...
| Panel |
|---|
Elena Cestero The introduction and first three chapters of, The Patron's Payoff, written and edited by Jonathan K. Nelson and Richard J. Zeckhauser are an enlightening study of the art market in Renaissance Italy. The authors successfully employ economic frameworks and theories in combination with art history to describe the system and culture of art commissions at that time. The use of the economics of information and game theory are quite adequate in explaining the "agent and principal" relationships and negotiations between artists, patrons, and audiences in the commissioning of art. The principal/patron provides the funding and defines the project while the agent/artist fulfills the request and receives payment, and both must seriously consider the reaction of the audience who will view the work. Whether the patron is corporate (religious order, city government, brotherhood) or private (aristocrat, merchant, ruler, humanist, artist) the considerations are much the same and there are many times when there is an overlap between the two as private individuals may represent themselves, and in addition, a group or social or cultural traditions. The goals or incentives of different patrons are essentially the same, as they all seek to advertise or increase their status, reputation, or honor. The benefits of a commission must outweigh the costs for the patron to receive a payoff. The elevation in long lasting status and distinction must be greater than the financial cost (which is higher for the materials than the labor), social cost (risk of a negative audience reception), and work within the constraints of budget, space/location, availability of artists, and decorum. The avenues for expenditures and "conspicuous commissions" were many and included portraits, frescoes, altarpieces, tombs (i.e.: the Alberti and Medici families), chapels (i.e.: Cardinal Carafa), and sculptures all of which endure for extended periods of time. There were other avenues such as gardens, processions, and dress but these were less effective due to their transient nature. Signaling, stretching, and sign-posting were important elements of the communication strategy of commissions and were employed in an effort to ensure a worthwhile payoff. Signaling provided indications of quality though conveyed wealth, status, and piety. Stretching exaggerated the important qualities of a patron so as to convey them favorably (i.e.: Francesco Gonzaga), while sign-posting employed selectivity in presenting or omitting certain information regarding the patron (i.e.: Leone Leoni). The difference between sign-posting and signaling lies in the element of selectivity. The intended audience of a commission depended on the patron and location of the work but the contemporary, future, and heavenly audiences were carefully considered. A commission could be used to communicate with other elites, women, or various other contemporary audiences. The future audience was one that the patron wished to inspire with the work and in so doing preserve their memory and reputation in the long-term. The heavenly audience was considered especially in the commissioning of religious works and was seen as a way for the patron to express devotion to God or Saints and as a result gain advantage in the afterlife. An interesting concept discussed in Chapter 3 is that of magnificence. What makes magnificence significant is that it is not simply determined by the expenditure of money but also how the money is used and how the work is beheld by the audience. The money must be spent virtuously on a public work for the common good. The work must be characterized by discriminating taste and "dignity not overdone" in order to signal the distinction of the patron and thus be considered magnificence. Commissioning buildings was an especially effective way of signaling magnificence, or "status through taste or discernment". Overall, the reading provides a fascinating insight into art commissions in Renaissance Italy but perhaps more fascinating is the parallel that can be drawn with contemporary society. Signaling, stretching, sign-posting and even displays of magnificence are witnessed regularly today through the uses and displays of degrees, jobs, cars, clothing, houses, philanthropy, and of course art. |
| Panel |
|---|
Kelly Zona The patrons of the Italian Renaissance included included corporate patrons such as city governments, brotherhoods and religious orders. Private patrons included nobility, rulers, merchants, and sometimes successful artists. The goals of corporate and private patrons were often shared because individual agendas often reflected those of the larger group. These patrons played a central role in the commissioning game, along with artists and an audience. The patrons took the role of the principal, or the generator of the initial concept for a work of art, while the artist took the role of the agent, in charge of executing the actual work. The patron usually specified the subject, materials, and general organization of the work, as well as budgetary and time limitations. The patron-artist relationship was usually bound under some sort of contract, consisting of detailed drawings and models, which enabled more direct communication between the parties. Both the patron and the artist's main objective was to boost their reputation through the commissioned work, and so they worked to influence each other to get the best outcome for the work. Both needed to stay mindful of the audience, trying to predict how the work will be received. These audiences are sub-categorized as contemporary, heavenly, and future. A work might address any or all of these audiences. The contemporary audience was the primary audience that patrons and artists sought to address, and was usually composed of rulers, nobility, elites, and even the lower classes. Religious works also addresses the heavenly audience, which included God and the saints. Addressing this audience was a means of exaltation. The future audience included future generations who would come to know the work through its lasting legacy. The commissioning game had to be navigated skillfully by the patron and artist, both needing to keep in mind the potential benefits versus the costs. For the patron, the benefits included prestige, political and social influence, and potentially the generation of capital through high ranking appointments. If executed skillfully, a work could ensure a legacy for the patron for generations to come. However, these benefits were only possible if the patron could afford to finance the project in the first place. This was a huge investment as it carried not only financial risk, but the risk of a negative audience response and a tarnish on the patrons reputation. For the artist, the benefits of a successful work included increasing their reputation, monetary compensation, and increased chances of securing future work, although any work carried the risk of a negative reception by the audience and a diminished reputation for the artist. Despite inherent risks of the commissioned works, certain incentives motivated patrons to see the works through, and these incentives were known as the patron's payoff. The desire for increased prestige and to indicate social status was a major incentive for patrons. The desire to stand apart from others also played a role, as did the desire for social mobility that was possible in Italy at this time. Of course, many patrons had disposable monetary resources to finance such projects. Expenditures could take the form of many different works, including public ceremonies, architecture, sculpture, and painting. This could even include clothes and tapestries. When excessive amounts of money is put towards these efforts, it is known as conspicuous consumption. This was a technique for the elites to distinguish themselves, as their displays were exclusive to the wealthy. Commissioned works often employed techniques to signify, emphasize, and exaggerate desirable attributes of the patron. Signaling was a technique in which a signifier indicated a level of quality of the patrons reputation. An example of this can be found on the facade of the Santa Maria Novella, in which the Florentine merchant Giovanni Ruccellai's family name is carved. The ability to afford to have ones name carved on a church facade indicates wealth and social rank. Sign posting is the creation of a narrative to convey some truth about the patron, but not in its entirety. For example, the Italian Renaissance sculptor, Leone Leoni, made references to his extensive education on the facade of his home, but neglected to mention that he established himself financially as an artist, which was not an exalted profession at the time. Stretching is the exaggeration of a patron's attributes or accomplishments. The Italian ruler Francesco Gonzaga commissioned a series of paintings that implied that his troops beat the French in a battle that in reality had no clear victor. Patrons constantly sought to distinguish themselves and thus used signaling to indicate rank through the commission of expensive works. The motivation to create these excessively expensive works is known as the "theory of magnificence." These motivations could extend beyond the individual patron and act to enhance the public realm for the benefit of the city, including many of the ornate works of architecture completed during this time. These commissions often signaled exclusiveness on the part of the patron as few could afford such things. |
| Panel |
|---|
Jacqueline Park |
| Panel |
|---|
Tadd Phillips |
...