I side with you on many of the frustrations around a weekly output, especially with a limited amount of time to give every week. But I feel the Substack model is quite nascent, and there is room to run it the way we want. For example, I could see some writers switch to *only* annual plans - making things less demanding from the subscriber end, and allowing them to set the terms for the pace of their work. The weekly publishing model is skeuomorphic of 'magazine publications' and no one should feel compelled to stick to it.
When I think of the patronage model, I see some negatives. For example, I don't expect as many people to be capable of financially supporting artists with big amounts of money. Reducing the pool of potential patrons to the rich elite classes takes us backwards in time, not forwards. Also, I wonder if it leads to more adventurous creativity or more conservative approaches when a writer or artist has such a big patronage to live up to. At $5/month, or $50/year, I feel less *obligated* to individual patrons, for want of a better word.
I like the equity model, but I don't see it working for as many young and 'unproven' artists. Equity investment is about a great ROI, and for pure creative work there isn't always a substantial ROI. Big ROIs again require the same institutional or upper-class reliance that takes us backwards in time.
To your question, not needing to worry about finances might make me a poorer writer and artist. I think certain constraints help us to get things done. While they shouldn't dominate our lives, their presence is essential to shape our ideas and - like gravity - keep us grounded!
Yes, there are downsides to both the patronage model and the creator economy model, and that's why I'm outlining a hybrid approach here.
And as to there "not being as many people capable of supporting artists with big amounts of money" that's why I want to structure it as a fund (rather than individual investors). As an angel investment fund, some investors could contribute $1,000 and others could contribute $100,000. But the aggregate provides a huge chunk of money that could be allocated to several artists in a portfolio.
I agree though that the weakest point of my idea is the equity situation: right now there are not many artists that could feasibly generate an ROI using the creator economy and I need to research this bit further. Still, I think there are some interesting models where artists do generate ROI for their investors: Substack Pro, TikTok hype houses, etc. and I'll be exploring those further.
And to your last thought: I agree that constraints help us get things done. The David wouldn't have been made if it weren't 1) commissioned and 2) if Michelangelo didn't feel pressured to live up to that investment! But that's the whole reasoning behind my idea. If living expenses were paid for BUT the artist still had to earn their own income, I think that might provide the right balance between having the space to create art full time, but also needing to in order to receive that benefit!
I absolutely agree that not needing to worry about living expenses would free a lot of people to make great art. It's a feature of UBI that I 100% believe in!
I will think further on your other points. I can think of points both in favor and against. Maybe I should swish them around my head for a little longer...
I think I'm more bullish about the '1000 True Fans Model' than a '100 True Fans Model'. Here are some reasons why -
(1) The patron base has higher chances of representing a wide cross-section of society
(2) I bear lesser responsibility/obligation per patron
(3) I ask for less per patron
I like (1) because I believe the great boon of the internet is the democratizing of culture - be it art and writing. What we celebrate today is decided by a wider class of people than ever before in history. I am loathe to hand back control of culture to an elite class of citizens. Or, since it can be argued they haven't really conceded control at all, I should say I am happier working for everyone else instead, and delighted that 'ordinary people' are a large enough market for me to be successful in (another emergent reality of the last two decades).
(2) makes me truly free. I am able to dictate terms, reevaluate expectations, relate with my audience, and treat all patrons equally. No single patron is able to dictate terms more than any other patron.
(3) This helps patrons maintain a healthy relationship with me. I don't care to be any single person's big investment, because that would cut into my independence and primary obligation towards myself. A lower ask would let me take a break by resetting the publishing schedule, or going on vacation, while absorbing the ups and downs of a 5-10% churn rate.
Re: the equity model, social tokens are an investment model that I am curious about. But I see them useful only in limited ways. I see two big downsides -
(1) It is a one-time show of support.
(2) A good chunk of supporters expect a financial ROI in addition to other benefits.
IMO it will be very difficult for writers and artists to operate in an environment of constant hype creation and exponential growth, both of which are core expectations within crypto culture.
This all makes perfect sense. And thank you for talking this out with me, I really appreciate it. I do agree that there is a lot to be said for the creator economy, and I'm hopeful that will work out for both of us, but I could also see how "startup investment" could help with that.
Even just speaking with my fellowship mentor, I've learned how the Substack Pro program allowed her to write her newsletter full-time immediately (fully paid for for the first year) and then was able to make a living doing it on her own the second year.
In my case, it's going to take so much longer to get there because it will always have to be a side-hobby until I'm making a full-time living doing it. So I could see where some upfront investment could be a very helpful kickstart, at least at the beginning!
