Page History

Corporate patrons in Renaissance Italy were city governments, religious orders and brotherhoods; while private patrons ranged from wealthy merchants and humanists to aristocrats, rulers and nobles and even several artists themselves. The act of commissioning an artwork had enormous ramifications within the world of the Italian Renaissance. Corporate and private categories often overlapped since individuals represented the interests of the groups to which they personally belonged. Each Patron played a significant role in the commissioning game, as it was important for Patrons to demonstrate their wealth and stature through commissioning artworks. The range amongst wealthy Patrons also created a divide in the success of their achievements. Wealthier patrons commissioned more important works than those of lesser means.

The selection by a Patron of an artist, the materials he would use, the size, the location and ultimately the subject itself all helped to indicate the benefits that a commission was expected to bring; as well as the audience it was intended for. It was important for both Patron and Artist that their audience would react very positively to a newly created work. An audience also created an unpredictable stake in the commissioning game. The strategic benefits of a commission depended strongly on the assumed reaction of audience members.

Artists were as concerned about their reputations as their Patrons were concerned about the quality of the works they were commissioning. Beyond an artist's loss of reputation, a rejected painting or sculpture would ultimately have little or no value. The possibility of rejection always remained at stake in any commission. Though the benefits of a high-quality work included future commissions for the artist as well as everlasting renown for the finished work for both Artist and Patron, the cost of the work remained with the Artist, should the Patron have decided it was unfavourable.

The main factors that provided incentive for the Patron's Payoff were his intense desire for prestige, the availability of significant disposable income as well as a strategic desire for upward social mobility.  It was as crucial for a patron to gain personal promotion through commissioned artworks as it was for him to enhance his reputation through wise commissions. As quoted in Richard Goldthwaite's

study Wealth and the Demand for Art in Italy

 the author concludes that affluent patrons in Italy wanted to maintain their noble status and show off their spending habits that arose from a "universal desire of the rich to utilize wealth to set themselves off from ordinary people." The desire for fame and to enhance one's lifestyle would have been at the root of most commissions.

Three important avenues for expenditure and such conspicuous spending and consumption included: paintings (on walls, panels and canvasses), architecture (churches, city palaces, tombs and gardens) as well as objets d'art including sculptures, bronzes, tapestries and even clothing. Any and all of these creations could be used to convey the consumer's status and communicate information about Patrons in perpetuity. The intended audience for these works could associate details about specific patrons or their families through details, subject matter and execution in the works. Many family names of such Patrons are still recognizable in present day.

Since "gentleman of leisure" and "noble families" always consumed well beyond the minimum required by the status quo of the time, more and even greater artworks became physical evidence of their great honor and wealth. Failure to generate such magnificent works was actually regarded as a mark of inferiority among the elite. Hence places of public worship, gilded by paintings or frescoes, important architecture in prominent cities created expressly by and for the nobility, as well as the extravagance of certain artworks all enhanced a Patron's relevance to the society he lived in.

Signaling, Stretching and Sign-Posting were all models for examining commissions. Patrons used these mechanisms to communicate information about themselves and the importance of their commissions.

Examples of "signaling" are the private chapels patrons built in the late medieval period, especially in Renaissance Florence. Though Patrons rarely visited or prayed in these private chapels, they spent enormous amounts of money to purchase and decorate them. These efforts offered Patrons extraordinary opportunities to communicate information about themselves and to elevate their status in the world of the Italian Renaissance. Such chapels were only available to wealthy and noble patrons and were difficult or even impossible for the less affluent to commission. Such projects effectively separated potential Patrons into two groups. The more complete the divide from the less affluent, the greater the value of the commission as a signal of nobility and status.

Through "signposting" a patron was able to indicate specific truths and important characteristics about themselves while simultaneously omitting other significant information. What distinguished "signposting" from "signaling" is the selective disclosure of information. The strategy of not indicating the source of one's wealth proved popular with many non-aristocratic Patrons especially when the intended audience included nobles. For example, Francesco Gonzaga employed stretching by using art to portray a major battle against the French as a significant victory, even though many of his contemporaries considered the actual results mixed at best. The paintings, medals and celebrations he commissioned, most notably Mantegna'

s Madonna of Victory,

 never assert that Gonzaga's troops overpowered the army of King Charles VIII. However, the images give a clear impression that the Italians won. These signposts had the influence to enhance a ruler's or even a merchant's reputation. A variety of surrounding elements, such as celebrations and coinage were also conceived to complement an important picture.

