Question for the art historians...

[Ogrork the Mighty]

Did the Medieval period have artwork that was valued as much as artwork is today?

The reason I ask is that I don't think I've ever read about a painting, statue, etc., that was highly valued during the Medieval period. Which makes me think that artwork as a valuable commodity is a relatively recent development (say, since the 1900s).

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Did the Medieval period have artwork that was valued as much as artwork is today?

The reason I ask is that I don't think I've ever read about a painting, statue, etc., that was highly valued during the Medieval period. Which makes me think that artwork as a valuable commodity is a relatively recent development (say, since the 1900s).

I know pretty much jack about art, but there are other factors that come into play.

In the medieval periods, there wasn't much of an 'artist' class. By that I mean, what we in modern times consider an artist (half-starved, pretentious loft dwellers ). People who managed to avoid working in the fields and instead spend their days making paintings, sculptures, etc. either had a rich noble patron (much more common in later periods, though), or were commissioned by the Church. It wasn't, for the most part, a market economy.

Second, what makes art expensive now is a combination of scarcity (Picasso only painted so many things), global culture (millions of people know of and like Picasso's work), disposable income (I can buy art because I already have enough money to eat), and especially speculation.

The high levels of disposable income in industrialized countries enables people to make a living selling $1000 paintings in local boutiques. The fact that the last Picasso sold for $12 million encourages people to buy the next one that comes up for auction, often hoping to sell it a few years down the road for a hefty profit.

 

[Turjan]

Did the Medieval period have artwork that was valued as much as artwork is today?

The reason I ask is that I don't think I've ever read about a painting, statue, etc., that was highly valued during the Medieval period. Which makes me think that artwork as a valuable commodity is a relatively recent development (say, since the 1900s).

During the medieval period artwork was definitely valued, but artists were not, at least not in a modern sense. The artists of many masterpieces are even not known. However, this changed with the onset of the Renaissance (1500). Some late medieval/gothic painters are still very much valued nowadays, and their names well known (like Hieronymus Bosch (1450-1516), Matthias Grünewald (1475-1528), Albrecht Dürer (1471-1528), Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472-1553), Hans Holbein the Elder (1465-1524)). You could consider them Renaissance painters, though.

This means that the value we give to paintings and artists is a phenomenon of the Modern Era, which began with the Renaissance around 1500.

 

[Moulin Rogue]

Also be aware that the scale was small; illustrations in manuscripts are what you'll usually find in medieval art. In the Gothic era in Italy you'll get large frescoes on walls, but I don't think you'll find portable "oil on canvas" type paintings until the 15th century.

Medieval sculpture also tended to be small. You'll find large figures carved into walls and adorning capitals of columns, but you won't find many freestanding statues the size of David being made in medieval times. (Donatello's David c.1430 was in fact the first large freestanding figure cast in bronze since ancient times). Among the portable kind of medieval sculptures, many were made of wood. Medieval sculpture was usually made by workshops of people who were seen as craftsmen rather than artists as we recognize them today.

It was around the time of Dante (late 13th-early 14th c.) in Italy that individual painters started to get proper recognition: we can attach works of this era to the names of Cimabue, Giotto, Duccio, Simone Martini and others.

In medieval times the purpose of commissioning art was more about religious devotion than displaying one's wealth and taste, but that changed in the Renaissance. Now you're getting into the portable oil-on-canvas format and naked ladies, see. As shown in
this painting there was actually a whole genre of "gallery-painting" in the 17th century where wealthy owners had themselves painted with a catalogue of their impressive personal collections.

 

[Samothdm]

My recollection from art history class in college was that most works of art in the Middle Ages were commissioned, either from the Church itself or from wealthy patrons. Most works were religious in nature, although as you get later into the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance, portraits also became frequent subject matter.

From what I really remember, I don't think that there was a lot of "trading" for paintings or buying other people's paintings. That is, an artist didn't do work on spec and hope that someone bought it. He was paid by his patron to create a very specific painting of a very specific subject matter (usually a religious scene with saints and stuff, and then a small portrait of the patron of the work in the corner, kneeling in prayer).

 

[painandgreed]

I would think that in the medieval period, most art is going to be of a more useful nature. You're going to find the expensive art in books and manuscripts and comisioned to be painted in (on) buildings. I've read various accounts of illustrated books being sold for small fortunes. Most art appreciation of the time went into crafts such as embroidry and lacework that could be worn.

Of course, few D&D games are actually played in a medieval setting with a strong church and the vast majority of the population in serfdom or outright slavery. I'd look either to the Roman setting or to the Renaissance. Both time periods had no shortage of painters and sculptures creating works for rich people and the not so rich. Since most games have pagan-like gods then you could expect idoltry to be alive and well and thus have a large population of sculptures that were supported by it. Still, art would be meant to last. you don't pay a painter to paint a picture, you pay them to come in and do a mosaic or fesco on the wall of the main room of your house. You get statues on for your shrine and garden, and then you have your sword and armor decorated so you look good while riding around in them to display your wealth.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Painting, as in the framed canvas, is not going to be very common or valued in most regions. I know Venice got into painting early on because the air was too humid to make fresco practical, but under most circumstances I don't know why anyone in the middle ages would want something so small and unfunctional.

On the flipside a lot of medieval art is going to be in mediums we see almost nothing of today. If the Bayeux tapestry is any indication, then tapestry art obviously had a lot of significance beyond the sort of kitschy stuff we see a lot of today. Further, tapestries keep your room warm and are large, very portable, and tough.

Wood working and jewelry are also going to be comparatively more important. A good, well made, and beautiful bed with loads of ornamentation is going to be an incredibly important part of a household. Something that will probably get used by more than a single couple at the same time, and an important piece of technology that does a lot to combat winter cold and lower infant mortality. It will be the subject of immense conflict in wills, and making an important bed could easily be the focus of skilled professionals month or even a series of months.

