Patronage and the Status of the Artist
How did buying a work of art work before the modern era?
For artists in the period before the modern era (before about 1800 or so), life was really different for artists than it is now.
In the Middle Ages and in the Renaissance works of art were commissioned, that is they were ordered by a patron
(the person paying for the work of art), and then made to order. A
patron usually entered into a contract with an artist that specified how
much he would be paid, what kinds of materials would be used, how long
it would take to complete, and what the subject of the work would be.
Not what we would consider artistic freedom, huh? It did have its advantages though. You didn't paint something and then just hope it would sell, like artists do now!
Patrons often asked to be included in the painting they had commissioned. When they appear in a painting we usually call them donors.
In this painting on the right, the donor is shown kneeling on the right before the Virgin Mary and the Christ Child.
What does this mean about the status of the artist in the pre-modern era? How was he viewed in the society at large?One way to understand this is to think about what you "order" to have made for you today.
A pizza comes to mind -- ordered from the cook at the local pizza parlor -- "I'll have a large pie with pepperoni," or a birthday cake from a baker "I'd like a Chocolate cake with mocha icing and blue letters that say 'Happy Birthday Jerry.'" Or perhaps you ordered a set of bookshelves from a carpenter, or a wedding dress from a seamstress?
What is the status in our culture of a cook, a baker, a carpenter, or a seamstress? Do we consider those people to be terribly important? Are they as high in their status as a lawyer or doctor (remember I'm not asking what we think, but what value our culture generally gives to those professions)? The answer is no, right? Our culture tends to value people who work with their hands less than those who work with their brains, and so we have a distinction between "blue collar" work (manual labor) and "white collar" work (brain work). Of course this distinction is somewhat false since everyone works with their minds, but we still have this distinction.
Well, this was also true in the Middle Ages and for much of the Renaissance. The artist was seen as working with his hands, and so he was not considered to be terribly important. Artists were considered to be skilled laborers or artisans, no more. This was something that Renaissance artists fought fiercely against. They wanted, understandably, to be considered as thinkers and innovators. And during the Renaissance the status of the artist does change dramatically (a topic we will return to later on!), but it would take a while for artists to become the geniuses we tend to imagine them as today.
What made a painting valuable in the past?
Look at all that gold in this painting (remember color doesn't translate well on computer monitors)Today we might say that a painting is considered valuable because of the artist who created it.
In the Middle Ages, and even for much of the Renaissance, what made a painting valuable was the amount of gold and blue paint in it (blue paint was considered valuable because it was made from a semi-precious stone).
So you could say it used to be (in the middle ages and for much of the Renaissance) that the materials were what made a work of art valuable -- and the name of the artist had little or nothing to do with it! Today it is vert different. Picasso could have panted on a napkin and it would have been incredibly valuable just because it was by Picasso -- the materials have nothing at all to do with it