"Stretching" is the exaggeration or misrepresentation of important characteristics to convey an impression intended to bathe the Patron in the most favorable light. Most prominent Patrons and even their audiences during the Italian Renaissance expected to see embellishments in art. However standards of the time did dictate limits to the degree of permitted idealization. Throughout the ages, Artists have shown their acumen in stretching claims about Patrons. An Artist and Patron worked together to determine where and how far to embellish the intended information within a specific work.

As a result, audiences were perceived as belonging to three categories at the time: Contemporary, Future and Heavenly. Patrons knew how crucial it was to satisfy all aspects of the intended audience. For all Patrons of religious works during the Italian Renaissance, the primary audience they believed actually existed in Heaven. Patrons wanted God and the Saints to see their devotion and hoped that their commissions would help them reduce their time in Purgatory.

Patrons frequently displayed personal emblems in religious works as elements intended for their secondary audience: the contemporary viewers on earth. The general Contemporary Audience was generally neither affluent nor noble. They were the common man (and more usually the average woman – as women formed the greatest affected audience) who gazed in awe at these important members of the Establishment and their ability to communicate with God.  Patrons also wished to communicate with their fellow-elites, of course, particularly those in their own city or region who could immediately identify the Patron's status by personal symbols that accompanied the commissioned artworks.

In addition to their contemporary audiences in heaven and on earth, many Patrons were concerned with future viewers and posterity. Consideration of this additional audience was a major benefit that distinguished works of art and architecture from other forms of conspicuous consumption. Banquets, clothing, and funerals were transient, however painting, sculpture, and building would endure for generations. Being aware of the future audiences created durable legacies.

As members of the elite, Patrons had to distinguish themselves from those of lower status as well as act in a manner considered appropriate for their class. As a result of this separation, art patronage benefitted and flourished. Distinction was a major strategy for players in the commissioning game. The elite found ways in both art and society, to indicate and to elevate their status by distinguishing themselves from the less affluent and lower classes through patronage.

The ability to differentiate between culturally laden symbols increased the cultural or "symbolic capital" of the noble and affluent. It served to separate the "distinguished" from the "vulgar." In his treatise on Magnificence, written in 1552, Sienese nobleman Alexandro Piccolomini explained that "only someone who makes great things while spending could be properly called 'magnificent." He focused on public displays such as the "building of temples, and theaters" and the presentation of "public festivals and comedies." Piccolomini observed that magnificence "could show itself on private occasions, which happen seldom, such as weddings, parties, banquets, receptions of distinguished guests, expenditures on town and country residences, domestic ornaments and furnishings, and other similar things where one can see sumptuousness and grandness".

The theories of magnificence and signaling both attempt to explain why patrons made certain expenditures.  How such expenditures were ultimately perceived by their intended audience was what a patron thrived on. To create Magnificence players had to exercise both skill and subtlety in working with the artist and his assumptions about the audience.

Khrystyne Wilson

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000205 EndHTML:0000013305 StartFragment:0000002771 EndFragment:0000013269 SourceURL:[file://localhost/Users/khrystynewilson/Documents/Winter%20Course%20Response%201-4-12.doc^{Image Added}|file://localhost/Users/khrystynewilson/Documents/Winter%20Course%20Response%201-4-12.doc]

Today's readings in Renaissance Art provided a good introduction into how one studies the Art Market, by focusing on the beginnings of the Art Market during the Italian Renaissance. The authors convincingly explained the Art Market in contemporary economic terms, for example: applying the game theory to the artists and patrons participating in the art market at this time. I found their examples extremely helpful, and through their demonstrations, it is clear what to look for when examining art that may be helpful in determining their value through the art market. For example, in Italian Renaissance art, we can clearly determine the motive of the Patron through what he/she is exhibited doing, i.e. praying, reading etc or wearing: i.e. furs, jewelry. The use of the game theory to explain the art market in the Italian Renaissance was quite informative. I found this analogy to be the most convincing. In the Italian Renaissance, there were the players, i.e. the patrons, artists, and intended audience, and the principal players, the patrons and artists, would either rise, or decline in society based on the art they either commissioned or created. Overall this reading was very interesting, and I can see how the methods in which the authors examined the Italian Renaissance art market, will prove useful in all locations and eras up into the modern art market. 

