Patronage is
derived from the Latin patronus,
which means protector, advocate, benefactor.
This
week we would like you to consider the role of patronage in artistic creation. As you now know, during the Renaissance
artists typically worked for a variety of
patrons (wealthy merchants, craftsmen’s guilds, monastic orders and the church
elite) who commissioned them to execute works of art for a variety of reasons; sometimes multiple agendas could be served
through a single commission. For
example, Giovanni Rucellai, a 15th-century Florentine merchant, claimed
he supported the arts “because they serve the glory of God, the honor of the
city, and the commemoration of myself.” Often,
artistic patronage was a means to reinforce social structures fundamental to
civic sustainability – loyalty to family, church, and city/state – and the
populous clearly benefited from the humanistic ideals expressed through many of
them. Yet whatever their motive(s), the
impact is clear: during the Renaissance,
groups and individuals underwrote the construction of numerous civic buildings
and churches, and funded the creation of seminal paintings and sculptures. Ultimately, patronage was the mechanism and
economic engine by which artists were elevated to a new social status, moving
from anonymous craftsmen to celebrated and respected creators.
Think
back to the trailer for The Price of
Everything that Dr. Cleworth showed in class this Tuesday as a springboard
for a discussion about patronage and art in our time (for a refresher and some
more info, see www.thepriceofeverything.com).
What do you think motivates patronage today, and what role do you think
patronage should play in our culture? How
does funding and artistic creation differ from 500 years ago? How do artists, the public, and our larger
culture benefit from patronage? How
might they be disadvantaged or harmed?
AS ALWAYS: Proofread. Spell check. Remember your audience and that Blogger is a public medium.
I'll take a stab at this to help get the ball rolling.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a particularly interesting question given the current political climate. In recent budget negotiations at the federal level, funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities have both been targeted for cuts that would be quite crippling. Each organization provides numerous grant opportunities for community-based arts organizations and up-and- -coming artists. Such support is often important for public arts projects -- that is, art that is created specifically for the general public / the public sphere. So far, these cuts have been delayed (and, in truth, as important as these funds are, they are a drop in the budget bucket and pale in comparison to the availability of philanthropic dollars available out there).
One of my big concerns is that most of the big money in the art world right now is oriented toward the ends outlined in The Price of Everything. Yes, making sure art is "expensive" has the advantage of creating protections around works of aesthetic, conceptual, and social merit. However, one can ask "so what?" if that very art is gobbled up the 1% and hangs on the walls of penthouses I'll never get to see. It's great that those works will be preserved, and perhaps they'll show up in a random exhibition or monograph....when I am dead.
Toward that end, maybe we can encourage a dynamic in which the nexus between money and art is less focused on investment, prices, and acquisition and more on what I think is at the real heart of philanthropy: promotion of the welfare of society. The Renaissance elite loved money and power as much as out 21st century fat cats do, but they had a sense of legacy building that transcended their individual interests. They wanted to build a better society. Artists have always been on the vanguard of conflicts and social/cultural ferment and sea changes, from Picasso's Guernica to the AIDS quilt. Surely we have issues today that necessitate creative, artistic responses -- what do you think?
Perhaps what is missing in the 21st century is some sense that the general public sees the arts as HIGH IMPACT. How many museums, performances, memorials or public art installations have you been to in the last year? Exactly. Maybe we need to make a bottom-up statement about the power of the arts in our lives, and then, perhaps, wealthy patrons will take notice and channel their dollars towards arts programming that benefits us all.
Apropos of this conversation:
Deletehttps://hyperallergic.com/476003/your-money-is-safe-in-art-how-the-times-sotheby-index-transformed-the-art-market/
Stocks? Bonds? Monets?
Reading your response really got me thinking about a lot of the art I have seen around me lately. For the most part I have found that there are two very distinct groups of people, those of which who buy art for good reasons, and those of which who buy art for their own self gain. More specifically, I find that the people who buy art for good reasons genuinely want to support small creators and encourage the growth of the artistic community around them. Due to the fact that many of my close friends are artists who value the time and effort that goes into creating art, they often fall into the category of people who buy art for good reasons. However, I have definitely been around others, who are usually wealthy, that tend to invest in art because they believe such will make them look more cultured and richer to the rest of society. I wish that more people would invest in art because they see the value behind it, not because it would make a nice centerpiece.
DeleteThanks for your thoughts, Josh. I think we all have small opportunities here and there to do our part to support creative endeavors. Believe it or not, it takes little to become a "collector." Next time you're downtown during First Friday, pick up something that catches your eye, even if just a post card made by a letter press enthusiast. These small gestures add up and hopefully will encourage creatives to keep creating.
DeleteAs someone who has embedded themselves in the arts, I am one to say that a majority of patrons and society have turned their back on art compared to how they revered it during the Renaissance. It is a common conversation that if someone were to go into a job including art, their financial stability would be at risk. This isn't because the person might be bad at art, but because society doesn't hold art to the same high standard as it used to be, unless you're the lucky few serving to the 1%. Because art and its materials has been made more accessibly, people are less likely to jump at the chance to commission something for a large amount of money, it is a constant struggle of finding someone to pay you worth your time and effort. Not only in personal strides is it suffering but any kind of class within the arts is at risk of facing financial cuts because society has lost the vision of the arts and how it may impact the way we live, although I still find pieces of art that move me. For example, there is a mural in Flagstaff of hands of different shades spelling "Unity" in sign language, with a rainbow pattern in the background. There are still those who are commissioned and commissioning that want their art to display a message, but that is not the only motivation in our time.
