Not a bad point but art at that time was not the pointy headed world it is now. Artists were fine craftsman until the 19th century more or less. There was more objectivity to what was wanted. Not that it was purely objective. But the narrative I learned in art history was that stylistic changes were driven by artists, not the patricians. It could be a combination. The styles kinda go in cycles where each subsequent style is a reaction in some way to the previous one. I don't know if we are sure if it was the tastes of the patronage or the artists and I bet it was more of an evolution than the art history classes explain because it's easier to box in styles and look at the major style making artists as revolutionaries than to teach a slow progression of one style to the next. Now I think I've meandered off topic...