Given that the hand of them master was highly valued, how did apprentices themselves get enough experience to become masters and eventually get enough exposure to be given work especially in such a competitive art environment? Baxandall explained that “the intention of the later contracts is clear: the client will confer lustre on his picture not with gold but with mastery, the hand of the master himself” (23). While the notability and renown in paintings had come from the materials such as gold leaf or ultramarine, a painter’s skills became the factor that more so indicated the value of a piece of art.
As the 1400s progressed, artists did gain a bit more agency in their work. Rather than recognizing the artist’s opinions and feelings through their art like we often can in contemporary society, we must recognize the relative disconnect between art and artist.
Additionally, the contract an artist signed could constrain other elements such as materials used and time frame to finish the piece. Most importantly, the patron could approve a sketch from which the artist could not deviate. In contrast, artists in 15th-century Italy were largely constrained in how they executed commissioned pieces. While it might have a specific purpose (such as murals as public art), the artist generally has some artistic license for how they execute the piece. The relationship between art and artist is different in our lifetime in which we can likely assume that a piece of art is produced by the artist and largely from their own mind. As amateur scholars of art history, understanding the impact and background of patronage is vital to influencing how we view art funded by a patron.
0 kommentar(er)
