...
| Panel |
|---|
Daniel Chazen 1) The patrons were those that typically purchased artwork, satisfying their need for what Nelson and Zeckhauser term "self-promotion" and "value" (Nelson 1). Patrons could be either individual or corporate. Individual patrons included those acting not only for themself, but also as a representative of a "family, brotherhood or guild" (Nelson 18). Merchants, aristocrats and rulers were amongst the private patrons. Corporate patrons were made up of city governments, religious orders, as well as brotherhoods. The interaction between patron and artist has been compared to a game in which "the payoff for each player depends on the behavior of the other" (Nelson 17). For example, there is a relationship between the principal and the agent, with the principal paying for requested work to be completed by the agent in return for compensation. But it was not that simple. There were several needs and relationships at issue. A desire for honor or negotiating with clergy was often a requirement of families and institutions. Sometimes, the patron also acted as an agent for his family and fellow citizens. As Nelson writes, many "individuals and groups influenced the strategies of the patron and the artist" (Nelson 18). Both patron and artist used contracts and negotiations to facilitate the transaction. Renaissance patrons specified such criteria as material, dimension, budget, and even had an impact on the viewing conditions of a work, such as framing and lighting. It was clearly the patron who played the central role in commissioning the work. 2) The stakes were high in the commission of renaissance artwork. Social, as well as financial benefits and costs, were both at issue. Social benefits included prestige, honor and power. Social costs included the possibility of the artwork being negatively received. Financial benefits included signaling political connections, which often "led to economic benefits" (Nelson 50). Financial costs were made up of expenditures for labor and materials. However, financial costs brought its own benefit - the higher the cost, the more wealth that was conveyed. The key goal of the patron who commissions a work is that the benefit exceeds the cost. Yet, as Nelson writes, "commissions rarely bring direct financial gain to patrons" (Nelson 5). The benefit sort by Renaissance patrons was therefore not necessarily financial, but varied depending on the circumstances. 3) The incentive for the patron's payoff included being distinguished as members of the elite, as opposed to lower status. The payoff for the patron was distinction, prestige and image. It was certainly a strong incentive for the patron as relative prestige and availability of disposable income served to define the "norms of behavior and appearance in their society," behavior that has been described as "self-fashioning (Nelson 5). Another incentive for the patron was that he could use art to secure goodwill from the local rulers, as illustrated in Botticelli's Adornation of the Magi (Nelson 49). Here is a photo of the painting: --Architecture, such as public buildings, private chapels, tombs or country villas. --Ceremonies, such as marriages, funerals and festivities. --Artwork, including frescoes, portraits and decoration. 5) Signaling: Clients need to "see signs of quality" before making purchases (Nelson 74). There is a need to portray ("signal") something in a favorable and impressive way, for example a magnificent palace. In Renaissance Italy, for example, shoppers were concerned about deception, which resulted in merchants signaling that their goods were genuine by offering a certificate. (I guess similar in nature to a provenance for a piece of art.) With regard to the Renaissance era, grand statues or palaces was a very likely and strong signal that the patron "fit the criteria of magnificence" (Nelson 76). In other words, something grand importantly signaled a patron with status. Stretching: Basically what we sometimes refer to as an exaggeration or over-embellishment. Stretching, which was common in the Italian Renaissance, was used to put the patron in a favorable light by overstating his success. One example is how Gonzaga used art to portray a major battle against the French as a significant victory, while there were many that thought the "results were mixed at best" (Nelson 8). Signposting: This is the omission of significant and truthful information when indicating specific and important characteristics – in other words, not giving the full story. An example of signposting was when sculptor Leone Leoni referenced his ties to learning and the emperor in the façade for his home, but failed to reveal that he made his name and fortune as an artist. 6) Audiences included: --People living in the future – thus providing a durable legacy for the patron. --Contemporaries – basically the target audience, such as fellow nobles and elites. --For God – Heavenly, inspirational and uplifting to the soul. 7) For the affluent and noble in the Renaissance era, a central part of the image they sort to portray was that of magnificence. This was important as their image defined the "norms of behavior and appearance in their society." It's importance was described by Pontano, who wrote that noble people are particularly intent "to realize the long lasting of their name and reputation..." (Nelson 5). In the renaissance era, it was key to signal something of grandeur, as that in turn portrayed an individual of magnificence. Amongst the attributes of magnificence is an association with greatness and a public display or indication of decorum. Attributes of signaling included exclusiveness and appropriateness. While signaling and magnificence were distinct concepts, they essentially worked hand in hand to achieve distinction for the patron. |
| Panel |
|---|