But you've given me a lot to think about because the Substack Pro model is definitely different from a Seed Investment. Though Substack receives earnings during the first year, after that they only receive the 10% that they receive from all writers. Which is a pretty ideal exchange for a writer.
So maybe you're right that thinking about it in terms of "ownership" is a bad idea- and maybe the better idea is for the investor not to have ownership of an artists work, but to have some other incentive for wanting to help kickstart a creator. And I'll have to think about that more.
Good points, Elle. I'm curious to hear more about this from you. We need the best parts of both worlds, from what it looks like to me! Looking forward to our chat!
I believe that all artists (painters, sculptors, musicians, etc... all creative makers) should forever "own" the pieces that they create, and that they are only 'rented" by those who posses them. Also, every time the piece is 'sold' on to another caretaker, a larger (>50%) percentage of that sale should always go to the creator, and not the 'investors/collectors'. We are capable of doing this with NFT's, so why not all art. So many of the artists that I know of, have created great works, only to have been lowballed into selling them for a pittance, only to have that so called 'patron' then hype up the piece and sell it on for enormous profits, none of which the artist see's. I believe that it is time to honour the artist in our society and not keep them in poverty.
I've been a full time musician for over 15 years, working lots of part time independent contractor jobs and one time gigs to pay the bills. I've been wanting to put all my energy into my singer-songwriter work (stage name Jodi Heights) and started a Patreon last year to move in that direction. My other work is still supporting me at the moment, but my husband is definitely an angel investor. I love that the world is starting to create more ways for artists to have long term support. Will definitely be checking out the methods you mentioned and look forward to future articles.
Writing is a not a very cost effective profession. So why do people write ? - it has to be the love of the written word. With the current publishing models - unlikely to change soon, I'd say who cares about how long you take to write your novel whether three years or more. At five to ten hours a week, you have not stolen your oppoprtunity cost to learn a new skill over those 3 years.
You have completed your novel and learned a new skill, this much better than devoting tons of hours at writing and only a book to show for your effort that may or may not get published.
Cover your bases and take a multi dimensional approach to creativity.
Thankyou Elle for the article, which has prompted such a great discussion here. I love the framing of the issue around how the rich funded the great artists during the Renaissance. I wonder about their motivations and whether they can be recreated today. The glory of a deity when commissioning art works for churches? Vanity when commissioning self-portraits or family portraits? Leverage for social standing by commissioning art or music for court events?
It occurred to me the community credit idea is interesting. Could newsletters have an ‘honour roll’ crediting the donors? Ka kite ano Bernard
Love this piece and what it proposes Elle! One of the chapters in my upcoming book about creators discusses ways for creators to "exit" along the traditional business cycle, and I've been researching different ways for creators to receive investment, share ownership, etc. It's an exciting prospect with a lot of potential - would love to discuss more with you and potentially write more about this topic with you.
Lots of interesting stuff in here. I find your emphasis on private investment over, say, arts grants interesting. It seems like relying on rich investors immediately restricts what is available, probably limits the funding to those projects which have a likely ROI, and ties the artistic product to finance in a way that makes me uncomfortable. It embeds financial elites (and therefore inherent inequality) into the artistic process. As Nishant says, that's going backwards, not forwards.
I wonder if there's an important difference with those Renaissance masterpieces, in that they were effectively working on commission. A fancy building (eg the Vatican) wanted a cool picture on their ceiling, so commissioned a highly skilled person to do it for them. I doubt whether there was any point at which Michelangelo thought about 'owning' his work. That's quite different to ownership or part-ownership with investors.
There are more rich investors than there are arts grants! And those investors don't all have to be billionaires. The whole point of an angel investment fund is that some investors can contribute $1,000 and some can contribute $100,000, but the aggregate provides enough to fund several creators as part of a portfolio. And there are a lot of people willing to contribute to angel funds. (There are 200 funds in Utah alone! And millions of investors!)
I've been interested in making an angel investment at a very small amount, but all of the funds are for startups, and I'm not really interested in furthering some of the tech agenda. But if there was a fund that invested in artists, I would become an angel investor! Even with my tiny little piece of the pie.
As to commissions: yes those artists didn't own their work. But could you imagine if they did? To this day Leonardo De Vinci's estate would be extremely wealthy because every time Salvator Mundi went up for auction his estate would get a percentage of the sale. And most recently it was sold for $450 million!
And if Leonardo Da Vinci's estate was flush with cash, they could create angel funds that support the next generation of artists! This is how the startup world works right now. Every time a startup goes public or exits, and all of the founders and early employees become wealthy, all of those wealthy people start and invest in angel funds and fund the next generation of startups. (Look up the PayPal Mafia as an example). What if art could do the same?
