Patreon: Understanding the Intersection of Art, Artiste, and Labour

Upasana Bhattacharjee

Introduction

Economic activity has seen significant changes in its operation and organisation in the last few decades, with deep-seated implications for the ways in which work and labour are conducted and perceived. Increasingly linked with the concept of productivity, this network economy depends extensively on the availability and diffusion of Information and Communication Technologies. A network is understood as a structure that is dynamic in nature and relies on the instrumental values of different nodes for its operation and evolution, where nodes are points of intersection and exchange [1].

As a result of this structural transformation of economic (and political) activity, labour has become far more decentralised, specialised and distributed in its functioning within nodes across the globe. The internet has thus made it possible for the production of value and accumulation of capital to take place on a global scale with increased fragmentation of the labour force. This fragmentation has reduced the bargaining power of the labour force, with operations becoming increasingly individualised and autonomous. Further, as economic activity is driven by innovation and creativity, generic labour becomes replaceable, thus finding little scope within the network economy [2].

This informationalisation of economic activity has spelled out significant changes in how work and labour are conducted and perceived. Creative digital labour, functioning at a niche intersection of digital technology and the creative industry, is an interesting site of analysis for this change because of the questions it raises about art, culture, distribution and economic activity, against the backdrop of platform economies. As such, placing ‘artistes’ within the platform economy and understanding them as members of this new labour force becomes a pertinent aspect of analysis.

This essay tries to understand the nature of the creative industry by tracing its foundation in culture theory and the impact digital technology has had on the culture industry. Within the platform economies that have largely shaped the activities of the creative digital industry, this essay focuses on Patreon [3] and the different aspects of human labour that emerge through it. Patreon is a membership platform that connects fans with creators (writers, musicians, actors, dancers, artists, photographers, podcasters, animators, gaming creators, science creators and education creators, among others) such that fans can donate to creators on a subscription basis.

These theoretical concepts help negotiate the role the state would have to play in fostering and aiding the survival of artforms that have predominantly moved to the digital sphere. These include measures that incorporate more people into the workforce, welfare schemes that reduce the precarity that comes with creative (digital) labour and archival mechanisms to protect and preserve artforms that might not get adequate visibility in mainstream channels. This becomes a particularly precarious issue in India because of intricate power structures that necessitate state interference to ensure fairness.

From Culture Industry to Creative Industries

The culture industry as a phenomenon was extensively written about by philosophers from the Frankfurt School. Predominantly following a Marxist logic of thought, philosophers like Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer and Walter Benjamin provide a foundational understanding of the culture industry. Adorno and Horkheimer, in their essay The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception argue that with the advent of technology, art was dethroned from its position (of legitimacy) as something that leads people to reflect and introspect, and consequently understand life on a deeper level. Instead, it became a part of the capitalist box where it perpetuated the cycle of production and consumption. Art therefore was simultaneously transformed into a consumption good and the means to make money. The art that was rendered possible with technology as a medium and/or tool was absorbed in mass media and was labelled ‘pseudo-culture.’

This distinction in the new form of art that was possible due to technology, and specifically mass reproduction, was analysed critically by Walter Benjamin in his essay The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Benjamin argued that any work of art finds its authenticity in its unique location in space and time. By challenging the erstwhile distinction between the original and the copy, mechanical reproduction of artwork distorts the aura and the unique aesthetic authority of the artwork.

This is only amplified with the advent of digital technology. While the question of reproduction is rendered obsolete in some ways, the related questions of availability and access get subsumed within questions of intellectual property. Keeping aside the issue of digital divide and access, the internet provides a space for decentralised distribution, sharing and collaboration that is not limited by geographical constraints. These fundamental changes in modes of distribution and creation on the internet have led to a shift in how human creation is perceived, and in certain ways, permitted.

These modes of distribution have thus had an influence on both art and audience. This is in addition to the profits of the process being taken by channels of technological distribution rather than original producers. This shift is conceptually indicated in the use of “creative industries” instead of culture industries. Creative industries can only be understood when placed in the context of the presence and impact of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), signalling a crucial reference to the centrality of digital technologies in this industry [4].

Platform Economies and Digital Labour

Platforms or communities like DeviantArt allow artists to showcase their work (categorised as digital art, traditional art, animation, design, literature and photography, among others) and get feedback from other users. Notably, platforms like these rarely ever have any barriers to entry. As such, one does not have to measure up to any normative standards of what an artiste/creator is, or what their art should look like. The internet can be deceptive in making one consider that normative standards are thus absent. But it is important to note that there has only been a shift in how normative standards for art are created, and by no means have these been eradicated.

