Some thoughts about the patronage of the arts of our days At this point, we want to respond to the widespread, always very contradictory discussed question of whether an artist should invest in the marketing of his art on his own. Are artist-oriented services generally unserious, if they are associated with cost for the artist? This question is of course derived from the fact that at the end of the 19th Century the occupational image of the art dealer and gallerist took shape, which took effect on the rapidly changing art market. There were wealthy art-loving men (and women), which supported a few selected geniuses of their day financially and morally. This image of a gallerist, which carries the risk and cost of marketing an artist himself, has very persistently engraved itself in our minds to this day, although the structure and functioning of the art market have long been fundamentally changed. Of course there are patrons today. Potent art connoisseurs or, increasingly, large companies with the necessary capital in the background still act as a patron and supporter of individual artists . What is new is that for some time also less financially sound, but no less ambitious individuals and institutions play a part as a patron of the arts, willing to support such talents, who are themselves willing to partly take charge of their own artistic career. Our commitment corresponds to this current spirit, to support the artist in the art trade/market of our day effectively. See also: Huffington Post Arts & Culture, 8 April 2014, “Should Artists Publish Their Own Catalogues” by Daniel Grant