I like the theory! I think I'm just more cynical about the likelihood of significant numbers of wealthy people investing in this sort of thing. Investing in startups is a more direct business calculation: build the startup fast, sell it fast, quick return. Clearly appealing to people with lots of money to invest! I don't quite see how that applies to artists, unless it's an already established and successful artist, which slightly defeats the point.
Part of me also feels uneasy because for these rich investors to exist in the first place, such that they can help the poor artists, requires a certain inequality in society in the first place. Which I know is over-simplifying it, but still. That might be a UK/US cultural difference in how we think of finance, maybe?
Yes, I definitely need to look more into what the ROI would realistically be here. NFTs seem to be proving that by adding community elements to art, there can be a big ROI. But that is just one case study and I'll have to explore how an artist can generate ROI for an investor in greater detail.
That being said, I DO think that established and wealthy artists should fund the next generation of artists, just like startup founders fund the next generation of startups. But we need to build this same infrastructure to support that. Still a lot to think about!
There's the complication that art with built-in ROI (let's take, for example, a Marvel movie, or a JK Rowling book, or a Dan Brown book) already has plenty of investment and funding. The other end of the artistic spectrum almost by definition will not have ROI other than appreciation of the art itself. I suppose this can convert to practical value over time, if the artist becomes respected enough to be relevant to collectors.
Part of the reason that the creator economy, and the likes of Patreon and Substack, appeal to me (and YouTube to an extent, though that model is different) is that it doesn't rely on the super rich. Because the individual investments are much smaller there's less of a need for ROI. It makes it possible to support art for the sake of it, rather than because you're getting something out the other end. Lots of small contributors also seems inherently less risk, less bubbly and less volatile than fewer mega-investors.
Still, I'm talking from a position of having VERY few small investors, so it's all a bit theoretical for me at the moment. :D
Yes, you bring up some really good points. Though I would love to receive an initial investment that ensured I could practice my art full time, I also wouldn't be too keen to give away future earnings. Maybe there's a middle ground... And I think Substack Pro is a great example of that. Maybe they are already the ideal in the writing world!
This is my favourite newsletter from you yet. I love how you incorporated the lessons we’ve learned from the fellowship (thank you for that because you helped me realise something), and how you married age old ideas to new ones. That’s just fantastic thinking!
Another great article! Thank you for your time and research. I've been looking into the publishing model you suggested and demonstrated on Mirror.xyz, and it seems like a potential future for artists. What I'm curious about is how it will end up - whether or not a new Renaissance for creators will emerge and expand the number of artists who can make art for a living. Likely, the future will emerge stranger or more mundane than we can imagine - but hopefully it allows more artists to create more art. That sounds like a great future to me.
Jan 11, 2022·edited Jan 11, 2022Liked by Elle Griffin
Ah, what a dream. If I could focus on creativity instead of earning an income, I would pursue multiple mediums such as music, writing, and art, and hopefully create several “masterpieces.” And perhaps become a true Renaissance Man. 🤣 I do enjoy the community aspect of Substack, which those classical artists probably didn’t enjoy. And something missing from book publishing.
So to any angels investors reading this, I am available.
Great food for thought on multiple levels as always, Elle.
Breaking this story/topic up into smaller chunks and the strategy behind doing so makes a lot of sense, and you've convinced me to break up the mega-post I was writing in a similar manner.
To answer your masterpiece question, I would create what I'm already creating, just at hopefully a quicker pace. It would be stories in the fictional universe I've created across different mediums: books, comics, interactive games (tabletop/card games + video games), and more.
My next story, will be in the same vein as the last (they're all actually the same story, just different time periods and characters). Masterpiece is not for me to judge, but the craft keeps getting stronger. Whatever, it must contain irony. I don't know, after all these years, I wonder if it is just self centeredness and vanity; I've always written more for myself than the reader - too eccentric. Maybe I'm trying to work things out - maybe that is art? A kind of redemption maybe . . . My, that's not really answering the question.
One of the big differences between the renaissance and now is that we, as a society, place very little value on the arts. We value entertainment hugely, but I think there is a general feeling that entertainers ought to be able to earn a living from their performances. The value of entertainment lies in time pleasantly spent, no more than that, and no less.
Art, on the other hand, at least as it was classically understood, was a means by which we sought to understand ourselves. When A. E. Housman said "Malt does more than Milton can / To justify God's ways to man," he was referring to the notion that it was the business of art to explain God's ways to man.
