The Value-Add Of Artist Suffering For Rich Patrons

BROKEN WORLD

4th century, painted in the Catacomb of Sts. Marcellinus and Peter on the Via Labicana in Rome. Christ with the book of the Gospels is seated between Peter and Paul. Below, the Lamb is standing in the centre on a hill, from which flow out the four symbolic rivers of Scripture. 

I met a rich lady in an elevator in London. I knew she was rich because I complimented her on a piece of jewelry that was unusual and beautiful and got a reply that for some reason made me a little uneasy. It was something along the lines of:“This piece is unique because it was made by an Iranian refugee and he only made it for me and it’s a one of a kind. You won't see another one like it. I was so glad I was able to help him.”

I too was glad she was able to help someone less fortunate than herself and how wonderful to help someone who is surviving by producing beautiful art. We exchanged pleasantries and went on our way. So what was it that rubbed me the wrong way? I turned it over in my mind over the following week, trying to get to the bottom of it. 

I decided in the end that it wasn't about what she did (buy something from the aritst) but the way in which she did it, the intention behind her action. Her motivation, a character actor might say. There was an element of the person being poor and coming from a background of suffering that added to the cloak of the woman’s prestige. It was a social value-add, a way to demonstrate power, the way a king might scatter coins on the street as he passes for the benefit of starving beggars. I imagined that every time she told that story to her peer group she signaled that it was she who had chosen to use her wealth to help the needy and that therefore she was entitled to her wealth without question and free from moral scrutiny relative to the amount of aid she had given. I guess the modern term for it is virtue signaling. Or was I reading too much into it?