception through spectacle.
In Spain, Philip IV supported Diego Velázquez, who painted not only royal portraits like Las Meninas, but also religious and mythological scenes with remarkable psychological depth.
Even outside Europe, art patronage flourished under centralized power. The Mughal emperors in India commissioned exquisite miniature paintings, while in Edo-period Japan, wealthy merchants and courtesans supported the ukiyo-e artists.
V. The Industrial Era: Private Wealth, Public Museums (1800–1945)
With the decline of monarchy and Church influence, new patrons emerged: industrialists, bankers, and bourgeois collectors. The rise of capitalism shifted patronage toward the market and institutions. Museums, academies, and private salons replaced courts and churches as cultural centers.
Patron Example: Isabella Stewart Gardner (Boston)
- Artists Supported: Acquired works by Rembrandt, Vermeer, Sargent, Whistler.
- Work Commissioned: John Singer Sargent’s El Jaleo (1882).
- Purpose: To build a personal collection open to the public—a “palace of art.”
In Europe, Albert Barnes, an American chemist and art collector, amassed one of the most impressive private collections of modern art, including Matisse, Picasso, and Modigliani, long before they were widely accepted.
Meanwhile, artists like Claude Monet, Vincent van Gogh, and Paul Cézanne operated increasingly outside traditional patronage systems. The rise of dealers, critics, and collectors replaced formal commissions. Some artists, like van Gogh, lived in poverty; others, like Whistler or Rodin, navigated wealthy clients with care.
State patronage also became significant—especially in France, where the Salon system dictated artistic success and the École des Beaux-Arts trained generations of artists. Government commissions, such as those for public monuments or war memorials, became common.
VI. The Contemporary Era: Corporations, Collectors, and Cultural Capital (1945–Present)
In the post-war era, art patronage expanded into new territories: corporate sponsorship, state grants, private foundations, and a global collector elite. The art market became more complex and international, and artists became global brands.
Patron Example: Peggy Guggenheim
- Artists Supported: Jackson Pollock, Max Ernst, Mark Rothko.
- Works Commissioned/Purchased: Early Abstract Expressionist works; built the foundation of the Guggenheim Collection in Venice.
- Purpose: To champion modern art and shape cultural discourse. Zorah on the Terrace, 1912, The Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow
State Patronage: Governments now fund museums, galleries, and public artworks. In the UK, the Arts Council supports artists with grants. In Germany, artists may qualify for stipends or state-funded studios. Cities and states commission large-scale works for urban renewal projects.
Corporate Patronage: Companies like Deutsche Bank, BMW, and Louis Vuitton sponsor exhibitions, art prizes, and even private museums. While some view this as cultural philanthropy, others see it as branding through association with creativity and prestige.
Mega-Collectors and Foundations: Figures like François Pinault, Charles Saatchi, and Eli Broad have shaped the contemporary scene by sponsoring artists, opening private museums, and influencing market values. Saatchi’s support of Young British Artists
(e.g., Damien Hirst) transformed careers overnight. “Angelic Seraph Damien Hirst, 2025”
Art Fairs and Market Forces: The modern art world is now driven heavily by collectors and auction houses. Artists may gain global recognition through Art Basel, Frieze, or Biennales, often bypassing traditional gallery or state systems altogether.
Conclusion: Art is Never Free
From the Pharaohs of Egypt to Silicon Valley billionaires, art has always required resources, access, and belief. Patronage is more than financial—it’s a relationship, a negotiation, and sometimes a struggle. While today’s artists may claim more autonomy, their work is still shaped by markets, institutions, and the people willing to support them.
Patrons have built the pyramids, filled cathedrals with frescoes, shaped the skylines of cities, and launched entire movements. Their motivations—faith, power, ego, nationalism, curiosity, generosity—are as varied as the artworks themselves. Without them, the cultural heritage of the world would be far poorer.
So yes: if it were not for the people paying others to produce the art of their day, there would be no art—not the kind we remember, preserve, and build civilizations around.
*******************************
Van Gogh, an Artist without a patron.
“The Potatoes Eaters” valued at $250,000,000. Today.
A powerful example of Vincent van Gogh’s poverty and lack of patronage is “The Potato Eaters” (1885).
This early painting, created while van Gogh was living in the Netherlands, shows a group of peasants gathered around a dimly lit table, sharing a simple meal of potatoes. The figures are coarse, their faces weathered, their hands gnarled—people shaped by hard labour and scarcity. The mood is dark, the palette earthy and muted, far from the bright colours he would later adopt in France.
Why this work reveals his poverty and isolation:
- Subject matter: Van Gogh deliberately painted the poor, identifying with their struggle. He wanted to show them with dignity, not sentimentality. This wasn’t a scene commissioned or encouraged by any wealthy patron—it came from his own convictions.
- Style: It’s rough, almost crude, and it alienated many contemporary critics and viewers. Even van Gogh’s own brother Theo, who supported him emotionally and financially, couldn’t sell it or find interest in it among art buyers.
- Context: Van Gogh was living in rural Nuenen at the time, largely cut off from the art world. He was surviving on small sums sent by Theo, living in modest conditions, and painting with cheap materials when necessary.
“The Potato Eaters” stands as a testament to van Gogh’s artistic sincerity, his empathy for the working class, and the loneliness of creating without recognition or patronage. Ironically, the work that most shows his marginalisation is now considered a masterpiece of expressive realism.
************************
.
Comments
Post a Comment