Now we look more to psychology, and, increasingly, to neurology, for that same kind of understanding. Art once stood on the same pedestal as philosophy, theology, and science. It was a fundamental way of examining and understanding our lives. Art no longer enjoys that status (and philosophy and theology have been severely demoted too).
There is, to be sure, still some government funding for the arts, though I suspect that this is more a form of vote buying than born of any expectation that it will have any social or civilizational benefit. But such funding is almost everywhere in decline, and it does not reflect any wider social or intellectual appetite for the arts (as distinct from entertainment).
Joseph Bottom has an interesting book called The Decline of the Novel in which he traces the decline in the social and intellectual significance of the novel over the centuries. It is well worth reading.
Which leaves me questioning if there is much social appetite for patronage of the arts in society today, particularly among the rich, who generally see the hope for understanding in STEM rather than the Arts.
Alternate funding models for entertainment is a different subject. People are exploring alternate funding model and pricing strategies for all kinds of things. (Software going from a permanent sale model to a subscriptions model is one such example.) The approach of selling early access to content that will one day be free, as practiced by most writers on Patreon, strikes me more as an alternate payment model than actual patronage. People are paying for a personal good, not a social benefit. (And pay now, free later model is not exactly new in publishing: novels have been free in libraries for many decades, for those willing to wait a few weeks or months.)
Not to say that this is not all worth looking at, but I suspect it may be important to make a distinction between alternate funding and payment options for entertainment (in which customers expect personal value for money) and actual patronage of the arts.
Yes, but I would argue that the reason people were interested in being a patron of the arts, was not because they were into the arts, but because they were into the status symbol that being a patron of the arts gave them.
As art moved from being funded by wealthy individuals and entities to being funded by nonprofits, the arts lost prestige because they were no longer the enviable realm of the elite, but the charity case that needs money.
In other words, I don't think the arts lost prestige because people stopped being into the arts, but because the wealthy were no longer involved. And the wealthy were what gave the arts prestige in the first place. What we are interested in often comes from the top-down.
The rich jockeying for position on something is what makes it popular. Take charitable giving for instance. No one was doing it, and then Ted Turner admitted that he wasn't making donations because "the gifts would take such a chunk out of his total net worth that he would plummet down the Forbes 400 roster of the nation’s wealthiest men and women."
So Fortune (and then many others) started a list of the most charitable, and suddenly all the billionnaires were jockeying position, trying to outgive one another so they could make it to the top of the list and be seen as the most giving. The rich competing with one another drive huge trends!
I don't see it that way. If it is the wealthy that give the arts prestige, then appreciation for art is nothing more than aping the rich, and, to borrow a phrase from Flannery O'Connor, if that is all it is, to hell with it. I'm with Joseph Bottom (and C.S. Lewis) on this. Art is one of the places we look to to explain our lives. But it was the fashion of the last century to look to psychology for that, and of this century to look to neurology for it. That has diminished the intellectual and moral status of the arts -- to the point, I suppose, where it is possible to view them simply as a form of bling.
Were the oligarchs of the Renaissance funding art for the sake of art or bling for the sake of bling? It would, at least, require some substantial research to demonstrate the former. But still, I choose to believe that it was not mere bling in their eyes, for what seems to me the significant reason, that the art they funded was among the greatest the world has ever known. It is hard to see how that happens without some application of taste and discernment on the part of those holding the purse strings, or at least of the part of those they chose to advise them.
I don't disagree that, for the end-user, art is "the place we look to explain our lives." But I don't think the end-user and the investor are necessarily the same person.
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".
This is my dream goal with my digital publishing company called Storyletter. To ultimately fund a network of writers to produce quality content but in a rotational manner that still provides quantity for the subscribers. I’m still a long ways off because as you said, it’s still a part-time hobby.
I side with you on many of the frustrations around a weekly output, especially with a limited amount of time to give every week. But I feel the Substack model is quite nascent, and there is room to run it the way we want. For example, I could see some writers switch to *only* annual plans - making things less demanding from the subscriber end, and allowing them to set the terms for the pace of their work. The weekly publishing model is skeuomorphic of 'magazine publications' and no one should feel compelled to stick to it.
When I think of the patronage model, I see some negatives. For example, I don't expect as many people to be capable of financially supporting artists with big amounts of money. Reducing the pool of potential patrons to the rich elite classes takes us backwards in time, not forwards. Also, I wonder if it leads to more adventurous creativity or more conservative approaches when a writer or artist has such a big patronage to live up to. At $5/month, or $50/year, I feel less *obligated* to individual patrons, for want of a better word.