Kwame Nana-Atoo Patrons were people who were given commissions. They were the people who gave looked for which artist to give the work to. Among this group were private and corporate patrons. The private patrons were rich aristocrats, kings and people who governed in high place, merchants and in very rare cases artists themselves. The corporate patrons involved unions of brotherhoods, city governments and religious orders. Status was very important during this era and people who were involved in art projects being it the commissioner, patron or agent automatically increased in status and prestige. The patrons could come from the same family commissioning the art, or they could come from other high governing institution. From the observations of Gilbert and Charles Hope, I agree that it is very difficult to give an artist a commission and then influence their creative practice to a very large extent. In the commissioning game, I think it depends greatly on the "brief" presented to the artist. Sometimes the patrons have specific details and knowledge on what they want in the project- sometimes these projects if they are religiously inclined, might have come about through dreams and visions, and so when the commission is proposed, there is an exactness to what they want and they just look for an agent to produce it. Other times, they commissioner and patron may have no idea about their proposal and the information provided on their briefs might be very minimal that they need an artistic guide. This is when the artist comes in and offers his ideas on it. When the artist presents his ideas, the patron and the artist can then begin to work together to both agree on a similar model. In the renaissance era, prestige and high status led to many advantages and interestingly it was through commissioning of artworks, and how well it was done. Obviously since the patrons needed that high status of recognition, they looked for the best artist, the ones that had made name but certainly did charge a lot. Looking at the hierarchy of the renaissance, it is evident that patrons will do everything to get the commission while the artist, doing his best to get into good schools with high reputation so as to gain and win commission.- in this case the main incentives for patron getting the commission is for a prestigious status in his community through which, if gained, he can mobilize the people in the community and gain favor to rise to a higher position and for the artist, a way of putting his skills out there to get more works which in turn will fill his pockets. When it comes to the audience, I was very surprised to learn that they targeted heaven, as in they did it for God to see and appreciate their love for Him through iconography and images. I really don't see the correlation as, the bible forbids worshiping through images and iconographies. For me the audience is the second group that the article tells us people but to me, more importantly is the people who come to church. If the audience is for the members of the elite, what good did it do to them but to enhance their already elite status. However, the people that I think mostly deserve to be the targets are the ordinary people, the people who are seeking to know God. Through the images, it tells them stories of biblical experiences as well as individual miracles people have encountered. When they see this they will get inspired to find out more about their spiritual journey to Christ. In order to be distinguished, the patrons had to self-fashion themselves. They did that through signaling, signposting and stretching . Signaling is the process of conveying information about ones self to other people in order to attain satisfaction and honor from a group of people. I think what led to signaling itself is that the society at the point in time did not depend only on money to commission a work, but also status. In gaining statuses, patrons did that through signaling. While signaling, they targeted the audience who were, I believe, of very elite positions probably people who gave out the commissions so that they the patrons would easily be favored when giving out commissions. The Italian renaissance patrons found it best to signal the family name and heighten funeral ceremonies as well as build magnificent tombs, to keep the extravagance in the minds of the public. Some patrons, to enhance their status in a community, stretched their accomplishments and achievements. There were dire consequences when they were found to be unjust such as huge fees and loss of virtue. An example is the story of Francesco Gonzaga who commissioned works of art in various medium to depict scenes of victory over France, even though it did happen as he had showed them. Magnificence became a very prominent way of leaving a mark and establishing your elite status in public. It was mainly expressed through enormous buildings, which not benefited the owners but also the general public, that way they will always be remembered after they die. Such was the case of Filippo Strozzi. The readings state that we should not be quick to declare that the use of magnificence was only for selfish needs just to be exalted, but in doing so, something which was common in other cities, they also beautified the place. i think that the main purpose was for selfish and greedy expositions and that the beautification and others were just after thoughts and effect that came about. This can guide us to the reason why they spent so much money in building tombs, it was to keep their name going even after they die. An interesting observation from the reading is that even with building of magnificent house, they just cant be built because the patron had money, but they should be built according to the accomplishments of the patron. A patron becomes distinguished through what he has achieved through commissions made, the magnificence of the expressed signaling and how long he has had positive influence in the community. It was only through these very highly proclaimed entities that distinguished a prominent patron for his counterparts. |
| Panel |
|---|
