Is this historically accurate? Most of my renaissance art history class memories involve artists kinda getting controlled by their patrons a lot of the time. Pl

Is this historically accurate? Most of my renaissance art history class memories involve artists kinda getting controlled by their patrons a lot of the time. Plus, the patron usually got to own/sell/commission works from them. Sure, some of it was at the time, it looked good for you to have artists in your keep, but it wasn't some sort of no-strings-attached benevolence, and the situation they put out no work for extended periods and still stayed on with their patron feels more like survivorship bias. How many middling royals were going through patronizing artists who didn't become a big deal and then dropping them?