European History > Early Modern Europe

Renaissance patronage of the arts

(1/2) > >>

Phidippides:


The concept of commissioning artwork during the Renaissance in Italy was the norm.  Read below for what it was like for a commission during that time:  


--- Quote ---Renaissance art was made to order. There were no art galleries, because the concept of art made without commission, without function, and without a designated location had not yet developed. Almost all Renaissance art resulted from a commission, frequently embodied in a legal contract. Such a contract would specify, often rigidly, the materials the artist was to use, the size and shape of the object to be made, the subject of the work, the time allowed for completion, and the quality of the finished piece. Little latitude remained for anything like our contemporary ideas of the absolute freedom of the artist. Instead, the Renaissance painter or sculptor worked in a system which rigorously delineated the nature and type of his labor and carefully set standards which he was bound to uphold. Bruce Cole, Italian Art, 1250-1550: The Relation of Renaissance Art to Life and Society, 1st ed. (New York: Westview Press, 1987) xx.
--- End quote ---


Basically, this concept entailed a benefactor who wanted a work of art produced and who put this desire into the form of an offer, and the artist who agreed to fulfill this need.  Simple supply and demand was at work during this time, yet the results were not so simple; some of the greatest masterpieces the world has ever seen were produced in this one country during these years, beginning with the works of Giotto in the early 14th Century and continuing through Michelangelo and the other artists who defined the High Renaissance of the early 16th Century.  In contrast to Renaissance works, there is little concensus about the beauty of modern art.  Governmental agencies now support some artists who produce with much more "freedom" and less constrictions than their predecessors, resulting in works that do not interest - or even repulse - the general public.

Query: to what extent could modern art be affected through a commission system more in line with the economic norms of the Italian Renaissance?  Would a commission system, based on sound policy and built into law, survive in modern times?

Stumpfoot:
I would hope that nothing like that would ever happen. I believe in the freedom of expression in art, And something like that could to easily be controlled and manipulated.

Phidippides:
Are you saying that you hope the commission system would not be brought back?  I think that the problem with government sponsorship of the arts (e.g. NEA funding) is that it violates the law of supply and demand, because works are supplied that are not related to public demand for them.  With policies to promote commissioning, not only would you have art which is more desired, but it would likely produce higher quality art because it would have to conform to the likeness of the benefactor.  I do not think that this would infringe on the artists' expression; to claim this one would have to claim that Michelangelo or Raphael's freedom was infringed upon.

Stumpfoot:
I'm not saying that great works couldnt be created, and certainly not saying that artists shouldnt be commisnoied. Maybe I misunderstood the post. (art history is not something I'm real famieler with) I was under the impression that under this system that artists freedom were limited  or censured.  And if that was the case thats why I responded in my last post the way I did.

Phidippides:
I see.  The reason for my first post was that in my studies of art history, especially of times prior to the 20th Century, commissioning was more of the norm.  During these times, the common man had much more contact with art than we have today.  Obviously, other media replace the fine arts, such as TV, movies, and the internet, but there is still the opportunity for high public contact with the fine arts in public spaces.  I think that by enticing artists to create that which is demanded by the public, the public will appreciate the fine arts and there will be less controversy over their funding.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page