RE: Mythologie in Architektur und Kunst // Mythology in Architecture and Art
A lovely post, from the images to the continuity you describe in artistic tradition. I was struck by this line:
The sculpture garden of the Medici family in Florence was made accessible to the artists
I've often thought about the role of the patron and the development of art. In order to survive, all artists--architects, composers, painters, sculptors--had to please patrons. The net effect was that our heritage was formed, in a way, by the preferences of the elite. I wonder what kind of art would have flourished, what our heritage would have been, if there had been a wider base of support. Did art suffer from that narrow perspective, from that elitism? Or did it benefit? Was there a certain uniformity in style and output that resulted from this sort of patronage?
I don't know, but it's interesting to speculate, I think.
Thank you for your interesting thoughts on this subject.
Without patronage the "Renaissance" might not have happened. Painters, sculptors and architects were no longer craftsmen whose profession was the responsibility of the guilds, but "freelance" artists. The Medici, who played a key role in Florence, undoubtedly had aimed at the recognition and maintenance of the family's power by supporting artists such as Brunelleschi, Botticelli, da Vinci or Michelangelo. But who can imagine Florence today without the work of these gifted artists?
Culture, Western civilization, owes the patrons a debt, for sure. It's just, I wonder sometimes how the artists of the Renaissance might have developed if they had been able to appeal to a broad marketplace, instead of a narrow elite.
Looking forward to more thought-provoking and inspiring posts from you :)