ReplyDeleteI think patronage should still have a big factor in today's world because facing the art around us gives us a type of mirror to observe how we as humans are interacting both within ourselves and within our world. It's a silly comparison, but it makes me think of Parks and Rec in a way. In the show, their city hall is decorated with multiple murals, and the show constantly makes jokes at how most of the murals represents the town running out the native Americans when they were colonizing the land. In that same way in real life, it is a reflection of how we as a society move through our lives.
When it comes to how much the 1% revers the artwork they have, it does shine a bit a hope, but again times has changed how the wealthy treats the art. During the renascence, the wealthy who owned masterpieces allowed it to be displayed for all; they had their doors open to anyone who wanted to be in their company or view the art. That is not the case for today, as their pieces of art are only being used as investment purposes.
Bryson, judging from both of our responses, it seems like we have similar beliefs on the effect of patronage on our society! Two things that particularly resonated with me while reading your post were your points that society does not hold art to as high of standards as it did 500 years ago, and, perhaps as a result, has lost vision of the arts. I could not agree more; when high emphasis is placed on the monetary value (of anything, really), actual quality of the product tends to go down. People tend not to care as much about the meaning/message behind what they are producing; they just want to get rich, and I very much fear that this is where the art market is headed.
DeleteSure, there are still artworks out there that 'move' us. I went to the Phoenix Art Museum last weekend with a friend, actually, and there were a number of works that stuck out to me as having significance (particularly the ones from the Schorr Collection). I imagine the mural in Flagstaff you described is very beautiful. But in regard to the paintings that sell for millions, sometimes a billion of dollars in auction, I often cannot figure out what is so special about them (other than maybe having been created by a big name in the art industry/treated as a 'status symbol'). It is amazing, and a bit worrisome, to me, how much the times have changed in this industry regarding the concept of patronage.
As a photographer I can absolutely relate to the struggles of people breezing off my work. In this day and age artists have to work very hard to be recognized, and because of social media culture, if you do happen to blow up and get recognized there is a strong chance that over a few weeks, or even days, there will be someone else to talk about and admire. This generation seems to go at such a fast pace its so easy to discover new things, and because of this, people seem to get over trends more quickly and want the next best thing just to fit in.
DeleteI will play devil's advocate for a moment. This comparative question concerning which era, the Renaissance or our own, values art more is a rather tricky one. We need to focus on what we mean by "value." I want us to guard against romanticizing the Renaissance artist-patron-society too much. Dr. Hall may push back against this, but I would argue that the visual arts in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance were not viewed as the pinnacle of creativity because they were "material" arts. To put it more bluntly, painters and sculptors were seen as craftsman despite the growing cult of fame. Music and, most of all, poetry, were seen as artforms most closely reaching the divine intellect said to be part of humanity's shared characteristics with God. These art forms were immaterial, ephemeral, and, thus, at their highest expression not corrupted by physicality. We also have to remember that while artists and their patrons and philosophical guides had high-minded intentions about the art to be produced (and what it was "good" for), there were no museums or public gallery spaces for the general public to consume this art. If you were a parishioner at a church in a diocese with the funds to commission a great work of art, perhaps would be exposed to this elevated arts programming consistently -- or if you had the great fortune to be born in one of the cradles of the Renaissance, you might have benefited from the commissioned work for public buildings (but you wouldn't necessarily have had the status to see the "good stuff" on the inside).
DeleteSo! I don't disagree with the viewpoints expressed here, but I think we would do well to temper our utopic projections on art in the Renaissance. The connection between money and the work produced was, in my view, more noble. However, the Renaissance still produced countless anonymous and relatively impoverished artists, and not all citizens benefitted from the high-minded programming emanating from the economica, artistic, and intellectual elite. Again, devil's advocate!
Thank you for 'playing devil's advocate' and providing this differing perspective, Dr. Cleworth!
DeleteBryson, I have to tell that I really understand your struggle! As i'm sure you've gathered from last weeks post music has always been my biggest passion in life. In fact, it is such a big passion that I considered becoming a vocalist at one point in my life. The idea of getting to tour around the country and write my own music to inspire others still to this day makes me excited.
DeleteHowever, I remember having to sit down and tell my parents that I wanted to be a vocalist. Before I got the chance to really explain myself my father began sharing stories with me about how hard his life was because he grew up in family that did not have very much money. The point that he was trying to make was that being a vocalist was ultimately not going to work in my financial favor, regardless of how much effort I put into it, because famous vocalists are "one in a million". I suppose in a way he was right, many vocalists do not get the recognition or funding that they deserve especially in the metal genre. Although I have never let his optimism slow down my dreams, I will probably keep a separate day job just in case.
