Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

Panel

Jacqueline Park

Panel

Tadd Phillips

1. There were two groups of patrons: corporate patrons and private patrons. Corporate patrons included city governments, religious orders and brotherhoods. Private patrons were wealthy individuals and families. The two types were not entirely separate, however. Individuals often represented groups in commissioning artwork. Although they had considerable latitude in their instructions to artists, they still reflected the desires of their group. As the text says, "a private chapel in a church ordered by a single merchant still reveals the 'social identity' of a group."

The text mainly discusses private patrons in Renaissance Italy. They were the elite, whose social status was bestowed upon them by other elites. Therefore, they were simultaneously both patrons and audiences. Patrons were critical in the commissioning game; without them, there would be no commissions. Not only did they commission artwork themselves, but they showed it off to other patrons, often leading to future commissions for the artist.

2. For the patrons, the costs of the commissioning game were relatively small. The text gives an example of one set of courts that spent only 0.4% of their expenditures on artwork. The benefits were gaining and maintaining social status, as discussed below in #3. For the artists, the stakes depended on whether their patrons and audiences were satisfied with what they produced. If a patron and his audience approved of an artist's work, the artist would enjoy future commissions and financial success. If they did not approve, the artist's reputation might be tarnished. Such was the case with Rosso Fiorentino. His patrons in Florence were dissatisfied with him and he had to leave the city to find work.

3. The wealthy in Renaissance Italy had some degree of social mobility. The text states that "Florence, in particular, had a loosely defined standard of elite status." Those seeking to move up in status by signaling their magnificence could do so by commissioning works of art. But the elite were also in danger of moving down; those who did not consistently commission works of art ran the risk of losing the respect of their peers.

4. Paintings: Paintings were specialized to highlight the characteristics of a given patron or family, to the point where a painting produced for one patron could not be sold to another if the original patron rejected it. Patrons often had specifications for the content and style of paintings and carried out research on artists to find the one most able to produce the painting they wanted.

Buildings: Patrons often took a hands-on approach in the planning of buildings they commissioned. For example, when Michelangelo was planning the Laurentinian Library, his patron, Pope Clement VII, discussed with him details such as the lighting and the number of books that could fit on a desk.

Events: Patrons also paid large amounts of money for events such as banquets and funerals. For example, the Medici family spent 3000 florins, the amount a laborer would earn if he worked for 96 years, on the funeral of Giovanni de Medici.

5. To signal something is to display evidence of it to your audience. The elite of Renaissance Italy wanted to signal social status, wealth, and devotion to God, and they commissioned artwork to do so. For example, Isabella d'Este ordered cloth for her mantle that was "without a rival in the world" to show that she could afford the best.

Stretching means taking something true and exaggerating it. For example, Francesco Gonzaga's men once fought a battle against the French with mixed results at best, as the text puts it. A painting he commissioned to celebrate the battle, Madonna of Victory by Andrea Mantegna, stretched the positive aspects of the battle to the extent that it appeared Gonzaga had won.

Signposting means drawing attention to part of the truth and minimizing other aspects of it. Madonna of Victory again serves as an example. Mantegna did not just stretch the positive aspects of the battle to make it appear as if the Italians had won; he ignored the negative ones as well.

6. There were several components of the audiences. First, there were contemporary viewers. Most of them had little influence, but the elite few were the real targets. Second, there were future viewers. According to Giovanni Pontano, patrons wanted "to realize the long lasting of their name and reputation, for which man's desire is infinite." Third, patrons wanted God to see their work. They hoped that by glorifying God through art, they would ensure their passage to Heaven and spend less time in purgatory.

Different avenues of conspicuous consumption, as discussed in #4, were directed at different audiences. While paintings, sculptures, and buildings could last for centuries, events such as extravagant banquets would mostly only affect contemporaries' opinions. Thus, such events were used mainly to increase or maintain social status, while paintings and architecture also contributed to long-lasting glory and the respect of future audiences.

7. A distinguished person had to signal his magnificence in multiple ways. He had to commission paintings, sculptures, buildings, and other artwork frequently in order to demonstrate that he could afford to do so and that he had the taste to procure high-quality art. He also had to host lavish events such as the 3000-florin funeral of Giovanni de Medici.

Panel

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|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.

 

Panel

Nicholas Kristov

 

Panel

Panel

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

...