>>7701

>and if that will happen art will be still shared by those patrons and artists for free just like it was from the very beginning. the purpose to hire an artist was to show his art to everyone not to hide it in your basement


Show art, yes, in the comfort and privacy of your own home, to selected guests. Plenty of wealthy people right now have art collections that only they and a very few people get to see in person. And that was so back then, and only after a person died would art be placed in public galleries or museums. The alternate was municipal art, paid and contracted for by governments.

>I can already imagine Bill Gates posting add " looking to an artist to draw a series of pictures of lolis being raped by clowns. Applicants, please send your portfolios for review to this address"


Well, that's just it: Gates wouldn't. (Or if that's what he wanted, he'd have the resources to have it made and then keep it very private.) People buy and contract art all the time today, and they get it made to their own tastes. If we move to a system where patronage becomes more viable, then either artists would have to change their art to suit their clients, or the only ones to be hired would be the ones who made art in line with what the rich people liked. There'd be less guro work, because there wouldn't be enough money to support its production.

Making it impossible for an independent artist to make a living will just make more artists not independent. They won't be making what they want, they'll be making what Donald Trump wants, or what big business wants. Some artists will release art for free, but I think there will be less of that kind of artist if you get your way.

>you proved yourself wrong because you do share your work regardless of the fact that you are not being paid.


I did not prove myself wrong. You just can't read properly. You assume things about me just because you do not like what I say, and you can't be bothered to keep the facts straight.