I believe that, above all else, money has become an increasingly powerful motivator to this concept of artistic patronage. Watching “The Price of Everything” helped me see how the commerce end of the art market has, in a word, ‘exploded’ , and the monetary value of certain individual artworks has risen much higher than Renaissance artists could probably have even imagined. I can actually remember, quite vividly, when Leonardo da Vinci’s Salvator Mundi sold for a whopping $450 million in 2017. One work of art sold for just shy of the entire dollar amount of the Medici ($500 million, as indicated on our Week 2 In Brief). That is crazy to imagine, yet alone acknowledge as reality. In addition, while our society is not as “classist” as it was 500 years ago (we do not refer to the lower classes as ‘peasants’, after all), members of the wealthy class do still wield an exorbitant amount of power in society. This is detrimental to our culture at large because there are a select few individuals who are able to actually own these works, and a majority of the American public who will, with the advent of technology, be able to gain a general sense of what the works encompass, but likely never get to see them in person. How, then, do we actually know they exist? We do not (or, at least, not in the physical sense).
ReplyDeleteWith that said, I feel that patronage should focus less on the financial aspect of art and more on the actual expression of issues in our modern-day society, lest we forget how far we have come as a culture and how far we have yet to go in solving societal problems. As sad as it sounds, nowadays, I think the art world is more concerned about what sells rather than what resonates to us, and thus influences our society, on a deeper level. To me, art serves a much deeper purpose than being ‘collectible’; it conveys what words alone cannot convey as effectively. Why some members of our current society would forego artistic meaning for ‘prestige’ and ‘acquisition’ is beyond me.
The artistic creation and funding of today differ astronomically from 500 years ago. With the advent of computers (and hence, digital art programs), forms of art, especially drawing, can be done in a matter of hours rather than days or years. Besides the ability to create works of art online, we have an abundance of “new” media available to us: crayons, markers, acrylic paint, watercolors...the list goes on. Furthermore, during the Renaissance, commissions were mainly used as a way for artists to accumulate social power and status, especially if they were commissioned to make art for a church. Nowadays, the purpose of commissions has become simply about entertainment; people draw, paint, sculpt, etc. what other people want to see. As time has gone on and on, there are also so many styles of art that we can try to ‘emulate’. As far as funding for the arts goes, it is not just individuals, but companies, organizations, and even our government (that, as we know, has previously tried to cut funding from organizations like the National Endowment for the Arts). There are even websites like GoFundMe where both friends and strangers could send money to artists for different projects.
As a final point, I personally believe artistic patronage, as it stands in our society today, harms more than it benefits. During the Renaissance, it was used as a means to improve society, but now, it has, like most things, become ‘consumed’ with money. And the members of society who have all the money are taking the artworks for themselves, not allowing anyone else to witness firsthand what went into them.
If I had to say one good thing about the patronage of today, I would say that it still makes artists feel ‘official’ and ‘validated’. However, they are doing so for different reasons than 500 years ago.
I agree with you when you bring up that everything in the art world is increasingly more about money. As a motivation to producing art, patronage just fuels the fire a bit. Although art itself is amazing, you have opened my eyes even more to the reality behind it .
DeleteLizzy, I agree that through time there has been a loss for how society views art. Despite the fact that in the Renaissance patrons were spending lots of money for their art works, it wasn't all about the money. It was the message, the representation through the art. The commissioners respected the artist along with the art, and I think that connect has been lost through time.
DeleteAll interesting points, Lizzy. Last week, as I watched the documentary I mentioned in class, I struggled to understand the underlying motivation of the collector/investors beyond their drive for accumulation and status within their own social circles. Despite my cautioning in the last response post, I do think Renaissance patrons, as concerned as they were with status and money, were also interested in more expansive notions of legacy. And, this legacy was deeply involved in the structural transformation of society they perceived was afoot in their own time.
DeleteLizzy, I agree. People today seem to think the more expensive a work of art is, the more powerful and wealthy they are if they buy it. The messages art during the Renaissance had for the patrons no longer matters in today's world; it's all about how much the work of art is worth.
DeleteLizzy, you bring up a good point about how artists today often try to create art that others will like. It is almost an unconscious form of commissioning. During the Renaissance, artists were told what to create whereas today some artists try to anticipate what others would want them to create. While there is freedom in creating art today, many artists are still restricted by fear of not producing a piece that the public will admire. Patronage can sometimes be a device through which people expect to be served by the artists. In order to please, the artists give patrons what they want. In turn, patrons can have a deindividualization effect on artists, causing them to try to imitate what is popular, not meaningful. Thankfully not all artists try to fit in to a mold of what is already acceptable, but instead express and create what they love, and feel is powerful.
DeleteYou made a lot of interesting points and I agree with everything you said about how artistic creation differs today from 500 years ago. One point that particularly stood out to me was your last paragraph discussing the ways patronage is harmful. I don't know much about art and this class is the first time I'm really learning about it, but from my understanding art has developed similar to many other things in society. Today's world is consumed by money and money has consumed practically everything in today's world. I don't necessarily think that rich people keeping art away from the public is a bad thing. There are millions of artists making even more pieces of art that can be enjoyed by the public, so I don't think we should focus on the proportionally few pieces that we can't see, but on the pieces we can.
DeleteArt has become a "collectible" hobby, I agree. It almost feels like people would rather complete their art collections than truly take in the emotions the artist was trying to convey. It's about how much they can acquire over time, not the true depth of the painting. You make excellent points in your post, but I just want to say that just because artists have digital programs now, doesn't mean it can take them hours to complete their piece rather than days. I'm not an artist, but from what my friends have said and the people I've commissioned have showed, it can take days to complete a piece, just as it can take days to paint a painting :).
