Drawing on my own work in defining the artistic process (2007) and recent readings of Giorgio Agamben, and Buadrillard, I have recently written (unpublished at this time) that:

"...we can say all Art is both mediated and subverted by power. Art—its identity as an object—evolves under the mediation of a benign social power (its audience), while its inherent ‘truth’ value is subverted by an excess of objectification under the manipulation a more malign, individualist power. Consider the absurdity of an Art object so raised in monetary value (through trade) that it cannot be exchanged at any price—lost in self-interest, its value in ‘truth’ is subverted for all ‘others’."

At the level of the artist (praxis), there is the need to consider how one funds the ability to devote oneself to one's craft. Some form of income requirement suggests colocation with a source of equity with the capacity for discretionary spend. While there is always an 'other' in which an artist may emerge from less that equitable surroundings, it is not a sound strategy if one can exercise choice.

Hi David,

I did not fully understand the final sentence but otherwise it is easy to agree with your statements. Art and artistic products and talents are commodities, but in some societies they brought fewer riches or/and only local fame. The sculptures of the early medieval period, in ancient societies, afforded few rewards for the sculptor and were probably done through family groups as in parts of Asia still, fitting into craft.

High prices involve innovation?

Dear all,

From my point of view great art could be produced on the ground of high culture. For example, Roman empire was rich, but Greeks thought that Romans are barbarians, because they only can fight. Romans tried to learn Greek culture to produce similar great art.

Hi Stanley, Konstantin

My last sentence was really "there is always room for exceptions to the general rule". In terms of historical progression we might just say that in past times (and perhaps in some existing cultures), it was not perceived necessary for those with the power to acquire what they consider as great works of art, to enter into a mutually gainful transaction with the artist. Favour might be simply be a question of marginally better existence, if at all. My own work highlighted a fundamental role for power in elevating what was the work of a craftsperson, to a work of Art, elevating the artistic craft worker to Artist. It would be useful to contrast the role of power over the ages, rather than wealth per se. Although we cannot avoid the fact that wealth is one means to power. This would then better speak to Konstantin's point on culture, and the power dynamic between Romans and Greeks. (Although I am no historian.)

Konstantin,

Great Athenian art was achieved at a period of immense Athenian wealth and power, and the Hellenistic period of vast wealth produced philosophers, scientists as well as great, if not comparable to earlier efforts, writers.

David, the power dynamic did, I think, exist. Great superpowers propagate their great artists more successfully and attract money correspondingly. The use of money or wealth to celebrate the nature of art seems evident.

Clueless, Stanley.

Dear all,

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Athens_vs_Sparta

" The cities of Athens and Sparta were bitter rivals in ancient Greece. Geographically they are very close to each other, but have sometimes had very different values, lifestyles, and cultures... Compared to the simple lifestyle of the Spartan people, Athenians had a very modern and open outlook. Unlike Sparta, in Athens, boys were not forced to join the army. As an Athenian, one could get a good education and could pursue several kinds of arts and sciences. Sparta people were not open to education and they only concentrated on military strength and obedience and they didn't interact much with the outside world."

Konstantin, yes prior to the Peloponnesian war. Greed entered the Spartan community through Persian gold, pumped into Sparta to finance their war with Athens. Although we associate Ancient Greece with democracy, this really was only Athens. Oligarchies and tyrannies were common.

Philistine answer:these days, collection, curation and exhibition follow wealth: great art issues from great talent.

The Italian Renaissance occurred because of the wealth different northern Italian cities gained in medieval times and their competition with each other. Surely there were other da Vincis living prior to these developments who disappeared in ther smoke and fog of time? The Neverthelands became a hub of wealth and finance, and produced Vermeer and Rembrandt.