Patronage: The Catalyst of Movements?

In a bit of "chicken or egg" theorizing, I ask these questions -

1. Is the key to forming an art movement having a ready base of patrons?

2. Do patrons create the art movements, by doing or taking over the job of PR supervision?

3. Do patrons only come later, keeping momentum in the movement?

A few examples immediately come to mind, to possibly answer these questions:

"Mark di Suvero - art dealer Richard Bellamy was singularly devoted to the work of Mark di Suvero. An exhibition at Storm King of di Suvero's sculptures and Bellamy's photographs of them chronicles this productive partnership." - Art in America (November 2005)

Michelangelo had both the Catholic Church and the Medici family. Now the Medici boys made him happy, but the Church treated him like a slave and forced him to create his most memorable works (those works most often associated with the Renaissance). So which one was the true patron from the hypothesis that a patron spurs or creates a movement?

Vincent Van Gogh had Theo.

In the beginning, the "Lost Generation" (Hemingway, Fitzgerald, etc) had Gertrude Stein.

The "Abstract Expressionists" (Pollock, de Kooning, etc) had Peggy Guggenheim and Betty Parsons. But would Pollock have found his voice of "pouring" without the previous influence (support) of Guggenheim? Its obvious that without Lee Krasner, setting aside her painting, to support Jackson - he would have never reached his potential. Does that make Krasner his greatest patron? Who was more instrumental in Pollock's place in art history - Parsons, Guggenheim or Krasner?

What makes a patron - money or support? Can money and support be seperated?
-DN