DeletePatronage today is seemingly the wealthy supporting artists by purchasing their art. More specifically, it usually is not commissioned as it once was, and no one can really say a piece of art is worth something until someone wants to buy it. Art and money seem to go hand in hand. It is a bit tricky to comprehend but that is patronage now a days. However, artists in the present do have way more freedom to paint and sculpt what they want. Other arts such as architecture might be less free in terms of creativity.
ReplyDeleteThere are several differences between the present day and 500 years ago in the areas of funding and artistic creation. To start, funding of art was more for the benefit of society 500 years ago. Today, that type of thinking and trying to bring society forward through art seems a bit lost with patronage. Patrons usually buy art that is shared only among themselves and other wealthy people. Similar to 500 years ago, people do still paint with purpose, yet art in the present could have no meaning at all and it could still be purchased by someone who thinks otherwise.
One benefit of patronage today is the public viewing of art in art museums. Some wealthy people do let some of their owed art pieces be displayed in museums to be seen by the public eye. Even though the owner may have specific no flash photography rules in the presents of the art, it is still nice to see some people do not mind sharing the beauty of their art with others.
Interesting points, Noehly. I think Dr. Hall will have a lot to say about the role museums have played in the past 200 years in shaping how we have come to visually consume the arts -- and how the existence of such institutions have created new opportunities for wealthy benefactors and collectors to build their own legacies.
DeleteNohely, I agree with each of your points! However, I found the notion that “no one can really say a piece of art is worth something until someone wants to buy it” especially relevant, and quite sad! I think most of us agree that, at least in general, Renaissance art was funded and created for the betterment of society, whereas much of today’s art world has sort of ‘lost’ that motivation. In addition, your point that artists in the present have much more freedom to paint (and sculpt) what they want also resonated with me. For the most part, they do. However, we have to remember that censorship is still a thing that exists, and so there are displays of which artists cannot get away with (namely, the portrayal of more ‘controversial’ topics, like sex). In general, though, art has evolved so much and been broken down into so many styles that yes, a lot of portrayals that might not have been ‘acceptable’ during the Renaissance are so today. Lastly, given Dr. Cleworth’s reply above, I want to acknowledge your point about art museums as a perfect segue into the rest of our studies!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI love how you pointed out that artists of the present have more freedom in creating because this means people are getting more comfortable not just with art but with diversity in taste. People are more open minded when they see art and I believe that is great and healthy for the community. This also shows that even patrons are exploring new ways of understanding what makes art art, opening their minds to different artists and their styles, inspiring them to invest and share what the have found to others.
DeleteI believe what motivates art patrons today and even during the Renaissance is their constant need to climb the social latter. Bryson mentions that today in society, we fail to hold art to the high standards it used to be at. I feel that because of this, art is no longer looked at for the content or design of it, but rather for the monetary value it could hold. We attribute value to things depending on how much they are worth. We have been frequently told that the more something cost the better it is. While that may ring true for some things. I do not believe art can be given a dollar amount to determine its worth. Patronage, I feel, should be used to preserve art in all forms. An example of this could be to help save art classes in schools. It could also be used to help spotlight local smaller artist. I believe artists are able to more freely create their work rather than be bound to the texts of religious ideology. Recognition and preservation can definitely benefit artists and the public. Over time as a piece of artwork gains recognitions certain pieces of the history are forgotten, which leads us to romanticize a small piece of the truth.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with your belief as well as the statement that Bryson mentioned. I also can see that some people are falling to the point were art is only a beauty, they don't really look into why the artist created it. They just enjoy collecting it to say "yeah that's mine, itsn't it cool". I adore the part in your post where you mentioned giving upcoming artists a spotlight. The public does benefit in the future when we're able to look at things we've kept preserved.
DeletePlaying devil's advocate again here...but what of the argument that "good art" must be expensive if it has any chance of surviving for posterity? The creation of value (or the perception of value) is an insurance policy of sorts, thus placing a work in a strata of society with the means/resources to care for that work? If this is the case, do wealthy patrons and collectors serve at least one vital function in that regard?
DeleteYes, I do believe wealthy patrons are an important aspect to the prosperity of art. Thank you, Dr. Cleworth for asking this question. It as allowed me to think outside of my own opinion and reflect on my perspective on patronage.
DeleteI believe that what motivates patrons today is money and flaunting how much they have, so they have more to show and tell. Although, like many others have pointed out present day artists do have more freedom to create and like old times can still find a way to put their own expressions in it. 500 years to the present, funding and artistic creation have really stepped up. Artists are finding clever ways to express and display their works. They have tons of different websites and social media platforms to gain support, money and publicity wise. There's even been advantages towards how artists deliver their art. Everyone can benefit from patronage, it's like a business exchange. You commission an artist, supplying them with money and they supply you with a service. Art is another form of expression and communication, for most people. Others just like looking at it without knowing the context to which then art is valued only for beauty. Either way, the artist is getting their ideas and work out there. Those who can interpret it usually pass it down to others, like chain mail which could get out to the artist. Then they can communicate what they really meant.
ReplyDeleteAlthough, some major disadvantages can be split between a known artist and an upcoming artist. There's certain styles and techniques that people favor over others and will flock to those they know will do things to their liking. Just like clothing, art sometimes follows a trend. There are cases where commissioners do look for something unique. The artist just needs publicity, without publicity they won't get the support they need to do their jobs.
