...
| Panel |
|---|
Dalanda Jalloh The reading is very telling about the manner in which art, status, patrons, artists, and audiences were connected in Renaissance Italy. From the reading it becomes clear that many factors were considered when a patron pursued an artist to create a piece of art. Patrons had desires of improving status for themselves and their families, as well as enriching the city in which they lived, while promoting worship and a better afterlife for themselves. This desire could not be fulfilled without the proper artist, who was usually an elite artist who only interacted with the elite patrons---money alone could not afford the artist's services. The mechanisms by which this art was constructed and subsequently the way status was portrayed varied greatly. Different art forms were constructed. In addition, different methods of distinction were employed by patrons to set themselves apart from those of lesser status.
1. Private Patrons: Merchants and humanists, aristocrats, rulers, even a few artists. Corporate Patrons: City governments, religious orders, and brotherhoods or confraternities Relationship: Private and corporate patrons overlapped at times, especially since individuals sometimes represented the interests of the groups to which they belong. Significance: The patron (along with the artist) needed to be able to predict how the audience would receive the artwork produced. The patron was the principal in the principal-agent relationship. This principal is responsible for knowing what he or she wants commissioned. An individual patron acted as a representative of a family, brotherhood, or guild. He or she played a significant role as an agent for many audiences including his clan, fellow citizens, and the heavenly one. 2. Stakes: Better afterlife if patrons drew pictures that inspired or aided worship; they could also impress the elites of the cities or regions by creating displays that would please those elite and thus increase their status, and establish an honorable reputation (for example putting coat of arms on the back of vestments which could be seen well by all the people). Also, in his treatise On the Art of Building, the humanist Leon Battista Alberti wrote that "we build great works so as to appear great in the eyes of our descendants; equally we decorate our property as much to distinguish family and country as for any personal display". Benefits: Exquisite homes, the opportunity to serve God, honor the city, obtain goodwill from local rulers, celebrate/commemorate the family/guild of the artist, and commemorate the artist himself. Costs/limitations: Availability of desirable artists, materials, and display locations, prestigious locations were always highly sought after yet not readily available. Also, financial outlay and the risk that the artwork produced by the artist is received negatively by audiences. Another constraint are the unspoken rules of decorum-patrons could not place any art from just anywhere they wanted, nor could they attempt to construct any type of art form merely because they had the financial means of doing so. Chapel decorations had to identify and thus celebrate the holy figure to which the altar was dedicated. Chance of bankruptcy from the sheer cost of building these magnificent structures, some chapels only had one altarpiece, chance of unwanted envy or public rage from others, 3. The ability for social mobility provided incentive to the Patrons Payoff. Those with the money could greatly enhance their reputation. The opportunity to do repeat business with an agent; possibility of obtaining goodwill from local rulers; 4. Food, drink, narcotics, shelter, services ornaments, apparel, weapons, accoutrements, palaces and coaches are all types of conspicuous consumption. Some patrons spent large amounts of money on gardens, tapestries, and works in precious materials. In addition, they spent a lot on expensive banquets, processions, and spectacles. All of this conspicuous consumption was done as an attempt to distinguish the elite from the non-elite and those of lesser status in the region. Impressive homes, servants, and horses were also a trademark of the elite. 5.Signaling: An object, which portrays the value of someone or something and is a reliable indicator of quality. Works of art were used to display favorable characteristics of patrons. Usually they conveyed wealth, status, and piety of a specific patron. Some examples consisted of signs found outside of merchant shops in Renaissance Italy, stamping or providing a certificate quality silk cloth from the Silk Guild in Milan, or the presence of a stone canopy or arch at tombs. The key to signaling was differential costs, which ensured that a work of art was not something cheap. Stretching: Can be described as the exaggeration or misrepresentation of important characteristics to convey an image intended to shower the patron in a favorable light. For example, during the Italian Renaissance, patrons and audiences create embellishments in art. Another example was when artist Francesco Gonzaga used art to show that a major battle against the French was a significant victory, despite many of his contemporaries revealing that the results were mixed at best. Sign posting: An actor reveals specific, truthful, and important characteristics while simultaneously omitting other information; it can be characterized by selective revelation. For example, non-aristocratic patrons would not reveal the way in which they earned their wealth when the intended audience included nobles, as a means to not lose any credibility. 6. Audiences consisted of nobles, elite, women, non-elite, other artists, God, and future people in later centuries. Those who were there social equals, inferiors, and superiors. 7. To be distinguished from those of lesser status patrons needed to employ both the strategy of displaying magnificence and the use of signaling status. Houses, furniture, exquisite clothing, palaces, weddings, parties, receptions of distinguished guests, banquets, different architecture, etc needed to be extravagant and not easily imitated by others. The magnificence must not just portray the ability to spend and thus vast wealth, it should reveal the nobility in those expenditures. Signaling allowed the patrons to display to the masses that they possessed certain favorable characteristics. Both of these would enable the patrons to be well distinguished. |
