![](/static/61a827a1/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/fbe5ff74-5e85-4c18-bb18-f6e51d4c1dec.png)
did you read that? Because to me it really reads like it talks about davincis comissions. Which are not a publishing/patreoning deal. It even talks about his focus on his personal work outside those comissions. just because the word patreon is used in the article makes it support your point…
But for you i did another quick read of his wikipedia article (do you need a link to that or can you find that on your own?) and read that in the last 7years of his life he had the vatican as a patreon for his art. Before he had two other patreon for shorter times mostly for his engeneering, cartographing and organizing talent.
and to finish this petty argument of: even when all you claim is true. artist are still able to produce art without a publisher. which was my first point. heck even you can shoot him a donation so they are not as dependent on a publisher deal, if you feel that person deserves more funds. My original point was that a publisher breaking a deal, does not prevent the art from beeing made in principle. and this point stands imo, as i didnt see any conter argument against it yet.
what a weird hill to die on