in class we brought to light a interesting but awful truth. it's not what you know but who you know. alot times more qualified people get beat out for a job by a more connected person. it's obviously not the best thing ever but it's just the way of the world.
the way Dr. Borders explained the patron-client seems, to me, like a sports or talent agent. the agent tries to help there client to success, while if the client becomes wildly successful the agent can then pursue more high profile clients. if the first client just completely falls flat then the agents reputation takes a blow.
im sure if the clients we discussed in class spent as much time and effort building a career or craft instead of bulstering their patron, then they would not have need for a patron in the first place. might even have clients of their own.
I agree to an extent with the whole: if people invested in themselves then they wouldn't need to invest in a patron. Some people have the personality to succeed and others don't. Some people have the appearance to get them places in life, while others just cannot make it on their own. Society will always judge on the visual (most of the time) instead of the talent. So the clients who supported their patron(s) may have been able to become patrons themselves or maybe not. Investing in their patron may have even been their strategy to one day be a patron themselves. Who knows?
ReplyDelete