The Italian Renaissance
...differed amongst the social classes (Burckhardt 265). During the Italian Renaissance though, “social intercourse in its highest and most perfect form now ignored all distinctions of caste, and was based simply on the existence of an educated class as we now understand [it]” (Burckhardt 265). Similarly, Peter Burke relates the story of Giovanni Antonio Campono, “a shephard boy who became a university lecturer in Perugia, and was made a bishop by Pius II” (Burke 219). In short, “distinctions of birth ceased to confer any special privilege”; each person was compelled to make the most of his personl qualities, his destiny put in his own hands (Burke 272). The concept is one which American social ideals were built upon: everyone should be presented with the opportunity for advancement. Italy during the Renaissance was also set apart from the rest of Europe because it surpassed the previously known boundaries of luxury: “Even the outward appearance of men and women and the habits of daily life were more perfect, more beautiful, and more polished than among the other nations of Europe…the the castle and the city mansion in Italy surpassed in comfort, order, and harmony…it is nevertheless beyond a doubt that nowhere was so much importance attached to dress as in Italy” (Burckhardt 273). There is no coincidence that even today Italy, specifically Milan, is still considered the fashion capital of the world. An ever present desire for more, a desire to surpass previous boundaries, was a dominating force that encouraged all aspects of life. Even in the textile industry there was a “shift towards production of the luxury market” as can be seen in the tapestries made in Arras, Lille, and Tournai (Burke 244). The society of the Italian Renaissance was something completely new: a time and place when all aspiring and ambitious individuals could find opportunities in an ever-growing market. Today the Renaissance is remembered most, not by its innovative social intercourses, but rather by its artwork. Jacob Burckhardt believed that the Renaissance brought to light “the full, whole nature of man” and hence, art was forever changed (Burckhardt 225). The Renaissance was a birth, of sorts, of modernity, with the “dignity of humankind and championed individualism” at its center (Kagan 337). This meant that artwork would center around the individual because, though art may have an affect on its viewers, it is primarily a representation, or an effect, of the artist’s environment and experiences. As seen in Ms. O’Connell’s art class, there are many painters, sculptors and architects who either painted, sculpted or built based on the idea of an emergence of the individual. Carravaggio painted in such a way that his pieces could be brought down to the level of commoners. In his “Death of St. Peter” and “Conversion of Saul”, one can see that the figures are very normal, very human performing normal acts with normal postures and stances. The figures are never caught posing or lacking some sort of emotion. Michaelangelo’s David, though called a classic piece of artwork, is quite unclassical. Micaelangelo believed that classical art had no sense of sin and therefore, his David is tense, filled with pent up energy while awaiting his advesary. Burckhardt uses and interesting example in which poets ridicule women for using too many cosmetics; their faces attained an “unnatural form and colour” (Burckhardt 275). Apparently, artists were not only effected by their environment but commented on it as well. According to Peter Burke, art was not a mere representation of the individual: on the contrary, it was meant to have an affect: it was made for clients and society, not made because of individualism. Burke presents the reader with detailed descriptions of the different systems of patronage. Starting with the “household system” of rich men who had a taste for the finer things in life, to the “market system, in which the artist or writer produces something ‘ready-made’ and then tries to sell it”, Burke shows that artists were painting for a reason and did not go without influence (Burke 88). In the household system one sees that the artist was painting to make a living, and so had to paint according to his patrons tastes and wishes (Burke 88). In the market system the artist was given more liberties but if he wanted to sell his works, he had to appeal to the general public and in this way was restrained from full self expression. In later years, when artists worked under government control or when supported by foundations, many restrictions were put on the artist, the first being a thematic restriction: what foundation would back a liberal artist who the world was not ready for and could not produce suitable pieces? In addition, there was inscentive for an artist to follow the rules and concern himself with making his patron happy rather than fully express himself: this inscentive was the ability of a patron to refer an artist and hence make the artist more credible and richer: Lorenzo the Magnificent, for example, “recommended the sculptor Giuliano da Maiano to prince Alfonso of Calabria” (Burke 102). So at this point, one wonders how the patrons were effected by art, how did art affect? The answer lies in the idea of...