- Nov 21, 2018
- 1,531
- 2,648
You've got the whole concept of patronage exactly backwards. Patrons don't pay artists anything for work they've already done. The whole point of patronage is that the patrons are supporting the artist for the sake of their current and future work. An artist who isn't producing anything, or at least working toward producing something, is therefore betraying the implied contract between the artist and the patron.I do not know about the "he owes the patrons" argument, because that was never any contractual agreement - no one forces anyone to contribute via Patreon. You, or anyone else, contributes fundamentally as payment for work he has already done (and to help enable/encourage him to do further work), but at no point are you paying him to work today or tomorrow.
Also, you seem to have overlooked the word "implied' in my phrase "implied contract." I didn't say anything about a legally binding contract which could be enforced in a court of law. I talked about an implied contract, which serves as the basis of the patron/artist relationship, and which has always formed that basis, for as long as artists have had patrons.
So you're mistaken. I'm not paying him anything for work he has already done. And I never had any intention of doing so. I'm paying him to work today and tomorrow, which is exactly the thing which you suggest I'm not paying him to do. (Or I would be paying him, if he were to post an update, since that's how he has his Patreon account set up.)
If you were to say the exact opposite of what you said, then you would be right.
And here again, I maintain that you've gotten it exactly backwards. Yes, he does owe his patrons something. No, I don't owe him anything for the work which he has already produced, even though I enjoyed it.He owes you, as a patron of his art, nothing. If he gave you something you deem to be significant to your enjoyment of life, then you owe him - not the other way around.
Or, as Willy Wonka said, "Strike that. Reverse it."
Well, we actually don't agree on that, either. I said that, if it were possible for an artist to owe something to their creation, then I would say that DRG owes it to this excellent game to see it through to the end. But I also stated that I don't actually believe that artists (or any creator) can owe something to their creation.However, I do agree that he "owes" his art.
We do, however, agree that, if DRG is still alive, and has no intention of completing this project, he should inform his supporters of that fact. So at least we agree on something.