I get the point but most art needs funding. If we go down that route, maybe we should start with Mozart or Beethoven? Or some prominent classical writers? I guess what I am saying is that this is not a particular unique situation.
Why Beethoven? Wasn't he the first to fund the composition of a significant works with the return of bank shares, which was relatively progressive in that it freed the composer from the whims of the arisotcracy/church dichotomy which existed before?
AFAIK he used shares as collateral to get loans, but he generally had a fair amount of royal/aristocratic patronage from quite early on (with compositions dedicated to some of them, e.g., the Archduke Rudolf).
In the early days yes, as that was the only way at the time, but as his career progressed he actively pioneered new ways of financing his work, so I think it's a bit unreasonable to single him out.