Questions of access surround the question of distribution on the internet. With a major section of the population still functioning without access to the internet, it can hardly be hailed as an emancipator from conventional modes of exchange and distribution for any activity, economic or otherwise. Embedded within the side of the digital divide with access to internet is an intersection of privilege, wealth, security nets and educational qualifications that makes a certain kind of success possible.

Primarily well-educated urban residents, content creators on the internet usually have a set of social, cultural and economic capital in place. And for them the internet renders itself as a platform and/or a market that permits exchange, collaboration and distribution in largely unrestricted ways.

One such platform is Patreon which functions almost like a system of auctioning. Patreon provides a platform for creators to get funding from their fans on a sustained basis, through a subscription-based model. There are levels of patronage and support that can be set up, and patrons (fans) can subscribe/donate whatever they wish to. The creators have complete autonomy and ownership over what they create, and what they make public, in addition to the sponsorship deals they take up. The fans or patrons can pay for the content or additional services based on the value they place on them, in keeping with their capacities and constraints. Patreon charges a 5% fee on all donations and 5% transaction charges leaving the creator with 90% of the donations.

Patreon began in 2013, when an independent musician Jack Conte uploaded a music video on YouTube (that went on to become very popular) and realised that the returns were unfair to the level of effort that he had put in. Using Kickstarter (the crowdfunding platform) as the basis for the idea, he collaborated with Sam Yam, a college friend, and built Patreon, a platform to subscribe to and support people over the course of different projects, on different levels, and then getting access to their work based on one’s patronage [5]. The first 18 months of the platform’s launch saw more than 125,000 “patrons” sign up [6]. By 2015, these patrons were sending over $1,000,000 to the creators on the platform [7]. By 2017, this figure had gone up to $100,000,000 with over 50,000 active creators [8]. The company raised $2.1 million in August 2013 from a group of VCs and angel investors [9]. This was followed by another $15 million raised in June 2014 [10]. January 2016 saw Patreon raise another $30 million, bringing its total to $47.1 million [11].

Since its inception, Patreon has acquired platforms like Subbable, a similar subscription service (in 2015), and Memberful, a membership services company (in 2018) [12]. Alongside such acquisitions, the platform has added various tools like a mobile app called Lens, livestream services and a Customer Relationship Management system [13].

Despite its significant growth, Patreon has faced harsh criticism over the past few years with respect to its censorship policies. For instance, the platform banned Carl Benjamin (working under the name Sargon of Akkad) because of anti-feminist and homophobic content. Following this move, major creators like Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson quit the platform citing their harsh censorship regime. It must be acknowledged that unlike Facebook and Twitter that have algorithms as their preliminary filters, Patreon has an in-house team of trust and safety that handles all its content moderation. The head of the team, Jaqueline Hart, recognises the need for deliberation and debate (with creators) while arriving at decisions regarding what should be flagged or blocked on the platform. While the censorship is strict, it is not afraid to take a stance on how technology can be used with deliberation. The concern that any censorship is inevitably ideologically biased is one that needs more intricate attention [14].

In addition to concerns about censorship, there is scepticism around the long-term sustainability of the business model. In a recent interview, founder Jack Conte admitted that the generous business model followed by Patreon where creators get 90% of their patronage might not be sustainable in the long run, especially with the expectation of rapid growth. He mentioned that the ways in which new value services are launched for creators will be reconfigured to generate revenue [15].

While populated mainly by YouTubers, illustrators and photographers, Patreon works best for creators who share their work regularly. Depending on the donation or subscription, patrons get access to the creators’ work and/or exclusive access to other aspects of their life. It is noteworthy that Patreon as a platform solves the problem of providing a sustainable income to creators through their fans, rather than increasing the fanbase of the creators in the first place. This is also evident in how Patreon does not make it easy to find emerging and new creators [16].

Labour and the Promise of Work

Implicit in this format of a platform is the free and affective labour that goes into establishing this fanbase. Accomplished largely through other social media platforms like Instagram and YouTube, a fanbase, once built through extensive networking, can be converted into a source of sustainable income through Patreon.

