Thoughts About Patron"s regarding the Art/Work Lecture by Cheryl Baxter

Once again, this is a late post.  I wrote it a couple of weeks ago after I had watched the lecture, and then have not gotten to posting.   

For those who have watched the presentation I posted  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twM-g63oOmM) – part of the Art:Work series out of AACLethbridge in Alberta that was posted on youtube - there are several points that really piqued my interest and I'd like to explore. If the link doesn't work you can go to youtube and search Cheryl Baxter Art/Work lecture and it will come up part way down the page.

This is mostly a thought exercise – my brain's way of expanding on things that it wants to ruminate on. I felt that the lecture had a lot to offer in terms of how I think about my art and my business, and to some extent my identity which is all tied up in the other two. Since this blog has become largely about those things I felt that this would be as good a place as any to offer up some of these ideas for the mysterious others who actually read this thing to think about as well.

I felt that the lecture was pretty comprehensive and covered a fair bit of ground in the allotted time. One of the things that struck me was Ms. Baxter's observations and the interpretations that followed. For the most part I felt that what was said was clear and largely correct in my own experience. One of the things I liked best about the presentation was that it made me think. It engaged me, and engaged my brain and caused me to think about my business, my art and myself.

However, I noted a difference of my own opinion when it comes to defining a patron – or perhaps difference is too strong a word. Personally I think there is more than one “class” of patron. That is where the difference in opinion stems from, and it is likely largely due to the types of experiences we have had in dealing with the public. Of course, it may also be that what I feel is a different “class” of patron just carries a different definition for the speaker, or perhaps it was just generalization and broad strokes in the interest of time and information being put forward.

I absolutely agree with the classic definition of a patron in the way in which it was presented. For those of you who have not watched the lecture, it was along the lines of a person who has no (or very few) financial, educational or time confines which might inhibit their participation in support of the arts, and of artists. (Hopefully that is not taking Cheryl Baxter's definition out of context – it is my interpretation of the gist of what the definition that was presented was.)

However, I feel that there is another type of patron – or what I consider to be a patron. I like to think of them as grassroots patrons. People who have some – often many – financial constraints which offer considerable difficulty in participation of support of art and artists, and yet they do it anyway. People who are so engaged by the artist or their work that they save for a piece, or they forgo something else for possession of a piece that speaks to them – or for a piece from a certain individual. These are people who search for opportunities to support individuals in spite of everything in their lives that speak against it. Perhaps patron really isn't the right term for them in any context. 

The connection between patron and patronizing was not lost on me, and I think that Ms. Baxter's mention of the point and the complexity of the relationship between patron and artist is a very important one. So maybe it is my phrasing that needs to be adjusted. But what to call them then? The theatrical term of “angel” springs to mind, certainly. And given my connections to the theatre world it might be appropriate. There are, however, people in my own personal circles who I'm beginning to think of as my own grassroots patrons who I suspect would take great exception to being called an angel. (Yes, Doc, I mean you.)

Definately food for thought.