June Shin 1) Corporate patrons included city governments, religious orders, and brotherhoods. Private ones were merchants, humanists, aristocrats, rulers, and sometimes artists but only few are known. The goals of private patrons often overlapped those of corporate patrons because it was more than common that individual patrons were not only representing himself but also certain groups (family, brotherhood, clan, guild, etc.). All these patrons are the principals in the principal-agent relationship they form with artists. As principals, patrons played a significant role in the commissioning game because all commissions started with them. They were responsible for deciding the kind of art they wanted, its purpose, and sometimes even media to be used and details of the work. They also controlled the displaying of the artwork. 2) In the commissioning game, the principals, or the patrons, have to pay their agents, or the artists, so there is financial cost on their part (but this is only a small portion of the total cost in commissioning art). Social costs may incur when the commission work fails to produce the desired effects or even receives a bad response from the audience. This is called the "negative reception cost." The benefits of the patrons are social, political and even financial. The social benefit is that the commissioned work can elevate or secure the status of the patrons. When this major aim of the patrons is achieved, political and economic advantages are likely to follow due to the high esteem they hold in the community. Francesco Medici's marriage to the Holy Roman Emperor's sister is a good example for the political benefit. Socially and politically powerful patron may well then win a lucrative official position, which will bring him wealth. As for the agents, or the artists, they receive money in exchange for the work they produce. Apart from this financial benefit, the artist can also achieve fame if his product is successful and praised, and this will attract more commissions in the future. However, if the patron rejects the artist's end product or it is ridiculed or hated by the audience, not only is the artist faced with financial loss, as the patron will refuse to pay all of the promised fee or pay him at all, but he also suffers from bad reputation as an artist. Bad reputation does a lot of damage, for potential patrons will now turn away and seek another artist. 3) The incentives for art patronage were fame, prestige, virtue and status. In some regions of Italy, social status was more flexible than in others. Also, the old elite class had been thrown out by the new government. This provided for the possibility of social mobility, which led people to claim their status through patronage of extravagant art projects. Moreover, because the pope was not succeeded by someone from his clan, respectable cardinals commissioned numerous religious works of art that showed his piety to God in hopes of getting elected as the next pope. 4) There are numerous avenues for conspicuous consumption: gardens, tapestries, metalwork, antiquities, clothing, banquets, processions, and spectacles. Three of the most talked about conspicuous commissions are paintings, architecture, and sculpture. All three were used to convey the patron's status, wealth, and power. 5) Like a degree from a prestigious college indicates the person's level of education and, by inference, overall quality, a work of art was to signal the patron's characteristics such as his wealth, status, and piety. Wealth was well demonstrated by such large expenditures as architectural structures, and religious works were used to convey one's devotion to God. Sign-posting is basically selective signaling. It discloses specific information about the patron but passes over others that he does not want communicated. For example, the façade of Leone Leoni's home in Milan reveals his intellect but says nothing about how he acquired the wealth with which he was able to commission the work, because an artist, which he was, was considered a humble profession at the time. Stretching is when some qualities are exaggerated as to render the patron as better than he really is. For example, Francesco Gonzaga commissioned paintings, coinage, medals and celebrations depicting his battle against the French, which was not exactly his victory but he wanted to make it appear as one. Because sign-posting and stretching probably required considerable input of the patrons, employment of such devices in certain works sometimes reveals the relationship between the patron and the artist in production of the particular works of art. 6) There are three major types of audience: contemporary, divine, and future. Contemporary audiences included rulers, aristocrats, and laypeople, whom the patrons sought to "impress, influence, and inspire." The patrons also commissioned works that glorified God and showed his piety to Him in hopes of attaining divine salvation. The future was also a big concern as the patrons wished to leave long lasting legacies such as buildings and paintings. Tomb is a good example of this because it does nothing for the deceased but brings fame and status for the surviving members of the family as long as the tomb is preserved. 7) According to Burke, families commissioned such things as palaces and portraits to demonstrate "magnificence." For a patron to be magnificent, he should not only project his own greatness but also seek to create something that does civic good. For example, large and extravagant architecture can glorify the name of the patron's family and the whole community at the same time. Also, religious commissions like altarpieces could inspire the believers to be more pious. It was obvious that only those who could afford all these expenditures made them, and thus patronage of extravagant projects was an exclusive virtue of the rich. Therefore, a work of art could signal its patron's magnificence, which entailed his wealth, status, and decorum. |
...