In order to fully understand the various dimensions of labour embedded within platforms like Patreon, or other crowdfunding websites for the creative industry is the concept of aspirational labour. Erin Duffy, in her paper The romance of work: Gender and aspirational labour in the digital culture industries defines aspirational labour as “a forward-looking, carefully orchestrated, and entrepreneurial form of creative cultural production.”

And Patreon largely accommodates this form of aspirational labour which is built around the idea of the artist-entrepreneur who is both creator and marketer, with a cautiously planned hold over both fanbase and creativity, and an implicit rejection of the dichotomy between work and leisure. Emerging from this notion is the commercialisation of artwork, hobbies and thus leisure time.

With an underlying principle of Do What You Love at play, the element of authenticity assumes great importance [17]. Creators are presented as down-to-earth, relatable entities earning a living through their labour of love. And by staying put in the indie wave as freelancers, without entering the mainstream commercial aspects of the industry, it is assumed that creative freedom and artistic integrity reign over their world.

The relationship between artistic integrity and funding has traditionally been determined by the market rationality of commercial art and the system of patronage in the middle ages. The latter saw artists working under the patronage of the wealthy and the aristocracy, and inevitably often created work for their patrons. This paradigm changed significantly post-enlightenment. Increased institutionalisation in both the market and the state led to the institutionalisation of art as well. As such, there entered intermediaries who took charge of the distribution of artwork on a mass scale. In many ways, art ended up becoming a private enterprise, negotiated by the market, instead of a matter of state patronage [18].

The Role of the State

But implicit in this apparent independence from the state was the passive but pertinent role that it played in determining how the ‘industry’ functioned. For instance, the US government has maintained a distance from directly intervening in the culture industry through policy programmes but it acts as a strong catalyst for Hollywood through tax cuts and subsidies. Interestingly, most of the policy concerns in the culture industry have been around exports and the commercialisation of Intellectual Property for the US, and this represents an underlying approach towards the culture industry that is different to that of the UK [19].

The state in the UK has had a far more active involvement in the culture industry, recognising it as a vital element in the national economy. With grants programmes for artists in place by the Arts Council and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sports, the state defined parameters on the basis of which certain artists would be funded, and in this process, created a normative ideal for the kind of art that would find it easiest to survive [20].

Policy programmes promoting the creative industries become a precarious matter in a country like India. Government programmes that provide specific grants run the risk of creating a normative artform, and tensions like these are exacerbated along the lines of gender, caste, religion and language.

Finding a space to promote artforms that are relegated to the subaltern beyond their identity as subaltern artforms becomes a far-fetched, but important objective. In trying to capture the subjectivity of the artiste of non-dominant artforms through the artforms, too often the attention is on their value in relation to the dominant, stuck in the dichotomy of the dominant and subaltern. As such, their subjectivity does not merely lose its potential for intersectionality but also draws its pertinence from its identity as the subaltern. On this abstract level, thus, breaking that dichotomy and giving these artforms a space to exist beyond their identity as subaltern artforms assumes significance.

While it is assumed that internet has the potential of providing a space of permanence and storage, several challenges around archiving have been identified over the years. There are cultural problems where the general public is largely oblivious of the importance of archiving, and the question of resources (financial and technical) becomes a major concern along with legal issues around copyrights. In the US, court rulings (Perfect 10 v.Amazon.com (2007) and A.V. v. iParadigm (2009)) have deemed that web archiving is transformative and as such does not violate copyright [21].

Large portions of web crawling activities are generally outsourced to contractors in the US. Since the web is dynamic and growing, web crawlers are always catching up. Any preservation efforts thus become extremely tedious and it is wiser to have greater distribution of work and participation from different platforms. This is thus closely tied to the question of financing archiving activities and selecting what gets archived. Implicit in the choice of what gets archived is the choice of what is let go. As such, being aware and critical of decision-making bodies that have the power to preserve one type of history becomes pertinent [22].

This is ultimately a subtle form of technocracy at play, making decisions on matters of recording or storing, presentation, access and visibility. Thus, while there are algorithms behind search engines across platforms, these algorithms are ultimately programmed by humans and more often than not, are replete with the same set of biases. This has an effect on the visibility of different types of content and the kind of audience that ends up having easy access to them.

With this, the problem of visibility and access becomes amplified, both for the creator and the audience. In the context of platforms like Patreon, this problem is further compounded by the fact that there is immense free affective labour that goes into success at any crowdfunding website. As such, people without the cultural or social capital to have those networks in the first place are relegated to the less noticed, barely surviving side of the platforms [23].

