Nowadays, we take for granted the concept of "art for art's sake." But for Renaissance artists, their work was often intimately tied up in the instructions and desires of their powerful patrons.
Very informative and interesting! I wonder, though, if you are not missing what for many artists has replaced the traditional patron, one that is all but invisible, or taken for granted, and that is the state, through endowments and arts grants, for groups and individuals. Here in Canada, at least, almost all 'fine art' painters and literary writers (poets etc) depend on government grants or are able to apply for them. It may be that we think it 'odd' to tell an artist what to paint, but it's not really the case that state 'patronage' is unconditional. An artist accepting funding from the government is is some fashion limited by what the government bodies tasked with doling our grants will accept. It's a largely unquestioned norm today to believe that governments should be in the business of supporting the 'arts', but I think a case can be made against it. Not making that case here myself, just offering a perspective that might be helpful.
That’s a great point, and I think that would be a much better model than relying on an individual wealthy patron. I wish cultural institutions received more funding in the US—this exists here but I would guess not to the same degree.
I really enjoyed this, Nicole. It's fascinating to think of how art has changed over the years from patronage being pretty much the standard model for artists, to nowadays where personal creative freedom is much more prized. (And even the likes of Picasso or Degas generally refused to work to commissions!)
I guess in many ways, I guess it's a good thing that art is now seen as a much more individual/personal expression rather than something produced to specific requirements. But still, I definitely think the patron model had a lot of benefits too, as we can see beyond doubt by looking at the masterpieces that came out of the renaissance. So I do wish there would be more of a return to that in our modern world again.
Thank you, George! I agree, there are definitely benefits and drawbacks to each model. Perhaps what would be more beneficial today could be the expansion of fellowships from cultural institutions, rather than an individual wealthy patron whom you'd have to appease. That may give artists more stability without forcing them to do whatever their patron wanted.
Very informative and interesting! I wonder, though, if you are not missing what for many artists has replaced the traditional patron, one that is all but invisible, or taken for granted, and that is the state, through endowments and arts grants, for groups and individuals. Here in Canada, at least, almost all 'fine art' painters and literary writers (poets etc) depend on government grants or are able to apply for them. It may be that we think it 'odd' to tell an artist what to paint, but it's not really the case that state 'patronage' is unconditional. An artist accepting funding from the government is is some fashion limited by what the government bodies tasked with doling our grants will accept. It's a largely unquestioned norm today to believe that governments should be in the business of supporting the 'arts', but I think a case can be made against it. Not making that case here myself, just offering a perspective that might be helpful.
That’s a great point, and I think that would be a much better model than relying on an individual wealthy patron. I wish cultural institutions received more funding in the US—this exists here but I would guess not to the same degree.
I really enjoyed this, Nicole. It's fascinating to think of how art has changed over the years from patronage being pretty much the standard model for artists, to nowadays where personal creative freedom is much more prized. (And even the likes of Picasso or Degas generally refused to work to commissions!)
I guess in many ways, I guess it's a good thing that art is now seen as a much more individual/personal expression rather than something produced to specific requirements. But still, I definitely think the patron model had a lot of benefits too, as we can see beyond doubt by looking at the masterpieces that came out of the renaissance. So I do wish there would be more of a return to that in our modern world again.
Great work as ever!
Thank you, George! I agree, there are definitely benefits and drawbacks to each model. Perhaps what would be more beneficial today could be the expansion of fellowships from cultural institutions, rather than an individual wealthy patron whom you'd have to appease. That may give artists more stability without forcing them to do whatever their patron wanted.
Absolutely. I think museums and cultural institutions could be doing a lot more to drive art forward like that.