ARTICLE REVIEW GUIDE - Michael Baxandall Carol Duncan Ryan...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ryan Carey Anna Draganova Nicole Gates Ruth Kidane BAXANDALL The motivations for being a patron of art were different than the motives now and art was valued for different reasons. Art was often in very public places, even if commissioned by a wealthy individual, thus it served as a marker of wealth. Artists, and painters more than sculptures, worked very closely under one person who would see the project from start to finish, even if the work was being sponsored by an organization or more than one person. The patrons usually drew up a contract (more or less formal because there was no set way) that specified the amount of payment and when/how it would be paid (in installments usually, and whether or not material costs were at the expense of the artist or paid for separately), the amount of gold, silver and aquamarine colors to be used, and what the painter is to paint (usually based on a previous drawing). The specifications were often very specific including what grade of aquamarine paint was to be used (one, two, or four florins/ounce). Gold and ultramarine were used in order to point out the principal figures, but there were also more subtle uses of these expensive materials (like in a biblical depiction of St. Francis handing his gown, it was made of ultramarine). The contracts point to a sophistication and ability to discriminate between the different blues that we now do not have/is of no value to us. Some artists did not work by a contract for each painting, some artists (like Mantegna, who worked for a prince) were given a salary, although this arrangement of a given salary was unusual. Even for those artists who worked for princes, they usually were given a contract for each piece they made. There was a big change during the 15th century, a shift from an emphasis on the material and precious colors used to an emphasis on the skill in the artwork. Contracts became less specific on the material, and eventually gold was only used on the frame. There was less of an emphasis on flaunting “sheer opulence.” Baxandall suggested that this had to do with people wanting to be dissociated from the newly rich, with the small shortage of gold at the time, or maybe only a “fashionable reaction.” The way in which the art then chose to display opulence simply became selective; there was a “conspicuous consumption of something else – skill.” The center of discussion of art in the early Renaissance became the difference between the quality of material and the quality of skill. People began to praise an ability to show shine and sheen through plain colors than through simply using expensive materials. In order to see the transition in opulence from material to skill Baxandall explains the importance of the money of painting. In the contracts patrons specified that there be a landscape and not a gilt background, patrons began to pay artists according to the time they spent on it (demanding for more of their skill), and paid more for the time of the
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/07/2008 for the course ARTH 201 taught by Professor Fordham during the Spring '08 term at UVA.

Page1 / 12

ARTICLE REVIEW GUIDE - Michael Baxandall Carol Duncan Ryan...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online