Identify two texts dealing with contemporary art practices related to Italy - Coursework Example

The figure οf the artist. Identify two texts dealing with contemporary art practices related to Italy Wealthy and powerful patrons would commission works οf art which were invariably linked to the economical and political structures οf the area or in the context οf religious duty. In Italy, an absolute ruler (political or religious) invariably dominated the cultural life οf the city. He spent lavishly on providing visual evidence οf wealth and status and knew the value οf arts as propaganda. This pattern was different in Florence where the city was governed by wealthy merchants and bankers who were responsible for commissioning much οf the art for the churches and chapels οf Florence during the fifteenth century. This group οf powerful families wanted to show the world that their learning, piety and taste made them worthy οf their high standing in society. Among the greatest patrons were members οf the powerful Medici family, who spent money on constructing churches and encouraging art. The works date from the time οf Lorenzo de Medici whom Machiavelli called "the greatest patron οf art and literature that any prince has ever been". The Florentine government also transferred the responsibility for artistic projects to individual guilds. The guilds formed the basis οf the citys political system. For example, during the fourteenth century, the Duomo and Baptistery were allocated to the Wool and Cloth Merchants respectively. The government also established "...guild rivalry as a powerful competitive spur to public patronage in Florence". Females were also energetic artistic patrons and commissioned art in their roles as religious, royalty and noble women. Time and again, agreements with artists were arranged for females by a male family member, a monk, or a priest. Religious women and their communities (holy orders, individual nuns and abbesses) ordered decorations for their convent cells, refectories, and church altarpieces. The Christian church dominated the lives οf Europeans and thus embodied both the government and the patron. This, οf course, meant that a large number οf commissions for artists would be οf a religious character. Artwork often elaborated aspects οf a patrons piety, such as his attachment to his name saint or his devotion to a particular religious order. For example, Francesco Sassettis chapel in Santa Trinit, Florence, was decorated with scenes from the life οf St Francis. As the fifteenth century progressed, however, nobility became increasingly interested in personal fame and prestige. The social standing οf the patron became more important and sponsoring accomplished artists brought added prestige, indicated substantial wealth and an interest in the community. The result was that art was a status symbol and the commissioning οf known artists added more to the reputation οf the patron than work by lesser known artists. As Biagioli described it, patronage was not an option but the key to social status, and, in Florence, there was an absolute social hierarchy. The style, function, and meaning οf the art was directly related to the political situation οf patrons and the larger social and cultural concerns οf regions or classes. Although patrons during this period were primarily motivated by piety and prestige, many also had a deep appreciation for the beauty and visual pleasure οf art. One could suggest that patrons actively sought artists whose art style appealed to them or whom they could manipulate to produce artwork that appealed to them. "Cardinal del Monte was the most significant figure in Caravaggios years and his tastes and interests were important to Caravaggios art." Caravaggios sexual, primarily homoerotic, energy that radiates from his canvases were particularly appealing to Cardinal del Monte, a reported pederast. Given the importance οf art in the creation οf images for patrons, it is not surprising to find that patrons kept careful control οf the artist who carried out their commission. Some rulers employed court artists, paying them regular salaries and rewarding them with accommodation and other extras. For example, Leonardo da Vinci was court painter for the Duke οf Milan for 17 years. In contrast, most fifteenth century artists were self-employed, and their relationship with their patrons were formalised in legally binding contracts. The contracts were the medium οf communicating the wishes and controls οf the patrons. Most contracts stipulated (i) what was to be represented or built, (ii) the expense οf the materials and (iii) how the materials were to be used. In general the contracts often reflected the patrons trust in the artists judgment in style, as well as keeping to the beliefs and values οf the age. The patron is said to have determined the iconography οf the given work while the artist was in charge οf style and presentation. "One οf the few patrons to give detailed specifications governing the composition οf her paintings was Isabella dEste. She commissioned a series οf mythological scenes whose obscurity necessitated the precise instructions." Disagreements between artists and patrons were usually about money but sometimes they argued over the work itself. In 1510, for instance, the Compagnia οf S. Zenobi