Paintings and Artists in the Renaissance

The fifteenth century was a period of bespoke painting. During this period, painting was the deposit of a social relationship. The nature of artistic production is the commercial relationship between artists and clients. Clients funded, asked, or paid artists to make the painting according to their specifications and requirements. Thus, the character and the development of paintings during this period were quite limited and influenced by clients’ motives. Also, paintings could reflect how some economic practices worked, including contracts with detailed requirements, agreements, negotiations, etc.

During this period, the standard by which paintings were paid for shifted from materials and working time for each individual, to skills and abilities. Artists were given more freedom and respect as their individuality improved. In the beginning, painters were supposed to obey the requirements of their clients to finish the painting. They were supposed to paint according to clients’ specifications, instead of showing their creativity. The payment was simply based on the materials and the time, such as the way Florentine merchant Giovanni de’ Bardi paid the painter. Pictures were designed for the client’s use and requirements. Due to the complexity of clients’ motives, it was not easy and profitable for artists to guess clients’ motives. All that artists could do was to carry out the order and meet the requirements. Contracts and agreements between painters and clients had no fixed forms. Also, instructions on the subject of a picture did not usually go in details due to the limitation of words expression and the clarity of the client’s intentions. It was not very clear if the artist successfully met the client’s requirements because there was no clear standard. Thus, the payment was always based on clients’ conscience and the ability of understanding. Clients had the right to decide if the painting was acceptable, or, at least, decide the way to measure the quality of the painting. In this sense, artists were simply persons who fulfilled clients’ orders and got paid by their abilities to carry out the vague instructions. Besides, some artists were hired by the loyal family to offer particular service. They worked as employees and received a regular monthly salary, or they were paid for a piece of work like other painters.

As the century progressed, the focus of the quality of a painting shifted from materials to the frame. The instruction of materials was no longer that detailed and important. Also, gilt splendor shifted away due to the fashion change in clients’ clothes. As the conspicuous consumption of gold and ultramarine became less important, skills had been taken its place on the contract. The skill was paid more and more attention and was regarded as the measurement of the value of a painting. By the middle of the century, the expensiveness of pictorial skill became well known. Artists’ individuality had been increasingly articulated and recognized. Artists with better skills were supposed to be paid more. The focus of the value of artists was no longer on materials and time, but on skills. As Baxandall stated, “the dichotomy between the quality of material and quality of skill was the most consistently and prominently recurring motif in everyone’s discussion of painting and sculpture” (Baxandall 16). Thus, a painting’s value was measured based on two measures: matter and skill, material and labor. Artists were viewed as individuals in competition, and they were given more freedom to exert their creativity and skills.