That's fair. A patron could fund the arts for the sake of their own prestige rather than for the sake of art itself. But this implies that patronage of the arts actually conveys prestige on the patron, which only happens if the arts are valued. (Admittedly, that does not resolve the chicken and egg problem of whether the arts were presti…
That's fair. A patron could fund the arts for the sake of their own prestige rather than for the sake of art itself. But this implies that patronage of the arts actually conveys prestige on the patron, which only happens if the arts are valued. (Admittedly, that does not resolve the chicken and egg problem of whether the arts were prestigious because they were supported by the rich or if the rich supported them because they were prestigious.)
I'm sure that did happen in the Renaissance period. On the other hand, I don't believe it is always the case. In particular, I think the wealth in the Renaissance period was usually based on land ownership (though commerce was obviously producing a lot of wealth as well). I think it is not unreasonable to think that a landowning aristocracy, whose preoccupations were less entrepreneurial and managerial, might have given more thought to the arts. Particularly, perhaps, among wealthy women, who might often themselves be educated in the arts as part of their obligations as hosts and entertainers of their guests. But the above is all pretty hand-wavy, not researched in any way.
We might perhaps posit that some among the rich valued the arts and supported them, which made such support prestigious, which led to more philistine patrons following suit for the sake of prestige alone. There is also the factor that new money tends to ape old money. Thus the successful factory owners and entrepreneurs of the Industrial Revolution would sometimes by a great house and retire to the country to live like autocrats and gentry. Thus also T. S. Eliot's snarky reference to "a silk hat on a Bradford millionaire".
That's fair. A patron could fund the arts for the sake of their own prestige rather than for the sake of art itself. But this implies that patronage of the arts actually conveys prestige on the patron, which only happens if the arts are valued. (Admittedly, that does not resolve the chicken and egg problem of whether the arts were prestigious because they were supported by the rich or if the rich supported them because they were prestigious.)
I'm sure that did happen in the Renaissance period. On the other hand, I don't believe it is always the case. In particular, I think the wealth in the Renaissance period was usually based on land ownership (though commerce was obviously producing a lot of wealth as well). I think it is not unreasonable to think that a landowning aristocracy, whose preoccupations were less entrepreneurial and managerial, might have given more thought to the arts. Particularly, perhaps, among wealthy women, who might often themselves be educated in the arts as part of their obligations as hosts and entertainers of their guests. But the above is all pretty hand-wavy, not researched in any way.
We might perhaps posit that some among the rich valued the arts and supported them, which made such support prestigious, which led to more philistine patrons following suit for the sake of prestige alone. There is also the factor that new money tends to ape old money. Thus the successful factory owners and entrepreneurs of the Industrial Revolution would sometimes by a great house and retire to the country to live like autocrats and gentry. Thus also T. S. Eliot's snarky reference to "a silk hat on a Bradford millionaire".