Thanks for your post, Yasmine. I want to address this comment to all of our commenters thus far (myself included)! I think we have all established a general sentiment that collection and patronage today is linked to wealth, investment strategies, and status. Indeed, these are claims that I have vaguely made in my earlier post. Perhaps we need to start naming names and providing concrete examples as not to create a rhetorical bubble in which our assertions become reality. Hopefully, later posters to this conversation will take a few minutes to scour the web and offer us some tidbits to reinforce or debunk this perception. It'll improve the health of the conversation -- and allow others to chime in without regurgitating.
DeleteGreat post Yasmine! I completely agree with the idea that artists need publicity to gain momentum in their career. Dr. Cleworth proposed a question to me earlier, which made me rethink how I perceive wealthy patrons. While I completely agree with you that many wealthy patrons use art to merely flaunt their financial status. Dr. Cleworth's question made me realize that there are some who seek to preserve art as well. Cheech Marin is a famous actor and comedian, but also holds the world's greatest collection of Chicano art. His collection of Chicano art is to bring recognition to an otherwise under recognized genre of art. Whether patronage comes from the goodness of the heart or just the obsession with social status, both are important in keeping art going.
DeleteI love the way you outlined the positives to patronage and I agree that everyone can benefit from it. I think a lot of people focus on the top 1% when they think about patronage but they forget everyone else that take part in it. There are many people that commission artists online to create things like wallpapers for their computers, backgrounds for games, animations for company commercials, and even just pictures of something they like to hang on their bedroom wall. Patronage doesn't always deal with million dollar works of art, it's also an everyday thing to the thousands of digital artists out there doing what they love.
DeleteThis weeks topic was a bit difficult for me to discuss because the idea of patronage has always seemed backwards to me. Often when I hear or see people use the word "patronage" they use it in a very positive context and in some instances I have seen the word used as a synonym for "charity". However, I think that in today's world patronage could not be further from charity work due to the fact that patronage is now, more than ever, driven by greed which hurts the public.
ReplyDeleteHumans by nature seem to have an innate lust for showing off social status. Five hundred years ago we observed major figures in Italian society such as the Medici family commission artists in order to showcase their own personal fame and worldly prestige and now we also must watch as Kanye West and Donald Trump do the same. Yet, I feel as if the humanism movement of the renaissance era drastically changed the ways in which artistic creation now flows currently. In the past many of the works commissioned by powerful individuals revolved around the catholic church and the idea that dedicating homage to the church would help one get in good with god. In comparison, the artistic creation of the twentieth century seems to revolve around oneself. With this in mind, I wish that the reason for patronage in today's society was more like it was in the 15th century, preservation. It is much harder in today's society for art to work as a means of historical preservation because it no longer showcases anything other than oneself.
You bring up an interesting distinction, Josh. Patronage and charity seem analytically distinct to me, though I think you're right that they've been conflated. A "patron of the arts" invokes the idea of someone who donates a sum to symphony or a museum in return for an invite to cocktail parties or a name etched on to a brick. How many such patrons are involved in intimate ways in the strategic decisions of an arts troupe or museum? I think we have a "we need your money but leave the art to the professionals" attitude that is at odds with the more intimate dialogs evidenced around the table of the Medici, for example.
DeletePatronage has evolved much since the Renaissance. Artists, as creators, are now more central than the patrons. There is a newfound freedom in creating art today, compared to creating art during the Renaissance. An artist today can sell a piece that they created of their own expression, rather than a patron telling them what to create. There are some, like the Medici family, that still support artists today in an old-fashioned way. However, they do not do it for the same reasons the Medicis did. These patrons want artists to be able to grow and flourish in what they create. The patron does not tell them what to create but provides them with the space and materials. The value of art is found in the artist and what they create, not so much in what they use to create their pieces. The artists are thus able to influence culture with the support of patrons that want to see them prosper.
ReplyDeleteDuring the Renaissance, patronage was indeed different. From the relationship between patron and artist, to the materials used for the commission. During the Renaissance, the way an artist worked was not to paint what they wanted and put it up for sale. A patron would come to an artist and tell them what they wanted them to create. The patron and artist would discuss things such as time, materials, and subject matter. Materials were of value and represented different qualities during the Renaissance. For example, some patrons wished to have gold or lapis lazuli (an expensive semi-precious stone used to make blue) in their painting. These materials symbolized things like wealth and religious devotion. The value of art during the Renaissance was not only found in the artist, but also in the materials used.
Patronage comes with benefits and disadvantages. Some patrons have good intentions and would like to see art flourish, others want fame and gain through their patronage. Without the Medicis and many patrons like them, we would not have the many beautiful works of art we see today. These commissioned works of art tell stories and communicate history to today’s world. Patrons play a role they do not often realize in passing on culture and beauty to future generations. Art shows us how culture has evolved over time and helps to shape our culture today. Though there are benefits to patronage, there also disadvantages. Some patrons do not truly understand the value in what they contribute to art and artists. Patrons should not merely invest multitudes of money into pieces of art but be investing in education to teach others the value of art and why it is important. If we want future generations to have a love of art there needs to be education and early encouragement of its importance throughout a student’s educational career.
Hello Ashlynne, I'm glad you brought up the issue of artistic freedom. Although patronage certainly had it's perks (i.e., financial security/stability), historically sponsorship came with lots of strings attached and thus limited the artist's choice (and creativity?).
