Creative People Used to be SO MUCH CLASSIER Back in the Day.

Except Not.

So, I guess people are getting used to the idea of artists crowdfunding, utilizing platforms like Substack and Patreon (my Patreon is here,) but I am always running into people who think this sort of blegging thing is new.

Except it’s not.

You're looking at Rembrandt's The Night Watch, originally entitled Militia Company of District II under the Command of Captain Frans Banninck Cocq, one of the most famous paintings in history.

This work was crowdfunded.

Financed by a group of militiamen - more like policemen in today's understanding - it was intended to be a group portrait. Each man paid a fee to include his image in the piece.

It was not well-received by those who paid for it. They expected something like this, by the artist Jan Damesz de Veth.

The Night Watch was a revolutionary approach to this sort of commission, probably why people didn't like Rembrandt’s painting then and why people like it very much now. The men in the portrait paid a lot of money to see themselves in a picture (think of how important that must have been before photos and phones,) and you can't really see most of the people in it very well if what you are looking for is a portrait like the one by de Veth.

I post this to point out that

A: crowdfunding is common, and here is an example going back 400 years.

B: crowdfunding to get your picture in a work of art is also pretty common.

We had to deal with some saucy commentary over the Good Omens Kickstarter, because, apparently, people think crowdfunding or paying to get one's image in a crowdfunded work is declasse.

Well, heck, if it's good enough for Rembrandt.

And on the subject of filthy lucre…

It's been years since I was able to finagle a royalty statement out of an ex agent for a major project. I don't think it's her fault, I'm pretty sure the book hasn't earned out anyway in part because the collaborator got something like five times what I got.

It was a huge bestseller, it came out in multiple editions, and I've never earned a penny in royalties in all these years.

To my deep annoyance, against my contract, my publisher also failed to collect fees for any reuse of my cover art on foreign editions.

I can't even.

It would cost more to fight than it would be to let it go.

Which is why they sometimes do this stuff.

But I also saw that the paperback edition had been sub-licensed to another publisher.

You know what that means?

It means that once your project is sub-licensed, your royalties get cut. If you were entitled to 5%, now you get 2.5%.

This is really common. Publisher A goes to no expense to produce the new edition, but halves what the author would have made. It can be almost impossible to make any royalties at that rate unless you sell boatloads of copies.

I speculate because I can, but I know what book publishers think of cartoonists, how poorly big time book publishers pay, how they don't want to wait more than a few months to get a full color graphic novel, but will sit on it for a year before going to print, and how publishing deals allow the publisher to make all the decisions and take most of the money, and some think creators who want to step around this quagmire via crowdfunding are not being reasonable.

As for those dudes who were disappointed about the Rembrandt work they paid to be in back in the day, the painting is now one of the top five most recognizable paintings in the world.

And there is this amazing sculpture by Alexander Taratynov of the figures from the painting, now on display in front of the sculpture of Rembrandt in Amsterdam. Photo by GFDL.

I must say, usually I lament the poor quality of contemporary figurative sculpture, but that's a corker.

Rembrandt, was a lousy businessman and died bankrupt.

I don't intend to imitate him in everything.

William Blake also supported his works via subscription. Like Substack, only before the internet.

He went largely unrecognized in his lifetime, and died broke.

John James Audobon financed his series Birds of America via subscription, raising the modern equivalent of millions of dollars to back the expensive project.

He did not die broke.

As for the character of artists of the past, we are often reminded that good artists do not bicker or wade into politics or say bad things about other creator’s works.

These things are said by people who know nothing about art or art history.

No artist was more political than Sir Peter Paul Reubens.

He who maketh the pictures of the fleshy ladies and robust nekkid dudes.

He not only had time to produce about 1500 listed works, but he had time to be a diplomat - well, basically a spy- traveling around Europe, rubbing elbows with all the best people, and speaking and writing in multiple languages.

He was made a noble by the King of Spain, and a knight by the King of England.

And while Reubens was generally well regarded by all who knew him (even if he was a pesky artist who delved into politics,) at the other end of the spectrum, we have art history’s ultimate bad boy - Caravaggio.

The above painting is by Giovani Baglione.

Caravaggio didn’t like it.

A lot.

This profound dislike precipitated an impulse in Caravaggio to write a nasty poem which caused great damage to Giovani Baglione's reputation, and the matter ended up in a lawsuit which did nothing for Caravaggio.

John Bags, you haven't a clue that your paintings are woman’s-work.
I'd like to see you never earn a worth-less penny with them.
Because with as much cloth as it would take
to make yourself a pair of baggy trousers,
you’ll show everyone what sh*t really is.
So take your drawings and your cartoons that you have made
to Andrea the sandwichman,
or wipe your ass with them,
or plug up Mao’s wife’s c*nt with them,
because he doesn't f*ck her anymore with that big mule’s d*ck of his.
Pardon me painter if I do not sing your praises,
because you are unworthy of that chain you wear,
and worthy only of painting’s vituperation.

And you thought some of the stuff you read on Twitter was rough.

This is the second version of this painting. In this one, Baglioni has made a portrait of Caravaggio in the face of the devil. Caravaggio was found liable during the trial, and jailed. Caravaggio maintained that Baglione was a bit of a plagiarist while Baglione maintained Caravaggio was jealous.

All that said, Caravaggio was a bit of a bad hat, regardless.

As for all the rest…