Dude it's the only thing to consider. It's the difference between "what he says" and "what we all say." Art has always been about access - nobody remembers what some random Assyrian said, they remember what Cyrus the Great had carved on the cliff at Behistun. Art and culture are inextricably about access and patronage. Louis CK was able to go private once he was Louis CK. Prior to becoming Louis CK he was just another poorly-paid comedy writer for fifteen years. Louis CK a year after Caroline in the City gets cancelled? Gets 20 downloads a month. Louis CK after he decides Netflix doesn't pay him enough because he's Louis CK? That's always the flip in entertainment - are you taken advantage of or do you take advantage? We know about the Medicis because they controlled public art, not because they were rich. There were other rich families in Florence but it was the Medicis that sprayed their faces on every third wall. Likewise, Kardashians have far more cultural influence than Dursts, despite the Dursts being richer. If the Rothschilds had bought theaters instead of vineyards they probably wouldn't be accused of owning space lasers today.But your separation of the artist from the platform is an interesting wrinkle to consider, for the Dave Chapelle thing.