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe the main drive for patronage today is wealth and publicity. When I think of a modern day patron I think of a rich person looking to add to their private collection in order to show off to their other rich colleagues. I know this is not always the case. Many patrons open galleries to display the art for a small fee, or have murals painted on buildings that can be enjoyed by the public, or commission for digital art they can put in advertisements, websites, and even other forms of media. I think all these types of patrons are acceptable in today’s world.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I would like to see patronage play a role in today’s society similar to the way it affected society from 500 years ago, but I don’t think it’s plausible. I wish many more patrons would try to form a stronger society using art the way patrons did back then, but with so many types of art and media I just can’t imagine one specific piece displayed to the public that catches the attention of everyone. With the busy lifestyles of today along with technology and social media, people have short attention spans and would likely, and unfortunately, shrug the art off as if it was nothing.
If society was somehow shifted to care more and pay more attention to art, I think it would give artists and patrons the opportunity to work together to create pieces that could really impact the world. Patronage allows artists to make a living doing what they love, as well as promotes thinking and discussion over their art when put on public display, or even in private homes. I honestly can’t think of any cons to patronage. I’m a firm believer in allowing people to do what they want as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone. If an old rich man wants to horde beautiful paintings in his house and not let anyone else see, I say it makes him happy so let him do it.
I think you bring up the better main point here that wealth and publicity really dictate how people see art. I think it s however, harder to discern if the elite from modern times are all about personal collections when the internet and social media are over-saturated with information and misinformation. We can't know for sure how far away we are from making art so publicized like it was in the Renaissance in Florence.
DeleteErica, I one hundred percent agree with you. I think that there is a lot our society needs to learn from in the past including what the role of patronage should entail. It seems as though the responsibility of bettering our society is lost with how art is bought and sold now a days.
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to say that patrons of today’s era are similar to the one of the past, mostly because the aren't. This can be looked at in so many ways, but I do want to point out the new ideas that are brought to the table, considering art, compared to before.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that most patrons of today believe art to be a new form of status, using it’s beauty as a sort of “trophy wife”, being an object that gives them worth. But what is interesting to me is that even though there is a less of an emotional connection shared between the patron and the art, unlike the older times where art was made to symbolize importance of its subject, now we have patrons who even though purchase art to show off, they just might appreciate art more for what it is, including, skill, craftsmanship, creativity, meaning/intention, etc.
One of the coolest things about this generation of patrons is that there are so many, and with that comes all sorts of people who desire or find beauty in all sorts of different styles and aesthetics. With the help of social media, patrons can discover a variety of upcoming artists (in whom they may see great potential in) and support the artist, bringing them attention, that the patron believes they rightfully deserve.
Patrons nowadays are almost always gambling; the odds of their recent purchase may either be worth the money they invested, hoping the artist will become well adored and sought after by other, confirming their faith in the artist as well as taste in art itself, or the art being disliked by everyone, showing poor taste of the patron as well as a loss of an immense amount of money and social status.
Jacey, I liked how you brought up the fact that there are so many different types of patrons, which brings about admiration for numerous different types of art. In today’s world there are types of art that existed during the Renaissance, but there are also new types of art. There are patrons that enjoy paintings, but there are also patrons that admire digital art and other newer forms. Each patron can bring a different perspective of beauty to the table. Patronage continues to evolve as mediums evolve. What people consider themselves patrons of today, could be entirely different twenty years from now.
DeleteI believe that in both eras, the Renaissance and ours, patrons are almost the exact opposite. In today's era we have social media to look for to guide us in what is "good art". 500 years ago patrons were following the social norms and were very slowly evolving into humanistic views. Patrons today value the opinions of others and choose art pieces by how expensive it may be. In the Renaissance era patrons were striving to have the best piece and always expanding. Wealth and fame can be traced back to the root of just about anything in my opinion, art is no exception. If there is a piece that is valued by one person than surely more will follow that is how humanity works. Because art is a way for many to express themselves, patronage then, now, and in the future will continuously be the same.
ReplyDeleteTHIS POST WAS FROM NOEMI RAMIREZ
DeleteI totally agree with you on the social media idea. Its crazy how art these days is way different from 500 years ago and hows its treated as well. Like you said, these days its about how much it costs and not how much a person values the painting emotionally. We should learn a lot from the Renaissance and its values towards the arts.
DeleteFor me, as a musician, the arts are not appreciated as they were 500 years ago. Yes, there are a people who do like art and can enjoy it but for the most part many people believe that it isn't important anymore. From what I know from history, it seems like more people were commissioned to create things than they are now. I fell like the only the that motivates patronage today is selfishness. Instead of seeing the real beauty that art holds they only see it as a "trophy" or a symbol of wealthiness. Adding to that, this degrades the value of the actual painting by putting a price on it and using it like that. Art shouldn't be just trophy hung up in your office or living room. It should be admired by everyone. Not only that but the connection that the patron or buyer has to the painting has become more lustful and not admiring. Unlike how in the older times the painting represented something of importance to the patron.
ReplyDeleteWith social media being so prominent these days, many patrons can see any artists work or see new artists as well. Society as well gets to see the growth of these new artists and older ones as well. While this is good for the artists, I think its a double edged sword. Yes, their art is being bought and yes, they're getting money but they aren't really painting for someone who cares about the meaning to the art, usually. They don't get that sense of self accomplishment of creating something they love and not just creating just for the sake of showing off.
