Public Monuments

During the Quattrocento (or 15th Century), the de’Medici family grew in importance. So did the role of “public art” and monuments that were meant to solidify the importance of Florence as the “new Rome” of the Renaissance. 

When Cosimo de’Medici commissioned Filippo Brunelleschi to finish the dome of the Florence Cathedral (top photo above), he wanted to make a statement. His statement was that his family had the power and money to finish the largest dome in Europe. That it was his architect that could finish the project that no one else could finish. It was his patronage of this dome that would put his family and his city on the map.

Public monuments throughout history have been an important way for the ruling class to show it’s power and wealth, and for a city or state to show itself as cultured, advanced, and powerful. Ancient Egyptians build monuments on some of the grandest scale ever scene with the Pyramids at Giza.

Even today cities try to get noticed through the building of monuments and art. Two modern examples close to home are Daniel Libeskind “Crystal” for the Royal Ontario Museum (bottom picture above), and the sculpture “Cloud Gate” by Anish Kapoor, in Chicago.

Both of these cities have recently gone through a period of “monument” building and filling their cities with art. Both in attempts to put themselves on the map as cities of culture and of the future.

Daniel Libeskind “Crystals” are meant to modernize the very “period” Royal Ontario Museum building. It was commissioned with a thirty-million dollar donation by billionaire Michael Lee-Chin, whose name it now bares. Though the style was controversial, putting such modern “crystals” on the very traditional R.O.M. building. It was thought however that it would help put both the museum, and the city on the map.

Chicago is an other city which seems to love public art. There is a public Picasso statue, the “bean”, and the new statue of Marilyn Monroe. All of these very public pieces of art are meant to cement Chicago as a city of culture, and modernity. Much in the way the dome of Florence was meant to make it known that it was the new power in the world.

These are just two modern examples of how public art or monuments are still used today to by either patrons and or governments to make a statement about things. Much like the aristocracy of the Renaissance, todays rich donate money to have their names live on through art and monuments. In turn the cities and institutions like Quattrocento Florence and it’s cathedral benefit from having new construction, and attract new visitors. The people of the cities can boast of the marvels of their home, and the innovation of the people who live there.

Patrons, Collectors and Cash oh My!

One of the most important relationship an artist can have is with a patron of some kind. Though the nature of patron/artist relationships have changed over the centuries, it still is an important one.

During the Renaissance, art depended solely on patrons to be made. Those patrons could be a person, the church, or a guild or organization. These patrons would commission a workshop to produce a piece of art. In Florence many pieces during the Quatroncento (14th century) were commissioned by the Medici family. 

Under the control of Cosimo de’ Medici, his family rose to power and used it’s vast wealth to commission what are now some of the most famous pieces of art, and forever changed the face of Florence.

This relationship allowed many workshops and artists in them to produce  vast amounts of art. By also having a “forward” thinking patron allowed many of these artists and artisans to push the boundaries of art beyond what had been socially acceptable during previous times. 

This part of the relationship is crucial. Because art for this particular patron started to become a symbol of wealth and status, as well as taste, Cosimo de’Medici pushed the workshops and their masters to produce art no one else had.

In some ways this relationship still holds true today. For many up-and-coming artists, having a patron with financial means can make a huge difference, if they are willing to take a chance on them.

Though there are still private commissions to this day, patronage now takes form more in either the willing to represent an artist (such as a gallery), or someone willing to subsidize a gallery show for a certain artist, furthering their exposure.

Today the word patron is mostly reserved for those donating money or art to institutional art galleries (such as the Guggenheim foundation). The term “collector” is more often used for those who purchase art. However I would argue that the function of a collector and a patron of the Quatrocento are not that different. 

Perhaps more that in any other time since the Renaissance this relationship is returning. If one was to look at the rise in fame and popularity of Andy Warhol, we could see how rich, and famous patrons gave rise to the popularity and value of his art. Warhol became a very wealthy artist during his lifetime. Many celebrities and rich socialites got him to paint portraits of them, many of which have become famous, and very valuable. These famous patrons and hangers on gave the Warhol name so much cachet that he was able to then make reproductions of his work that the masses wanted to buy.

This is not so different to the patronage of Florence workshops by the de’Medici’s. Their patronage of certain workshops gave not only work, but cachet to those workshops. To play “keep up with the de’Medici’s”, people would then flock to those approved “workshops” and order their own art, perhaps done by assistant at a lower cost, but it would still be a “Brunelleschi”. In modern times people would by a silkscreen made in Warhol’s factory, but they could still call it a “Warhol”.

From Renaissance Workshops to Warhol's Factory and Beyond

For the longest time, art was made in workshops. During the Renaissance these workshops were at the centre of the art world. They produced paintings, frescos, sculptures, and other forms of art. 

These workshops had a certain hierarchy. At the head of the workshop would be the master. It was under his name that works were produced, even if he never touched the work himself. Under him were his assistants, and under them were apprentices.

Workshops functioned not only as little factories of art, but also as schools of art. Young boys often as young as seven or eight years of age were placed in workshops to learn a trade. 

As an apprentice one would be given small tasks which would grow to larger more important ones. Making brushes, mixing paints, cleaning the workshop. As one moved to being an assistant, one would start with minor parts of a work of art. As one’s talent developed, one was given larger parts of a piece to work on. If one showed particular talent in one area (such as painting hands), one would work on those areas of a commissioned work. 

If an assistant was clearly gifted enough, he could once old enough ask to become a master himself. This would usually require him to complete a “master piece” of his own, on his own time. His first responsibility was to his master and the workshop. 

If the assistant’s master piece was considered of good enough quality, the assistant would be recognized buy both his master and the guild that governed his particular art form. The young assistant could then open his own workshop, and the process would renew itself.

This process for making art lasted for centuries from antiquity on. It is in the Renaissance however that we moved from the idea of “artisans” to “artists”. As time would go on artists would become far more “individual”, and art became a much less collaborative effort. 

Lately however certain contemporary artists, such as Andy Warhol (pictured in his “Factory” above), in the 1960s, and Jeff Koons today, had or have “workshops”. It would be easy on the surface to compare the two, however though they have similarities, they are in fact very different enterprises.

Perhaps the name of Warhol’s workshop “The Factory”, is a rather appropriate term. Though it could be said that Renaissance workshops were art factories as such, they were also art schools. With apprentices and assistants spending much of their young lives working and learning from the master and other artisans in the workshop.

Warhol’s “Factory” was a work place, a social gathering spot for other artists. It was more about image and producing works to be sold to a larger public, than the workshops of the Renaissance.

Already trained artists would work, for pay in the workshop silkscreening and painting works that would be signed by Warhol. In Koons modern day workshop, many of the people who either work for pay or work as interns (for free) are graduates of art schools. They are just there to produce art, much like assembly line workers. Koons is sometimes criticized in today’s “artist centered” art world, for not even touching the works he signs his name to, something that would have been considered normal in the quatrocento in Florence.