This reality must be understood in conjunction with the concept of risk in modern societies. Studied extensively by Ulrich Beck, the risk society thesis posits that the risk being borne by individuals is rising as security nets are falling in the economic system. Workers therefore individually face the dangers and risks that they would otherwise have some form of institutional support for. This element of individualisation shifts the risk of economic activity from institutions to individuals thus making them responsible for their own welfare. This becomes an increasingly problematic scenario in fields as precarious and speculative as creative labour [24].

It is thus that the role of the state must be understood as a facilitator, a security base and as a norm creator. As a facilitator, the state’s role is to ensure the integration of more people into the digital economy by providing them with the technological infrastructure, education and training to become part of it. Any effort towards inclusion must enable greater visibility and creation of different artforms, communities, histories and customs. The state therefore has to be mindful of the power structures that have existed throughout history, an aspect that has deeply intersectional dimensions in India.

As a security base, the state must ensure that the precarity of creative labour is reduced in some degree through welfare schemes, grants and a strong intellectual property regime (one that protects artistes against infringement and/or theft of their work, in addition to giving them control over how their knowledge systems are spread). This becomes particularly important in a country like India where artforms have strong connections with a sense of (community) identity. Ultimately, it must be understood that through its grant schemes, the kind of training it provides and the kinds of archiving and preservation measures exercised decide what is worth creating, sustaining and preserving. Recognising its role in fostering certain artforms and thus certain identities is perhaps the first step in ensuring that the norms so created move beyond the dominant notions of art and identity.

These measures towards regulation must be understood against the backdrop of the internet being a collaborative space with extensively decentralised distribution. While protection through regulation (specifically IPR) is certainly important, such measures should not hinder the growth and preservation of artforms by adversely affecting the way knowledge is produced and distributed. Furthermore, any regulatory measures need to be implemented with caution as excessive regulation might prove to be a barrier to entry into paywalled (and proprietary) platforms like patreon.

Conclusion

The question of aspirational and entrepreneurial labour on the internet becomes far more complicated for the creative labour force at the margins. Their marginalisation, obviously a significant part of their identity, often becomes a defining constraint in their work, one they cannot quite escape. The scope to be seen as art in itself, while retaining the politics of marginalisation/subalternity that have informed its growth, is an important goal. In relation to this, providing visibility to these artforms across different platforms and search engines might necessitate certain levels of training in understanding algorithmic biases.

The crux of the argument is that while these platforms provide the space for what appears to be a fair and free system of market, and a close counterpart of auctioning at that, it is important to note the power structures that are at play within these platforms, along with their feasibility as a primary source of income for creators. According to Graphtreon, out of the 79,420 creators on Patreon in 2017, only 2% were making the equivalent of US federal minimum wage per hour [25]. The intervention of the state must therefore be at the level of diminishing, if not eliminating these power structures, as an institution that must endeavour to elevate the baseline of the industry (through more inclusive training programmes and infrastructure development) more than fostering the growth of the industry through macro-funding programmes.

The individualisation of risk in today’s economic activity has thus led to a largely entrepreneurial spirit in the labour force. A significant portion of the workers of the creative digital industry try to make their living through platforms that try to establish sustainable relationships between fans and creators, instead of taking up more mainstream channels of the creative industry. But assuming that such a market structure is fair and removed from traditional power structures will mean ignoring the peripheral and often invisible and free labour that aid their functioning. As such, state interference at a minimum level of welfare and/or sustenance, along with programmes fostering education and training and increasing access to digital technology become important in ensuring a fair system of growth for the creative digital industry.

Endnotes

[1] Castells, Manuel. “The Network Society: From Knowledge to Policy.” In The Network Society: From Knowledge to Policy (2005)

[2] Ibid.

[3] See: https://www.patreon.com/

[4] Garnham, Nicholas. “From Cultural to Creative Industries: An Analysis of the Creative Industries Approach to Arts and Media Policy Making in the United States” International Journal of Cultural Policy (2005), 20

[5] Robertson, Adi. “Inside Patreon, the Economic Engine of Internet Culture.” The Verge. August 03, 2017. Accessed March 10, 2019. https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/3/16084248/patreon-profile-jack-conte-crowdfunding-art-politics-culture

[6] Dredge, Stuart. “Amanda Palmer Races to $13,000 per Release in Patreon Crowdfunding.” The Guardian. March 04, 2015. Accessed March 10, 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/mar/04/amanda-palmer-patreon-crowdfunding-backers

[7] “Creators on Patreon Receive Over 1,000,000 per Month From Patrons”. October 10, 2014. Archived from the original on April 4, 2015. Retrieved June 12, 2015.