I like the equity model, but I don't see it working for as many young and 'unproven' artists. Equity investment is about a great ROI, and for pure creative work there isn't always a substantial ROI. Big ROIs again require the same institutional or upper-class reliance that takes us backwards in time.
To your question, not needing to worry about finances might make me a poorer writer and artist. I think certain constraints help us to get things done. While they shouldn't dominate our lives, their presence is essential to shape our ideas and - like gravity - keep us grounded!
Yes, there are downsides to both the patronage model and the creator economy model, and that's why I'm outlining a hybrid approach here.
And as to there "not being as many people capable of supporting artists with big amounts of money" that's why I want to structure it as a fund (rather than individual investors). As an angel investment fund, some investors could contribute $1,000 and others could contribute $100,000. But the aggregate provides a huge chunk of money that could be allocated to several artists in a portfolio.
I agree though that the weakest point of my idea is the equity situation: right now there are not many artists that could feasibly generate an ROI using the creator economy and I need to research this bit further. Still, I think there are some interesting models where artists do generate ROI for their investors: Substack Pro, TikTok hype houses, etc. and I'll be exploring those further.
And to your last thought: I agree that constraints help us get things done. The David wouldn't have been made if it weren't 1) commissioned and 2) if Michelangelo didn't feel pressured to live up to that investment! But that's the whole reasoning behind my idea. If living expenses were paid for BUT the artist still had to earn their own income, I think that might provide the right balance between having the space to create art full time, but also needing to in order to receive that benefit!
I absolutely agree that not needing to worry about living expenses would free a lot of people to make great art. It's a feature of UBI that I 100% believe in!
I will think further on your other points. I can think of points both in favor and against. Maybe I should swish them around my head for a little longer...
Maybe we should start from scratch: What would enable you personally to create your best work AND earn a living from it?
I think I'm more bullish about the '1000 True Fans Model' than a '100 True Fans Model'. Here are some reasons why -
(1) The patron base has higher chances of representing a wide cross-section of society
(2) I bear lesser responsibility/obligation per patron
(3) I ask for less per patron
I like (1) because I believe the great boon of the internet is the democratizing of culture - be it art and writing. What we celebrate today is decided by a wider class of people than ever before in history. I am loathe to hand back control of culture to an elite class of citizens. Or, since it can be argued they haven't really conceded control at all, I should say I am happier working for everyone else instead, and delighted that 'ordinary people' are a large enough market for me to be successful in (another emergent reality of the last two decades).
(2) makes me truly free. I am able to dictate terms, reevaluate expectations, relate with my audience, and treat all patrons equally. No single patron is able to dictate terms more than any other patron.
(3) This helps patrons maintain a healthy relationship with me. I don't care to be any single person's big investment, because that would cut into my independence and primary obligation towards myself. A lower ask would let me take a break by resetting the publishing schedule, or going on vacation, while absorbing the ups and downs of a 5-10% churn rate.
Re: the equity model, social tokens are an investment model that I am curious about. But I see them useful only in limited ways. I see two big downsides -
(1) It is a one-time show of support.
(2) A good chunk of supporters expect a financial ROI in addition to other benefits.
IMO it will be very difficult for writers and artists to operate in an environment of constant hype creation and exponential growth, both of which are core expectations within crypto culture.
This all makes perfect sense. And thank you for talking this out with me, I really appreciate it. I do agree that there is a lot to be said for the creator economy, and I'm hopeful that will work out for both of us, but I could also see how "startup investment" could help with that.
Even just speaking with my fellowship mentor, I've learned how the Substack Pro program allowed her to write her newsletter full-time immediately (fully paid for for the first year) and then was able to make a living doing it on her own the second year.
In my case, it's going to take so much longer to get there because it will always have to be a side-hobby until I'm making a full-time living doing it. So I could see where some upfront investment could be a very helpful kickstart, at least at the beginning!
But you've given me a lot to think about because the Substack Pro model is definitely different from a Seed Investment. Though Substack receives earnings during the first year, after that they only receive the 10% that they receive from all writers. Which is a pretty ideal exchange for a writer.
So maybe you're right that thinking about it in terms of "ownership" is a bad idea- and maybe the better idea is for the investor not to have ownership of an artists work, but to have some other incentive for wanting to help kickstart a creator. And I'll have to think about that more.
Thanks for all the meaningful insight!
Good points, Elle. I'm curious to hear more about this from you. We need the best parts of both worlds, from what it looks like to me! Looking forward to our chat!