in Florence declined to pay Mariotto Albertinelli for his Annunciation altarpiece because, as Giorgio Vasari suggests, he had compromised its appearance by constantly changing the colors (from light to dark, from muted to bold). In 1533, Pope Clement VII criticized the manner in which Giovanni da Udine had decorated the inner οf the dome in Michelangelos Medici Chapel, finding that the whiteness οf the ribs made the handsomely colored grotteschi in the coffers hard to see. The patron had the upper hand in such arguments, but as the position οf artists rose they became less enthusiastic to be dictated to in matters οf art. When an artist disagreed with the patron and, or, wished to imbue the work with added meaning, not in keeping with the wishes οf the patron, the work often held hidden iconographical meaning, or incorporated into a different theme. "Hidden meaning in images during this period is frequent, but it is blatantly hidden". Perhaps the best example οf an artist-patron linkage is Michelangelo Buonarotti (1475-1564) and Pope Julius II. Julius planned to make Rome a truly impressive centre that clearly demonstrated his vision οf the renewed power and prestige οf the Pope as the supreme head οf the Church. "Julius exploited the potential οf art and architecture as propaganda for the Church and Papacy on an unprecedented scale". Only the popes vision for Rome and the resources οf the papal treasury offered enough for Michelangelos own ambitions. When Michelangelo came to Rome, the pope didnt actually have any work planned for him. It is interesting to note that the pope only wanted to have Michelangelo around and available when needed. Despite that, the connection was instant, and Michelangelo was drawn to the popes energy and ambition. The 30-year old Michelangelo would develop a type οf father-son relationship with Julius, who was twice his age. It finally occurred to Julius to use Michelangelo in the construction οf his own tomb. The tomb designed by Michelangelo delighted the Pope. Michelangelo had a drawbridge built between his studio and the palace so that the Pope "might readily come to see him work". This fact in itself reveals the close interaction between the two οf them. However, it later "...brought him great annoyance and persecution, giving rise to much envy among artists". All couples have problems and Michelangelo and Julius were no exception. The magnitude οf the tomb caused problems logistically and thus distracted the Popes attention, energy and money away from its completion. It therefore became increasingly difficult for Michelangelo to acquire resources and the attention οf Julius. When Michelangelo was denied to see the Pope he "ran away" to Florence (akin to a disappointed child). It appears that at this point Michelangelo was not only hurt on a professional level, but on a personal one. Michelangelo wrote that "he would never return as he had been driven away like a rogue, that his faithful service merited better treatment...". He felt rejected by someone he respected and adored. The Pope, as well, became furious, also revealing his feelings. They were too much alike not to be drawn to each other, and too similar to get along peacefully (like father and son). This incident shows that the relationship οf artist and patron is often more than a mere business arrangement. Neither party had the upper hand. It was only a short period before Michelangelo returned to Rome after being summoned by Julius on numerous occasions. Michelangelo eventually obeyed, not only to maintain the peace, but also because he thought it was time to finish the tomb. However, no promises were actually made by the Pope concerning the tomb. Michelangelo was required to submit to him unconditionally, like a son who was caught doing something wrong. On the other hand, Julius forgave him in the same way a father would. Michelangelo was subsequently asked to paint the twelve apostles on the ceiling οf the Sistine Chapel. He ended up doing the work, but not how it was commissioned. Michelangelo ended up painting more than three hundred figures instead οf the twelve he was initially commissioned to do. That didnt seem to bother Julius. Julius knew how to give freedom and encouragement to Michelangelo. He knew when it was time to let the genius work. However, he kept pressuring Michelangelo to finish the job as soon as possible. Most οf the conflicts between them during this period had to do with that and not with the composition itself. However, Michelangelo knew the Pope would do anything to retain Michelangelos good will and so often gave into his protégé. It seems that Michelangelos genius needed the task-oriented mind οf Julius behind him, especially after considering how much he accomplished with Julius and how little he did after Julius death. It seems the artist was aimless, lacking the will power to accomplish his visions. Οf his genius there is no doubt, but it seems he needed Julius will and direction. Julius provided the balance to the creation οf the works, especially the ceiling οf the Sistine Chapel, because Michelangelos requirement οf perfection could probably never be achieved by him or anyone else. The patron in this case provided the material resources for the artist but also direction and encouragement. Gian Lorenzo Bernini (1598-1680) was, like Michelangelo a subject to his own laws and demeanour. Conventional thought and conduct had little meaning for Bernini and his greatest patron, Pope Urban VIII had the perspicacity to observe and accept this. "Urban wanted a Michelangelo οf his own" and their relationship transcended, not certainly in renown but in success, that between Julius II and Michelangelo. As in the earlier partnership, two exceedingly able minds and forceful personalities were involved but, by contrast, master and man remained united in intention and idea. Berninis strong religious beliefs and artistic genius created a magnetic force between Bernini and Urban. There is no doubt that Bernini intentionally vested all his works with a deep, devotional symbolism drawn from his upbringing by the Jesuits. Bernini entered a period οf enormous productivity and artistic development with the pontificate. His career blossomed and came to fruition under the influence and guidance οf his great friend and benefactor. His sculptural projects became more varied, richer in content and more fertile in imagination. Urban urged his protégé to paint and to practice architecture and his duties increased when he became architect οf St Peters and οf the Palazzo Barberini. Without the patronage οf Urban, Bernini may not have had the opportunity to grow as an artist. Bernini may have realised this as it has been said that "Bernini was the instigator οf the Popes indulging in useless expenses in such disastrous times". The Pope loved the artists company and showed a unique demonstration οf affection and concern. Although he had the potential to achieve greatness Bernini may not have had the resources available to him if it was not for his patron. The artwork during this period would be profoundly different without the influence οf patrons. Both the artist and patrons ideas became intertwined to produce a piece οf work that signified both. Without the financial and emotional support οf patrons many artists may not have had the resources to continue with their profession and thus make a living and support their families. Works Cited Cox-Rearick, J. Dynasty and Destiny in Medici Art: Pontormo, Leo X and the Two Cosimos, (Princeton University Press: Princeton, USA, 1984). A book providing detailed information on members οf the Medici family. It also provides valuable information on art patronage and the family members who supported and commissioned artwork. de Tolnay, C. Michelangelo vol. 3 (Princeton University Press: Princeton, USA, 1948). This book gives the reader insight into the life οf Michelangelo and his relationship with his many patrons. Dunn, M. "Nuns as Art Patrons: The Decoration οf S. Marta al Collegio Romano". The Art Bulletin 70 (3) (1998), pp. 451-477. This journal article provides a detailed insight into the role οf religious women as art patrons. The work they commissioned and the artists they employed. Gilbert, C. "What Did The Renaissance Patron Buy?" Renaissance Quarterly 59 (1998), pp. 392-450. A journal article which examines the types οf art patrons bought in Renaissance Italy. It provided great insight into the kinds οf individuals and groups οf people involved in commissioning art. Hibbard, H. Bernini. (Penguin: London, UK, 1990). A well-renowned book portraying the architectural genius οf Bernini. It also provides insight into Berninis life, fervent Catholicism and relationship with his patrons. Hollingsworth, M. Patronage in Renaissance Italy (John Murray Publishers: London. UK, 1994). A detailed book on patronage in the Italian Renaissance. The introduction gives the reader a general overview οf patronage during this period. The individual chapters provide more detailed knowledge on the role οf the patron and their artists in the major cities οf Italy. Langdon, H. Caravaggio: A Life. (Pimlico: London, UK, 1998) Langdon energetically recreates Ms repressive and brutal milieu and analyses Caravaggios wild and strange temperament, resiliency and homosexuality. Maguire, Y. Women οf the Medici (London, 1927), ch. 5. A chapter οf a book providing information on the life οf the Medici women and their contribution to art patronage. Seymour, C. The Sistine Chapel Ceiling. (WW Norton and Co. Inc., New York, USA,1972). This book examines the all aspects οf Michelangelo, Pope Julius II and the Sistine Chapel ceiling. It examines the relationship between Michelangelo and Julius when the artist does not adhere to the requests οf Julius. Schapiro, M. Theory and Philosophy οf Art (George Braziller: New York, USA, 1994). Provides information on the contracts made between artist and patron and what was generally recorded in these agreements. Vasari, G. The Lives οf the Painters, Sculptors and Architects. Trans., A. B. Hinds, (J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd: London, UK, 1966): vol. 4. A primary reference οf artists and their works, listed in chronological order. Vasari provides valuable first-hand information on many οf Italys most famous artists. Vasari, G. The Lives οf the Artists, Trans. J. Conway Bondanella and P. Bondanella, (Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1991). A primary reference οf artists and their works, listed in chronological order. Vasari documents valuable information on many οf Italys most famous artists. Read More