100 people caring very much about Banksy, or at least a lot more than the average bear, is an improvement. It's great.
Many of us have friends who are artists, and sometimes we tell them, "Oh, that looks great." Compliments are nice, but nothing says, "I really like your work" like buying a piece of art, whether 100% or 1% of it. That's the true compliment: putting one's money where one's mouth is.
So is fractional ownership a combination of an old school (capitalist) joint stock company and good old-fashioned (feudal) patronage?
Not sure what you’re getting at with all this. I mean, if the idea here is to suggest that there’s nothing new under the sun, I happen to agree with you for the most part. It’s part of my criticism of DAOs, and in particular those that seek legal wrappers. But let me look past what I sense is the undercurrent of your questions in order to try and give a better answer.
So much of this depends on how it’s all set up. Are we talking about a collective of creators who crowdsource the creation of a work of art? It’s an interesting sidebar that the U.S. state of Colorado now has an entity type for artists: artistcorporations.com › compare
Also, let’s go back to Banksy. Is it owned by an entity that has 100 beneficiaries, claimants or owners, or does Banksy have 100 different beneficiaries, claimants or owners? I’m not trying to get into semantics or thread the needle too much here, and I do want to answer your questions. Are all beneficiaries, claimants and owners co-equal, or do some have bigger positions than others? I mean, sure, I’d imagine you’d be quick to point out how corporations often have different classes of stock with different rights, and you’d be correct.