I believe that all artists (painters, sculptors, musicians, etc... all creative makers) should forever "own" the pieces that they create, and that they are only 'rented" by those who posses them. Also, every time the piece is 'sold' on to another caretaker, a larger (>50%) percentage of that sale should always go to the creator, and not the 'investors/collectors'. We are capable of doing this with NFT's, so why not all art. So many of the artists that I know of, have created great works, only to have been lowballed into selling them for a pittance, only to have that so called 'patron' then hype up the piece and sell it on for enormous profits, none of which the artist see's. I believe that it is time to honour the artist in our society and not keep them in poverty.
Now that that's an option, I'm with you!
I've been a full time musician for over 15 years, working lots of part time independent contractor jobs and one time gigs to pay the bills. I've been wanting to put all my energy into my singer-songwriter work (stage name Jodi Heights) and started a Patreon last year to move in that direction. My other work is still supporting me at the moment, but my husband is definitely an angel investor. I love that the world is starting to create more ways for artists to have long term support. Will definitely be checking out the methods you mentioned and look forward to future articles.
I love that too. That's so cool you started a Patreon!!!! That has been such a valuable asset for so many musicians!
Writing is a not a very cost effective profession. So why do people write ? - it has to be the love of the written word. With the current publishing models - unlikely to change soon, I'd say who cares about how long you take to write your novel whether three years or more. At five to ten hours a week, you have not stolen your oppoprtunity cost to learn a new skill over those 3 years.
You have completed your novel and learned a new skill, this much better than devoting tons of hours at writing and only a book to show for your effort that may or may not get published.
Cover your bases and take a multi dimensional approach to creativity.
I spent a few years developing a solution to this problem and I launched a similar hybrid pilot last week. https://thatvideomag.com/live-entertainment-and-artist-development-program
Whoa! Very cool!!! Let me know when you have some case studies who might be willing to share their stories!
Wil do. We're talking to two music organizations in two cities that love the idea and are very interested. How would I reach you?
Just email me- ellegriffin@substack.com
Love what you're doing here. ❤️🙏🏼 But where is your interview/article with the "Sneaky Artist"? I can't find it anywhere in your feed. Thank you.
Right here! https://ellegriffin.substack.com/p/artist-as-entrepreneur
Thank you so much! 😃
Thankyou Elle for the article, which has prompted such a great discussion here. I love the framing of the issue around how the rich funded the great artists during the Renaissance. I wonder about their motivations and whether they can be recreated today. The glory of a deity when commissioning art works for churches? Vanity when commissioning self-portraits or family portraits? Leverage for social standing by commissioning art or music for court events?
It occurred to me the community credit idea is interesting. Could newsletters have an ‘honour roll’ crediting the donors? Ka kite ano Bernard
Love this piece and what it proposes Elle! One of the chapters in my upcoming book about creators discusses ways for creators to "exit" along the traditional business cycle, and I've been researching different ways for creators to receive investment, share ownership, etc. It's an exciting prospect with a lot of potential - would love to discuss more with you and potentially write more about this topic with you.
I would love that too!!!!! Will you email me some of your ideas? Maybe we can do a guest post or interview or something with your findings!
Lots of interesting stuff in here. I find your emphasis on private investment over, say, arts grants interesting. It seems like relying on rich investors immediately restricts what is available, probably limits the funding to those projects which have a likely ROI, and ties the artistic product to finance in a way that makes me uncomfortable. It embeds financial elites (and therefore inherent inequality) into the artistic process. As Nishant says, that's going backwards, not forwards.
I wonder if there's an important difference with those Renaissance masterpieces, in that they were effectively working on commission. A fancy building (eg the Vatican) wanted a cool picture on their ceiling, so commissioned a highly skilled person to do it for them. I doubt whether there was any point at which Michelangelo thought about 'owning' his work. That's quite different to ownership or part-ownership with investors.
There are more rich investors than there are arts grants! And those investors don't all have to be billionaires. The whole point of an angel investment fund is that some investors can contribute $1,000 and some can contribute $100,000, but the aggregate provides enough to fund several creators as part of a portfolio. And there are a lot of people willing to contribute to angel funds. (There are 200 funds in Utah alone! And millions of investors!)
I've been interested in making an angel investment at a very small amount, but all of the funds are for startups, and I'm not really interested in furthering some of the tech agenda. But if there was a fund that invested in artists, I would become an angel investor! Even with my tiny little piece of the pie.
As to commissions: yes those artists didn't own their work. But could you imagine if they did? To this day Leonardo De Vinci's estate would be extremely wealthy because every time Salvator Mundi went up for auction his estate would get a percentage of the sale. And most recently it was sold for $450 million!
