It May Be Time to Embrace Your Local Billionaire

On Patronage and Government Grants

Note: Gifted Underachievers’ interview with Beyond Craft founder Joe Ponepinto is now online. It’s a wide-ranging discussion in which Joe, along with hosts James Buchanan and Pat Dobie, talk about publishing, not publishing, and just what the heck we are trying to do here at Beyond Craft.

If the Trump administration has its way, government funding for the arts will be virtually eliminated. Already they have tried to end funding for major arts organizations such as the NEA, NEH, and a variety of smaller programs. For writers this means thousands of grants will be cut or rescinded, forcing them to find other ways to support themselves while they work on their art. Short of giving up their pursuits altogether, that could mean more time employed (and less for creation), attending fewer conferences and retreats, submitting less often, and generally cutting back their artistic lives.

Perhaps it is the administration’s attempt to bring back patronage. Are we ready for that?

For much of history artists relied on patrons for financial support while they developed their artistic skill. For example, Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci both were supported by the Medici family in the early Renaissance. The poet Dante Alighieri, when he was exile from his home city of Florence, wandered the Italian countryside seeking patronage from wealthy land owners. For centuries many well-known writers relied on patrons for a time in their careers, such as James Joyce, Oscar Wilde, and TS Eliot.

It was not until the advancement of capitalism and the growth of mass printing that artists were able to market themselves to a larger segment of the public, resulting in greater exposure and additional revenue sources. As the influence of patrons waned, arts institutions began to take over supplemental support for artists. It was a step toward democratizing and diversifying the art world. Now it seems we are headed in the other direction.

Under the system of patronage artists and writers were often compelled to promote the politics and social values of their patrons in their work. The wealthy are traditionally more conservative in their politics, interested in protecting the status quo that maintains their wealth. But with the growth of the government and foundation system, critics on the right claim that grant awards have skewed sharply toward liberal values. My research seems to bear this out. And it makes me wonder if the current system of grants is essentially the same as previous versions of patronage, only with decisions made by committees instead of individuals.

On something of a whim I asked ChatGPT[1] to list recipients of the NEA 2024 Literary Fellowships who could be considered politically conservative.

ChatGPT’s response: “Because NEA fellowships are awarded anonymously on the basis of artistic excellence, public details about recipients’ political views are often minimal or absent. Based on available information as of mid‑2025, zero of the named 2024 NEA literary fellowship recipients can be credibly identified as conservative writers.”

I asked the same question, substituting the word “liberal” for “conservative.” The return was similar regarding the absence of records about political views, although it did not say that zero of the recipients could be credibly identified as liberal writer. Instead ChatGPT suggested it could “Explore the general political beliefs or public stances of known recipients of the 2024 NEA Creative Writing Fellowships—for instance, by looking into their public essays, affiliations, or published themes.”

Why not?

This time the response said, “Several fellows center identity politics—especially race, gender, sexuality, immigration, and disability—as core themes in their writing. Many align with broader social justice movements, though not all explicitly endorse political parties or electoral activism.”

I am not commenting on the recipients’ individual politics. Nor am I saying that arts organizations have gone too far in their support of liberal-leaning literature. But it seems the administration is saying that, and that they are trying to turn the tables 180 degrees, forcing artists and writers to adopt conservative viewpoints, or to shut down what it believes are liberal points of view in the arts.

This has echoes of a concept introduced by George Lakoff in his book, Moral Politics, called the Moral Order: a politically conservative-based belief that some people and groups are naturally entitled to moral authority over others. In the administration’s view those people are the wealthy, particularly wealthy conservatives.

My point here is not to criticize the NEA’s, or even the administration’s funding decisions, but instead to point out how groups in authority tend to skew toward the margins when they have the power to do so, and believe they are accountable to only a segment of the population. It’s just another example of the extremism that divides our country, with both sides focused on silencing the other.

And now we may have to live with the prospect of seeking out patronage instead of grant funding.

Time to embrace your local billionaire…if you can find one. They tend to be reclusive. You might have to crash a yacht club or two. Maybe land a job as a waiter at one, and while serving “accidentally” drop a chapter of your WIP on the table.

Kidding aside, I am not one who is enthused by the idea of having my work judged and governed by a rich person’s taste, no matter whether that person is considered liberal or conservative. But in the current political climate artists and writers may not have much choice. It seems the people in power want to see artists and writers grovel, and perhaps even to see them cater to viewpoints that are not their own. I doubt many writers will do that.

Publishing companies, especially the big ones, will probably cave to the administration’s demands for political compliance. You may see more fiction with conservative characters and themes, re-introducing concepts of nuclear families and religion (especially Christian) in their stories.

But the writing world theoretically is about being able to voice almost any idea and ideology without concern about censorship. And what the administration is doing is exactly that—prior censorship designed to mute criticism and enshrine a particular set of moral values. I fear many writers and artists who do not hare these values will be forced to abandon their work because they are not able to receive the support on which they have so long depended.

---

[1] I’m not crazy about using ChatGPT for research, but it sure is a time saver. I generally use it as a starting point to supply leads for further investigation.