Carafa Chapel, Filippino Lippi, Church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva, Rome
DAY 2: Today is Thursday, June 2nd and we are examining the first iterations of the art market during the Italian Renaissance
through the connections between artists, collectors patrons and the "commissioning game." Read the introduction and chapters
1-3 of Jonathan K. Nelson and Richard J. Zechhauser's pioneering study The Patron's Payoff: Conspicuous Commissions in Italian
Renaissance Art (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008) and view the powerpoint presentation of these chapters. Once this
has been completed, write a response to the reading, considering the following questions: 1) Who were the patrons – specify private
and corporate patrons – and what was their relationship to one another and their significance in the commissioning game? 2) What
were the stakes (costs and benefits) of the commissioning game? 3) What provided incentives for the Patron's Payoff? 3) Name and
describe at least three avenues for expenditures and conspicuous consumption (i.e. art: portraits, frescoes, tomb/chapel decoration).
5) Detail and give examples of signaling, stretching and sign-posting. 6) Who were the audiences? 7) Discuss the attributes of "being
distinguished" with reference to magnificence and signaling.
Sheri Hope Boardman |
Vincent Anthony Falkiewicz The readings today displayed the intricate workings of the Renaissance buying and selling of art, specifically commissioned art. This market showed a number of different patrons, all with somewhat similar incentives for buying these pieces of art. Additionally, both the consumer and producer had different costs and benefits for this commissioned art. These costs and benefits proved to include social, financial, political, and religious factors. For one, there were a plethora of patrons in the Renaissance commissioning game. They included both private and corporate patrons. The former included specific patrons such as merchants, humanists, aristocrats, rulers, and in some cases, other artists. The latter included much broader patrons such as city governments and religious orders or brotherhoods. Examples of these were provided throughout the reading, and included the Duchy of Milan, Kingdom of Naples, Papal States, Republics of Venice and Florence. Sometimes, private and corporate patrons would even overlap. For example, the Pope was a patron, as well his entire religious cabinet. Whichever group the patron came from, they still had similar incentives for buying this art. As shown throughout the readings, consumers had a few main incentives for purchasing this art; the main incentive being to convey their wealth or social status. They were interested in "demonstrating magnificence." Magnificence, however, was not always displayed in the fashion of expensive art. As the first reading points out, patrons not only wanted to prove their wealth, but also "set themselves apart from others." Aside from displaying wealth, some patrons and artists wanted to show their devoutness and religious affiliation. Churches and religious paintings were created and commissioned in the market to prove individual or group devoutness to their religion. These incentives and purchases created a few costs and benefits to consumers and producers. For one, there are always the financial costs of creating anything, and these costs were mildly taken into account when creating a piece of art. Mostly considered by both sides was the longevity of their name and reputation through art. Artists wanted to create rare art, which was extremely difficult to recreate, in order to make their art and name long lasting. Buyers, on the other hand, were interested in creating a long lasting reputation for their name and society. The benefit of developing an "image of themselves that defined the norms of behavior and appearance in their society" was highly regarded when playing the commission game. Finally, artists and patrons played the "signaling game," a Nobel Prize winning theory developed in 2001, to show their skills and wealth to the world. This theory shows how people can not physically display things such as wealth, so they must signal them through other means; in this case that means is art. The same works for artists, as they can only display their worth through their work, and cannot physically show each individual how good they are at their form of art. This game is an extremely important part of the commissioning game. To conclude, the art market of the Italian Renaissance had both corporate and private patrons each with his or her (in rare cases) own incentives. These incentives created a balance of costs and benefits to both sides, mainly the longevity of reputation. The long lasting reputation seemed to be the main interest of individuals at this time, which created an interesting sort of signaling and signing during this time period. Overall, through these readings we see how the commissioning game differs from a natural economic market. |
Erica Gilbert-Levin
Three important avenues for expenditures and conspicuous consumption included architecture, painting, and sculpture (9). While country clothing, banquets, spectacles, and funerals represented other popular forms of conspicuous consumption in Renaissance Italy, architecture and art proved more durable in nature and thus more likely to satisfy wealthy and high-status patrons' "concern for future viewers" and appease their preoccupation with their legacy (31).
The strategy of "stretching" featured the "exaggeration or misrepresentation of important characteristics to convey an image intended to bathe the patron in a favorable light" (8). For example, in one commissioned work of art, Francesco Gonzaga depicted "a major battle against the French as a significant victory," when in fact such a victory was questionable (8). Finally, "signposting" consisted of highlighting particular attributes "while simultaneously omitting other significant information." One example of signposting in commissioned art work was "the strategy of not indicating the source of one's wealth" (8). Patrons targeted three major audiences: contemporary, future, and heavenly. They sought to "communicate" with other contemporary "elites especially those in their own city or region, who could identify the banners, placques, and symbols that accompanied so many commissions" (29) and told a story about what the commissioning patron wished to claim about himself or his family. They also aimed to communicate to "future viewers," a benefit furnished by the durable nature of works of art and architecture as opposed to "other forms of conspicuous consumption" (31). Finally, patrons who commissioned religious works targeted as their audience Heaven itself: They "wanted God and the saints to see their devotion, and hoped that their commissions were help them reduce their time in Purgatory" (29).
|
Kimberly Ann Phoenix |
Consider & comment:
What did you think of today's readings and wiki features? What issues if any did they raise for you? How did the audio visual material provided support your understanding of this topic? Comment on your classmates' posts. Leave your comments in the box below.