And if Leonardo Da Vinci's estate was flush with cash, they could create angel funds that support the next generation of artists! This is how the startup world works right now. Every time a startup goes public or exits, and all of the founders and early employees become wealthy, all of those wealthy people start and invest in angel funds and fund the next generation of startups. (Look up the PayPal Mafia as an example). What if art could do the same?
I like the theory! I think I'm just more cynical about the likelihood of significant numbers of wealthy people investing in this sort of thing. Investing in startups is a more direct business calculation: build the startup fast, sell it fast, quick return. Clearly appealing to people with lots of money to invest! I don't quite see how that applies to artists, unless it's an already established and successful artist, which slightly defeats the point.
Part of me also feels uneasy because for these rich investors to exist in the first place, such that they can help the poor artists, requires a certain inequality in society in the first place. Which I know is over-simplifying it, but still. That might be a UK/US cultural difference in how we think of finance, maybe?
Really fascinating territory, though, regardless!
Yes, I definitely need to look more into what the ROI would realistically be here. NFTs seem to be proving that by adding community elements to art, there can be a big ROI. But that is just one case study and I'll have to explore how an artist can generate ROI for an investor in greater detail.
That being said, I DO think that established and wealthy artists should fund the next generation of artists, just like startup founders fund the next generation of startups. But we need to build this same infrastructure to support that. Still a lot to think about!
There's the complication that art with built-in ROI (let's take, for example, a Marvel movie, or a JK Rowling book, or a Dan Brown book) already has plenty of investment and funding. The other end of the artistic spectrum almost by definition will not have ROI other than appreciation of the art itself. I suppose this can convert to practical value over time, if the artist becomes respected enough to be relevant to collectors.
Part of the reason that the creator economy, and the likes of Patreon and Substack, appeal to me (and YouTube to an extent, though that model is different) is that it doesn't rely on the super rich. Because the individual investments are much smaller there's less of a need for ROI. It makes it possible to support art for the sake of it, rather than because you're getting something out the other end. Lots of small contributors also seems inherently less risk, less bubbly and less volatile than fewer mega-investors.
Still, I'm talking from a position of having VERY few small investors, so it's all a bit theoretical for me at the moment. :D
Yes, you bring up some really good points. Though I would love to receive an initial investment that ensured I could practice my art full time, I also wouldn't be too keen to give away future earnings. Maybe there's a middle ground... And I think Substack Pro is a great example of that. Maybe they are already the ideal in the writing world!
This is my favourite newsletter from you yet. I love how you incorporated the lessons we’ve learned from the fellowship (thank you for that because you helped me realise something), and how you married age old ideas to new ones. That’s just fantastic thinking!
Oh thank you so much David!!! That really means a lot!!! I know, this fellowship has been a game changer.....
Another great article! Thank you for your time and research. I've been looking into the publishing model you suggested and demonstrated on Mirror.xyz, and it seems like a potential future for artists. What I'm curious about is how it will end up - whether or not a new Renaissance for creators will emerge and expand the number of artists who can make art for a living. Likely, the future will emerge stranger or more mundane than we can imagine - but hopefully it allows more artists to create more art. That sounds like a great future to me.
I agree. Right now there are a lot of potential futures for artists! It will be interesting to see what future we create!
Ah, what a dream. If I could focus on creativity instead of earning an income, I would pursue multiple mediums such as music, writing, and art, and hopefully create several “masterpieces.” And perhaps become a true Renaissance Man. 🤣 I do enjoy the community aspect of Substack, which those classical artists probably didn’t enjoy. And something missing from book publishing.
So to any angels investors reading this, I am available.
I would love to be a Renaissance woman!!!!! But somehow every art I try comes back to writing 🤦♀️
I'll send all the angel investors your way 😆
Thanks. You're an angel. 😉
Great food for thought on multiple levels as always, Elle.
Breaking this story/topic up into smaller chunks and the strategy behind doing so makes a lot of sense, and you've convinced me to break up the mega-post I was writing in a similar manner.
To answer your masterpiece question, I would create what I'm already creating, just at hopefully a quicker pace. It would be stories in the fictional universe I've created across different mediums: books, comics, interactive games (tabletop/card games + video games), and more.
That sounds very fun!!!!!!! Glad you are creating it anyway!!!
My next story, will be in the same vein as the last (they're all actually the same story, just different time periods and characters). Masterpiece is not for me to judge, but the craft keeps getting stronger. Whatever, it must contain irony. I don't know, after all these years, I wonder if it is just self centeredness and vanity; I've always written more for myself than the reader - too eccentric. Maybe I'm trying to work things out - maybe that is art? A kind of redemption maybe . . . My, that's not really answering the question.