[8] Conte, Jack, and Jack Conte. “Creators Have Made $100M on Patreon.” Art/work -behind the Scenes at Patreon. January 09, 2017. Accessed March 10, 2019. https://patreonhq.com/creators-have-made-100m-on-patreon-ddfcc9338662

[9] Tate, Ryan (October 22, 2013). “The Next Big Thing You Missed: ‘Eternal Kickstarter’ Reinvents Indie Art”. Wired. Archived from the original on February 27, 2014. Retrieved March 1, 2014.

[10] Buhr, Sarah (June 23, 2014). “Patreon Raises $15 Million Series A, Revamps Site To Focus More On Content”. TechCrunch. Archived from the original on August 25, 2014. Retrieved August 26, 2014.

[11] Buhr, Sarah (January 19, 2016). “Patreon Gains $30 Million Series B Funding To Support Growth”. TechCrunch. Archived from the original on May 31, 2016. Retrieved June 26, 2016.

[12] Matsakis, Louise. “Patreon Makes a Move as Tech Giants Encroach on Its Territory.” Wired. August 10, 2018. Accessed March 10, 2019. https://www.wired.com/story/patreon-buys-memberful-as-tech-giants-compete/

[13] Gensler, Andy. “Patreon Launches New Tools Following Forecast of $150M In Subscriber Funding.” Billboard. June 14, 2017. Accessed March 10, 2019. https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/7832871/patreon-launches-new-tools-following-forecast-of-150m-in-subscriber

[14] Bowles, Nellie. “Patreon Bars Anti-Feminist for Racist Speech, Inciting Revolt.” The New York Times. December 24, 2018. Accessed February 25, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/24/technology/patreon-hate-speech-bans.html

[15] Gomez, Brandon. “Patreon CEO Says the Company’s Generous Business Model Is Not Sustainable as It Sees Rapid Growth.” CNBC. February 05, 2019. Accessed February 25, 2019. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/23/crowd-funding-platform-patreon-announces-it-will-pay-out-half-a-billion-dollars-to-content-creators-in-2019.html

[16] Evans, Jill Blackmore. “The Artists Making a Living (or Trying To) with Patreon.” Build Your Online Portfolio Website. Accessed October 28, 2018. https://www.format.com/magazine/features/art/artists-making-living-patreon

[17] Duffy, Brooke Erin. “The Romance of Work: Gender and Aspirational Labour in the Digital Culture Industries.” International Journal of Cultural Studies19, no. 4 (2015): 441–57. doi:10.1177/1367877915572186

[18] MacBride, Ellie. “The History and Future of Funding Art.” Patreon Blog. Accessed October 28, 2018. https://blog.patreon.com/history-future-funding-art/

[19] Ross, Andrew. “Nice Work If You Can Get It: The Mercurial Career of Creative Industries Policy.” In My Creativity Reader: A Critique of Creative Industries

[20] Ross, Andrew. “Nice Work If You Can Get It: The Mercurial Career of Creative Industries Policy.” In My Creativity Reader: A Critique of Creative Industries

[21] Slania, Heather. “Online Art Ephemera: Web Archiving at the National Museum of Women in the Arts.” Journal of the Art Libraries Society of North America (2013), 117

[22] Slania, Heather. “Online Art Ephemera: Web Archiving at the National Museum of Women in the Arts.” Journal of the Art Libraries Society of North America (2013), 117–119

[23] Hermes, Joke. “Labour and Passion: Introduction to Themed Section.” European Journal of Cultural Studies 18, no. 2 (2014): 111–16. doi:10.1177/1367549414563301

[24] Neff, Gina. Venture Labor: Work and the Burden of Risk in Innovative Industries. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2015

[25] Knepper, Brent. “No One Makes a Living on Patreon.” The Outline. December 07, 2017. Accessed October 29, 2018. https://theoutline.com/post/2571/no-one-makes-a-living-on-patreon?zd=2&zi=zn7s3v26

Author

Upasana Bhattacharjee is a Masters student of Development Studies at the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras. Her areas of interest are digital labour, data governance and political philosophy.