| Panel |
|---|
Charles Saunders The art market in the Italian Renaissance was relatively unique in that the major players involved created, consumed, and enjoyed art through many different variables than purely financial consideration. Material wealth was less important in Italy than social status, prestige, and relationships---indeed, a significant portion of financial transactions, especially for the high socioeconomic strata, revolved around lines of credit, which in turn was based on reputation. Art and art patronage became a very important vehicle for outward representation of one's status and rank in society, and the public image conveyed by conspicuous works of art had very real ramifications through all aspects of economic, social, and political life. In general, the patron served as the more traditional form of the principal, as they possessed the means and dictated the ultimate goal or purpose of the art, the focus of its representation, and the selection of constraints. The artist, or agent, contributed the unique ability to combine the capability for aesthetic art creation with the skill to navigate the constraints imposed on them. In other analyses, the principal can also be seen as an agent with the audience acting as principal, as the intended audience dictated in large part the content of the work, and their final judgment ultimately rendered any value which the patron originally sought. Much of the art market can be explained through incentives, costs, and constraints, within the traditional economic mindset of maximization of value subject to a constraint. The interests of the artist and patron were generally aligned, fortunately circumventing the potential issues raised given the difficulty in monitoring the artist once a contract had been assigned. Artists made their living through their reputation; they bore the majority of the risk in the artistic endeavor and their effort was ensured through fear of rejection of work, humiliation through negative feedback, and a desire for repeat commissions from affluent patrons, as well as a fear of reduced compensation for a substandard finished product. Price was extraordinarily subjective, as the value of their art was generally dependent on its reception and reputation, and as a result the place of instruction and personal relationships played a large role in inflating prices. Patrons also bore considerable cost in commissioning works of art, and the large possible benefits of public recognition and status carried with them considerable social and financial risk. Risk sources necessary for consideration included the possibility of financial loss due to faulty work, risk of negative reception and thus reduced benefit, delays, changes in ownership or patronage, confusing iconography or design, or a finished product that was low in quality. Relationships associated with commissioning art, and the art's content played a large role in the political status of the patrons, and could confer large benefits or loss, such as Lorenzo de 'Medici ultimately securing a cardinalship for his thirteen-year old son based on a favor in patronage to Carafa. High social risks came from avoidance of accepted societal norms, and opportunity costs and wealth constraints made true valuation of potential artistic investments difficult to measure. Yet often the signals of wealth and status gained through these endeavors far outweighed the high potential risk. Some of the more significant avenues for the ostentatious displays were religious chapels and altarpieces, which although conferred high status due to the contemporary spiritual emphasis also produced a high constraint as these location were severely limited. Others included paintings, which clearly captured iconography and content that could convey connection and curry favor, and architecture, which although more expensive, also provided the dual benefit of the beautification of the city, as this display of public generosity helped mitigate some of the social risk of personal glorification. Audiences consisted of the heavenly, which was satisfied through religious displays and helped to reduce the time the patron spent in purgatory, the contemporary, which ultimately decided the fate of the commission and secured the status of the patron, and the future, which ensured the legacy and honor of the patron continued throughout history. Status through displays of magnificence was of primary concern to patrons of art in Renaissance Italy. Displays of art from wealthy patrons are examples of signaling, a method that suggested that patrons were of higher social quality purely through their ability to commission extravagant and expensive works of art. Often times this was reliable, as the many constraints placed on prestigious commissions often ensured that only those with means and political influence could obtain them. Sign-posting and stretching were significant in the planning and design of the commissioned art, as patrons, in true Machiavellian fashion, often highlighted specific and favorable information while omitting others in an effort to increase personal image, and "stretched" or exaggerated other favorable qualities to the extent that social norms allowed. In this way patrons were able to "self-fashion" their public image. This desire for magnificence also increased the appeal of the host city, as works of art served to glorify the surrounding state as well as increase personal status, thus becoming more palatable to audiences. It can be argued that personal preference for art was almost insignificant, and art commissioning had a primary role in creating and influencing power shifts in Renaissance Italy. |
| Panel |
|---|
Lipei Yu |
| Panel |
|---|
H Hunt Bradley III |
...