Narrator: Listen to part of a lecture in an Art history class.
Professor:Ok, as art historians, one of our fundamental tasks is to assign authorship to works of art, right? We’re presented with work of art, and we have to figure it out who made it, but these tasks became particularly difficult when we’re dealing with works produced in Italy during the Renaissance--the 16,17 centuries.
Now, why is this the case? Anyone? Emily?
Emily: Um. Is it cause artists didn’t sign their works? I mean, didn’t the whole concept of the artist as individual developed later, in like the 19th century?
Professor: Well you’re sort of on the right track. The concept of the individual artist, especially the concept of artist as an artistic genius, struggling alone with a vision as supposed to say a mere artisan. Well, the idea of artist as an alone genius didn’t develop until later. But artists, individual artists, did sign their work during the Renaissance, in fact you could say, that’s a part of problem. Paintings were signed by the artist and that used to be understood to be a mark of Renaissance’s individualism. If a piece had Raphael’s signature on it, we assume it was done by the great artist himself, Raphael, in the singular. But you see, art in Renaissance Italy was very much a collaborative business. Painters and sculptors worked in a workshop, it was almost like a small business run by a master artist. You see, to deal with the wild varieties of commissions they received, orders basically for specific types of art, specific projects, to handle this master artist often employed assistants as prentices, this was specially so, if they worked on a large scale, huge paintings or sculptures or if they were much in demand, like Raphael for instance. He worked on some large paintings, ah, he painted frescoes for Vatican. He also received a great many commissions, there is no way he could’ve completed every part of every project all by himself. Now this assistance might work for the master artist on a temporary or a permanent basis, and they might also specialize. For example, in Raphael’s workshop, which might be called Raphael Incorporated, one of the assistants specialized in animals, he actually painted a good number of animals in Raphael’s art. It may be that the master signing the work was simply making a declaration that the work met the standards of the shop. And that wasn’t just painters. Sculptors also worked together, in fact the assistants were even more necessary if you were a master sculptor because statues takes longer to make than paintings. The master had to arrange for marble to be quarry, things like that. Perhaps the most collaborated of all，was architecture. There we see a real division of labor, what with carpenters, masons, unskilled labors just carried materials to and fro, and so on. Plus, of course, you’re skilled artisans who carried out the master architect’s design. Think of it, like a ballet, you know. All the dancers work together, there is division of labor, people have different roles, and in order for the thing to come together, everyone needs to be aware of what others are doing, and coordinate the work, and have good timing. So for architecture, it’s almost impossible to know who was responsible for any given detail. Was it the master architect? The mason? Or an assistant mason? Maybe it was even the patron, the client who was paying for the art. Remember, it wasn’t their customary for architects to give their assistants measured joints to work from. Instructions were given orally, not in writing. So we don’t have those documents to tell us what exactly the master architect’s plans were. The only time we have written records is when the architect wasn’t actually there. Perhaps the architect was way on business and had to write out his instructions and sent them to the shop.
And another thing to think about: what effects do you suppose this approach would have had on innovation? I mean, since the hired artisans have been trained by other artisans, they tended to be trained to use the traditional styles and techniques. So if you’re a master architect, eh, you’ve developed your own style, say you’re calling for certain detail in the building you are designing right? And say these details are different, purposely different, from the established tradition, the established style. Well, most likely when the hired artisans would execute the design, rather than follow the intended design, they’d stick with the more traditional style that they were more familiar with. Workers would have to be supervised very closely to prevent this from happening. Otherwise, as often happened, there goes the designer’s style and creativity.