1)    The patrons of the Art market in the Italian Renaissance were those who paid for the art. These could be private patrons, who were individuals commissioning work for themselves, their family, guild or brotherhood, or corporate patrons, such as religious groups, governments, and also brotherhoods. The private patrons were often merchants, aristocrats and rulers. Private and corporate patrons sometimes overlapped, as in a brotherhood could be either a private or a corporate patron. Mostly, private patrons were individuals within these corporations, which often encompassed those who could and could not afford to become private patrons. These patrons would commission artwork with a audience in mind, thus they commissioned work that would benefit them in some way, either to their immediate audience, future audience or heavenly audience. Because of this, the patrons would commission work to represent the family, brotherhood, guild or corporation. Patrons were in charge of choosing the kind of art (painting, sculpture, relief etc), its purpose, and other details, thus they played a significant role in the commissioning game. 

2)    Both the artist and patrons could either be benefited or harmed by the commissioning game, due to the outcome of their commissioned or created art. The audience played a large role in deciding whether a piece of art was worth its cost, by their reaction to the artwork. By choosing what was included in an artwork, a patron can decide what he/she wants to portray to the audience, and through the artists work, this portrayal could either be achieved or not. Through commissioning a piece of art, the patron could show himself as elevated in status, or pious in nature, strong, victorious, etc. etc. Thus, one had to weigh the cost financially with the social benefits one might gain by having a well-known artist create a portrait of him or her looking financially secure. Another cost of commissioning a work of art was the potential that the artwork would be received negatively. This could occur if the patron, or artist, reached too far beyond their current position and portrayed themselves as higher above their status, political connections, or finances. Patrons were hardly ever financially compensated for these pieces of art, thus the benefits were never financial, but rather were social through their demonstration within the work of art of wealth, power and political connections. 

3)    There were many incentives for the Patron to commission a work of art. By having a certain caliber of art, or a personal piece of art made by a well-known artist, patrons could distinguish themselves as above the norm. For private patrons, this means they could distinguish themselves as financially, or socially above the general population. This was especially true in some regions of Italy, such as Florence, where social strata were not as rigidly enforced, and there was potential for social mobility. Thus, by possessing a piece of art that demonstrated power, or wealth, one could potentially elevate them within the social world. For corporate patrons, such as a religious group, they could distinguish themselves as above the general populace in their piety and regard for religious figures and events. 

4)    Three of the most important avenues for expenditures and conspicuous consumption were paintings/portraits, architecture and chapel/tomb decoration. Other avenues were through clothing, banquets and parties, sculpture, frescos, and reliefs. All of these avenues could portray a desired quality, such as wealth and status in portraits, power in reliefs or frescos describing battles, and piety within chapel or tomb decorations. 

5)    Signaling was a patron's way of demonstrating the desired attribute through a piece of artwork. The quality of the work, along with the portrayal as wealthy, high in status, and pious could all be determined by signaling to demonstrate an overall portrayal of the characteristics the patron wanted to impress upon his audience. For example, to signal wealth within a painting, one might be wearing certain clothing, or jewelry, or be positioned in front of impressive architecture. Another example of signaling is when a patron wants to be portrayed as pious the could be shown in a painting as reading a piece of religious work, or praying. 

The term sign-posting describes specific signaling in order to show specific information about the patron, but omit other information. One example of this would be in political art demonstrating a war, the patron could exhibit how they won a specific battle, but could omit the fact that they lost the war. 

Stretching is exhibited through a patron's desire to increase his social, or financial appearance, however he/she exaggerates or misrepresents their real status. An example of this is when a baker created a magnificent tomb for himself, however it was looked down upon because he had over-extended his social status as a baker. 

6)    Audiences were primarily put into one of three categories: the contemporary audience, the future audience, and the heavenly audience. The contemporary audience consisted of the people that the patron would like to immediately impress upon. Examples would be, nobles, elites, political figures, other artists etc etc. The patron could also want to impress the future audience, and example of this was when political leaders would commission works of art to be made regarding wars or battles won, in order to preserve the power and prestige of a specific ruler or country, for future generations. The last group is the heavenly audience. Many patrons, specifically when designing chapel/tomb decorations would be commissioned with the aim to impress God or his messengers with the patrons' piety. 

7)    In the Renaissance period, it was important for patrons to demonstrate their "magnificence" whether it be their individual or family magnificence, the magnificence of their position, or their corporation's magnificence. This magnificence would not only serve to demonstrate the individual strength and power of a person, family or corporation, but also that of the community that it is encompassed within. The magnificence was often compared with the other patrons of the time, and thus one had to portray maximum greatness in order to distinguish oneself from the crowd. Architecture, clothing, banquets and receptions could all be used to signal grandeur, thus demonstrating the magnificence of the patron. By using signaling to set one apart from the general populace, one could achieve this goal of becoming magnificent.