Hahahahaha. Sounds like you don't know what your masterpiece is yet! Much exploring to do....
One of the big differences between the renaissance and now is that we, as a society, place very little value on the arts. We value entertainment hugely, but I think there is a general feeling that entertainers ought to be able to earn a living from their performances. The value of entertainment lies in time pleasantly spent, no more than that, and no less.
Art, on the other hand, at least as it was classically understood, was a means by which we sought to understand ourselves. When A. E. Housman said "Malt does more than Milton can / To justify God's ways to man," he was referring to the notion that it was the business of art to explain God's ways to man.
Now we look more to psychology, and, increasingly, to neurology, for that same kind of understanding. Art once stood on the same pedestal as philosophy, theology, and science. It was a fundamental way of examining and understanding our lives. Art no longer enjoys that status (and philosophy and theology have been severely demoted too).
There is, to be sure, still some government funding for the arts, though I suspect that this is more a form of vote buying than born of any expectation that it will have any social or civilizational benefit. But such funding is almost everywhere in decline, and it does not reflect any wider social or intellectual appetite for the arts (as distinct from entertainment).
Joseph Bottom has an interesting book called The Decline of the Novel in which he traces the decline in the social and intellectual significance of the novel over the centuries. It is well worth reading.
Which leaves me questioning if there is much social appetite for patronage of the arts in society today, particularly among the rich, who generally see the hope for understanding in STEM rather than the Arts.
Alternate funding models for entertainment is a different subject. People are exploring alternate funding model and pricing strategies for all kinds of things. (Software going from a permanent sale model to a subscriptions model is one such example.) The approach of selling early access to content that will one day be free, as practiced by most writers on Patreon, strikes me more as an alternate payment model than actual patronage. People are paying for a personal good, not a social benefit. (And pay now, free later model is not exactly new in publishing: novels have been free in libraries for many decades, for those willing to wait a few weeks or months.)
Not to say that this is not all worth looking at, but I suspect it may be important to make a distinction between alternate funding and payment options for entertainment (in which customers expect personal value for money) and actual patronage of the arts.
Yes, but I would argue that the reason people were interested in being a patron of the arts, was not because they were into the arts, but because they were into the status symbol that being a patron of the arts gave them.
As art moved from being funded by wealthy individuals and entities to being funded by nonprofits, the arts lost prestige because they were no longer the enviable realm of the elite, but the charity case that needs money.
In other words, I don't think the arts lost prestige because people stopped being into the arts, but because the wealthy were no longer involved. And the wealthy were what gave the arts prestige in the first place. What we are interested in often comes from the top-down.
The rich jockeying for position on something is what makes it popular. Take charitable giving for instance. No one was doing it, and then Ted Turner admitted that he wasn't making donations because "the gifts would take such a chunk out of his total net worth that he would plummet down the Forbes 400 roster of the nation’s wealthiest men and women."
So Fortune (and then many others) started a list of the most charitable, and suddenly all the billionnaires were jockeying position, trying to outgive one another so they could make it to the top of the list and be seen as the most giving. The rich competing with one another drive huge trends!
(Great article about this here: https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/money-and-power/a37939625/competitive-philanthropy-history-jeff-mackenzie-bezos-gates-buffett/)
I don't see it that way. If it is the wealthy that give the arts prestige, then appreciation for art is nothing more than aping the rich, and, to borrow a phrase from Flannery O'Connor, if that is all it is, to hell with it. I'm with Joseph Bottom (and C.S. Lewis) on this. Art is one of the places we look to to explain our lives. But it was the fashion of the last century to look to psychology for that, and of this century to look to neurology for it. That has diminished the intellectual and moral status of the arts -- to the point, I suppose, where it is possible to view them simply as a form of bling.
Were the oligarchs of the Renaissance funding art for the sake of art or bling for the sake of bling? It would, at least, require some substantial research to demonstrate the former. But still, I choose to believe that it was not mere bling in their eyes, for what seems to me the significant reason, that the art they funded was among the greatest the world has ever known. It is hard to see how that happens without some application of taste and discernment on the part of those holding the purse strings, or at least of the part of those they chose to advise them.
I don't disagree that, for the end-user, art is "the place we look to explain our lives." But I don't think the end-user and the investor are necessarily the same person.
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".
This is my dream goal with my digital publishing company called Storyletter. To ultimately fund a network of writers to produce quality content but in a rotational manner that still provides quantity for the subscribers. I’m still a long ways off because as you said, it’s still a part-time hobby.
Very cool!!!!!