Hi Isac. I completely agree with what you are saying in regards to respect for art. Most people overlook art today and there is more of a lost respect in some. But I also believe that art is more prevalent and creative than ever before in almost every aspect compared to those of past centuries. Today, works of art can be widely appreciated in exhibits and museums for society to enjoy and respect. I do however understand how some pieces are lost to personal collections for periods of time. They should be out and displayed for anyone to view instead of being hidden and used to show off as a prize of the elite.
DeleteI would like to reiterate an earlier caution. I think it is easy for us to lapse into romanticization of the past. As we study the exquisite beauty of Renaissance painting, we are seduced into thinking that this era must have ardently embraced the arts prima fasciae. We have to recall, though, that we are focusing on elites and the cultural production facilitated by their wealth and encouragement. We are not focusing, at least in our imaginations as we pour through this content, the Renaissance version of the have-nots...the 99% of that age. Their habits of cultural consumption are more challenging to chart in the historical record. Hence, I’m not sure we can say “they” appreciated art more 500 years ago. What is clear though is that the Renaissance elites appreciated art differently than may be the case now. What many of us seem to be debating in this form is whether that difference is one indicating significantly different values.
DeleteAs opposed to patronage in the past, patronage now seems to be mainly tied to the popularity and value of a piece of art. The more valuable pieces of art a wealthy person owns by a diverse group of popular artists can show prestige, knowledge, and wealth in today's society. While I think this still was in effect during the Renaissance, today a collection can be more shown off and widely known upon due to media and other new social outlets. Also, it is important to note that more museums exist today and probably contribute to not only a renewed popularity in older arts, but also interests in more modern works of today's artists.
ReplyDeleteWhile patronage may seem like a flourishing practice during the Renaissance, I believe it is more prevalent even if it is not noticed in today's society and culture. Compared to what works of art were commissioned for in the past, present pieces of art have sold for astronomic prices and would probably amaze artist's of the Renaissance. Though, these large sums of money help regulate the flow of the economy, distributing wealth between families and classes. Just like the funding for art, art itself has changed drastically from past centuries. It can be seen from the materialistic art, to architecture, music, literature, and even technology. I believe that modern artists today are searching for new ways to express art from painting to sculptures, and even new forms like moving art. It can even clearly be seen in the world we walk around in. The buildings and their shape have changed drastically in modern times. It seems like modern artists will do a lot to catch the eye or create a deep message within art that may be harder to figure out or not see at first glance to gain better attention of the public. Not to mention drastic changes that have occurred in music arts. Over time it is clear to see how humans have evolved through their sense or art when looking at music, their have been changes to classical orchestral music and genres of music itself. Country type music has become increasingly poplar along with rap and many other popular genres that have previously never even existed. Thanks to the arts and it's advances, millions can enjoy old classics along with new music at their fingertips due to new artists and the popularity of music in general. Also, literature and the way we learn can be seen as a huge advance compared to centuries before. There are now millions of libraries and schools that are readily accessible to the masses unlike before. Knowledge is now sought after by the masses and it is easier than ever thanks to technology. Technology has made it so easy to communicate and transfer information instantaneously and I think this has contributed one of the biggest roles in art today.
I believe that there are clear benefits to patronage for all involved. From the person that is paying to the one that is receiving. The patron that commissions the art can benefit in many ways; they can have the opportunity to be a part of the art and have their name or themselves pictured in the art. This can somewhat leave a legacy to a patron for all that view the piece. Or the patron could have the luxury of owning a piece of work for their own collection. The artist obviously gets the benefit of getting paid but also the fame and popularity that comes if their art is well liked and viewed. Society can also benefit because in all, when a artist is paid a large lump sum for a work of art, this helps regulate the economy and the flow of wealth within classes. This can benefit the overall well being of a society as well as societal technological and cultural developments. Even though patronage can be viewed as positive, some may find the effects to be negative. Some say that it can create an environment of extreme competitiveness and some artists give up or fail to even try in the first place. It is very hard and rare to make it big and make large amounts of money through art. Only when an artist is widely known and liked is when they are paid well.
The trailer for "The Price of Everything" showed us one type of patronage; wealthy individuals spending millions on art pieces, which reminded me of that 1.4 million dollar painting Banksy shredded at an auction (which was hilarious, by the way). But the act of shredding the painting quite possibly made that painting more unique. It is one of a kind, and can never be replicated. In this way, I think the main drive for patronage is social status. The wealthy buying million dollar art pieces to hang in their million dollar penthouses and view while drinking million dollar champagne. Money is a symbol of status, and the things you can flaunt with that wealth is a great way to elevate social status.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there is another side of patronage that helps small artists make a name for themselves. Social media websites like Tumblr, Twitter, and Instagram help artists share their artwork in hopes for commissions. This helps artists with their income, no matter how small, and adds to their portfolios for their careers. Patronage of this kind benefits the patrons too; I myself have commission a drawing of the character in one of my writings, and the artist drew her beautifully. I can't express myself in art like drawing, but I can in writing. The artist just helped me design my character in image and not words. It is like this with companies too, who hire people to design their logos, or set up websites. It is trading goods for a service, simple as that.
The way patronage has changed since the Renaissance is immense. It is more accessible to find an artist and commission them with the help of the Internet, and even the materials used are quite different. While you can commission a physical painting today, a lot of art commissions on social media are digital. Paintings commissioned during the Renaissance usually were revolved around God and Christ, today almost anything can be commissioned. The biggest factor, I think, is the change in the way of thinking, be it how people view God and how technology has advanced over time.
Very briefly, Hannah, as my eyes are on the 12th hour of computer screen gazing today...
DeleteYou bring up several good points. Indeed, the diversification in themes (“content” or “subject”) in contemporary art is suggestive of a different artist-patron dynamic. Diversified themes and more disposable income = more opportunities for creativity and consumption than was the case in the past. And, yes, the linkage between artists, patrons, and casual collectors surely has become more networked and instantaneous with the advent of internet and other global communications technologies.
I really agree with your points Hannah. Online communications has made artists and patrons more accessible to each other. In the same way, I think it takes away slightly from the kind of rapport and networking the artists had during the Renaissance. You had people like Donatello, Ghiberti, Brunelleschi, and many more of those artists working together and traveling to the places of classical antiquity. While those kinds of things are available in modern times, I still feel as if there was more connection back then. It was less about money and more about the art and innovation in my opinion.
DeletePatrons 500 years ago paid artists to make art that had significant meaning to to patron and to anyone who viewed it. It was a way patrons showed their wealth, but they also valued the messages that were being shown. The difference with then and now is that many wealthy people today buy art as a way to show off their wealth and not because a certain form of art that they paid for has any meaning. That's not to say there aren't people who simply buy art for the sake of showing off. Some people genuinely care about an art piece's meaning.
ReplyDeleteSocial media platforms such as Twitter, Instagram, and Tumblr are places where an artist can sell their product. Art has become easier to obtain than it was 500 years ago. Social media allows for artists all over the world to build themselves up and sell their product to anyone who wants it.
Maybe in the future, those who are interested in learning about the past will look at the amount of varying artworks of today and learn something about this era.
I'm glad there're a couple people who see the benefit that social media has had on patronage. Something that I think is very important to mention is that social media has made it possible for those with relatively little money to still browse and purchase great works of art from wherever they are in the world. This is significant because during the Renaissance era there was an extremely strict hierarchical social structure (yes, even more strict than the 99% vs. 1% we talk about today) and the idea of a "peasant" commissioning art in any capacity would've been radical.
DeleteAnother important benefit, is the overall freedom that social media offers. In the days of Renaissance patronage, the subject matter was given to the artists by the patrons. Now, the artist creates whatever the artist desires and the patrons come to them. The idea of "make it and someone will buy it" is a modern conception.
This topic has always intrigued me because patronage has meant different things to me at different points in my life. Before I was an artist musically and two-dimensionally, I didn’t give patronage any thought but knew of it from my explorations through Greek and Roman culture when I was younger. After I became an artist, I found that patronage is dependent upon the entity supporting your endeavors. When I think patronage, the first form of it that pops into my head is the 1%. The higher echelon of society has an interest in the equity that art provides. I feel that in modern day, there are many patrons in the “elite”, that support artists and projects for the sole purpose of investment and return. But I also think that there is merit in appreciating the ones who use their enormous wealth to spread the arts. Resources such as libraries and museums are probably the most common forms of patronage besides the elite hiring artists to create for their social circles.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, it’s a stark contrast from what the Medici’s and various other Renaissance artists founded their principles on. Art was more than just for the elite, it was common-space and challenged artists to create the best they could for patriotism. Figures like Brunelleschi and Ghiberti competed to take their city to the best it could be under the funding of patrons like the Medici’s. During the Renaissance, artists were innovating and creating with the materials and techniques they had. Brunelleschi even created One-Point Perspective and helped inspire many other artists to develop this technique. There was more of a community amongst artists and designers compared to now.
This showed that artists and the public greatly benefited from patronage because it helped spread the art and ideologies on a public scale. Places like the various cathedrals, the Medici’s palazzo, and the orisanmichele showed what could be achieved when patrons are interested in cultivating the environment around them. I would say artists nowadays are disadvantaged by patronage because they make art in bulk in order to make money. Inflated price drives art to be vastly more expensive than 500 years ago and it harms the motivations of artists and patrons.
I would say that the most common motivation behind modern patronage is encapsulated in the title "The Price of Everything," invoking the old adage that describes cynics as knowing the price of everything, but the value of nothing. I think that cynical outlooks are far more prevalent today than they were during the Florentine and Italian Renaissances. I would also make the assertion that cynics are more likely to become wealthy, especially in today's ultra-competitive globalized economic environment. Therefore, the primary motive for a sizable portion of those who would put large amounts of money into works of art is the hope that their value (value as denoted by co$t) will increase faster than inflation devalues their currency. As somewhat of a cynic myself, I can also imagine that the desire to be perceived as cultured and refined (and to some degree superior) is another powerful motivator behind the ridiculous (ridiculous in size, not necessarily in merit) sums of money being spent on modern art. Modern patronage, specifically in regard to the commissioning of specific pieces, can have a significant impact on public perception of what art is and what it should look like, especially with the price-tags as lengthy as they are. Then again, social media has largely democratized this process, and (at least in developed, wealthy nations) people have more disposable income than ever, so perhaps we are currently living in what will be viewed as a Golden Age of Patronage in the future. But I have my doubts.
ReplyDelete