In the middle ages, however, you are far more likely to move artists or artists' workshops around than pieces of art. The sort of cults of personality production that we associate with modern art pieces did not exist.

Certainly, I imagine that art was bought and sold, and it was most certainly traded and given. But aside from a few religious pieces the context for pieces matters too much for the piece to be removed from it.

Architectural and decorative arts were extraordinarily well developed and important. Well placed and sponsored shops and communities of artists could be the subject of considerable intrigue among their patrons and were a profoundly good living for a lot of people. Lots of incredible sculpture in that sense, but art is not seperate from its context.

Think of it as more the sort of culture that surrounds theatrical work, the technical side, than the culture that surrounds gallery work. Do you know the names of the people who crafted the sets for your favorite play or movie? Probably not. Do you know that those things made a huge difference? Yes. Do you know that those people are probably insanely bright and talented? Yes. Does that make a difference in terms of who you think of as 'owning' or having 'created' the play? No. It's the director's, studio's, or producer's piece.

Now does that director, studio, and producer know who made that stuff and what is going in the world of people who make that stuff? Yes, dear lord yes!

Similarly, everyone in the middle ages is going to know what their favorite building is and the art in that building is going to be a major percentage of that calculation. But that building and that art is going to belong to the institution, club, patron, or architect that produced it, and they are the people who are ultimately responsible for that work.

For us now, and for most of the people of the period likely, the artists who created the gargoyles for Notre Dame are anonymous. But given the incredible importance that art had to the enourmous investment that was creating a Gothic cathedral I guarantee they were not anonymous to the people who put it together.

I know I think that that sort of public rhetorical art is a far better use of art, education, resources and community feeling, and in many ways I fear that the current tendency towards gallery art and individuals benefits the artist at the expense of art.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Of course, few D&D games are actually played in a medieval setting with a strong church and the vast majority of the population in serfdom or outright slavery. I'd look either to the Roman setting or to the Renaissance. Both time periods had no shortage of painters and sculptures creating works for rich people and the not so rich. Since most games have pagan-like gods then you could expect idoltry to be alive and well and thus have a large population of sculptures that were supported by it. Still, art would be meant to last. you don't pay a painter to paint a picture, you pay them to come in and do a mosaic or fesco on the wall of the main room of your house. You get statues on for your shrine and garden, and then you have your sword and armor decorated so you look good while riding around in them to display your wealth.

I might agree with much of this, the initial lines on serfdom and slavery seem a bit overblown, but the fact is I do not know why free standing sculpture went totally out of style for much of the period throughout most of the world.

Certainly, at least part of it may be that free standing sculpture is pretty much an aberration anyways. In or own society it only shows up given some pretty unusual circumstances in the market for art and some very specific assumptions on gardening and public spaces.

But, it may also be that free standing sculpture was thought of as a specifically pagan practice. The Byzantines still do some of it, sort of, and then the Italians pick it up, but even there it's done with specifically pagan and classical references in mind.

So, no sense that your religion is fixing the problems of the last culture, and you got one less reason to not do free standing culture.

Given Renaissance attitudes you might also have one less reason to do it, but either way you're freer.

 

[painandgreed]

I might agree with much of this, the initial lines on serfdom and slavery seem a bit overblown,...

I admit that they might be a little overblown. Especially since when you say "medieval" you're talking about hundreds of countries and social orders over a thousand years or more depending on which book you're reading. The one I'm reading right now ("Life and Work in Medieval Europe" by Boissonnade), although not talking about art explicitly, puts much of the economic downturn of the times and therefore the lack of things like a large market for "art" due to two things. One, the church played down such things as frivolty. The "end times (TM)" were coming and one should not worry about things like art (or technology) unless it was religious in nature. Two, western europe had lots of serfs and common political and regious theory of the day support both by the church and the nobles was that all work belonged to the nobles. The peasants got enough to live on and everything else went to their lord. If they produced more , that would just mean more for the lord. Therefore, there was very little desire to produce and excess and develop markets and trade. So far the only Fantasy game I've seen that has mentioned serfs has been Harn and that's not even D&D. Plus, most D&D games have large mertropolitan areas filled with lots of trade and such which you wouldn't actually see except before the fall of the Roman empire and later during the Reniasance, so you really can't use real world medieval history to judge something in a D&D game because the settings have vast differences. Byzantium may be different. I haven't studied Byzantium.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I admit that they might be a little overblown. Especially since when you say "medieval" you're talking about hundreds of countries and social orders over a thousand years or more depending on which book you're reading. The one I'm reading right now ("Life and Work in Medieval Europe" by Boissonnade), although not talking about art explicitly, puts much of the economic downturn of the times and therefore the lack of things like a large market for "art" due to two things. One, the church played down such things as frivolty. The "end times (TM)" were coming and one should not worry about things like art (or technology) unless it was religious in nature. Two, western europe had lots of serfs and common political and regious theory of the day support both by the church and the nobles was that all work belonged to the nobles.

Good point about the diversity of the period.

I don't know much about Boissonnade, but point one is a little bit odd. There were periods and elements of the church that might have been considered overly apocalyptic, but a substantial portion of the church's energies were dedicated to producing new art. Medieval worshippers expected it, and institutions were in constant competition to create buildings and reliquaries that would inspire their worshippers. The economy created by this cycle was very impressive. Even Bernard of Clairvaux, among the most important medieval reformers, did not so much argue against art as the appropriateness of private and/or secular art in religious communities.

He could be referred to Savanarola and the Bonfire of the Vanities but that was more of a Renaissance phenomena. Medieval Roman catholics were pretty clearly in favor of art and iconography.

Point two I'm not certain I understand. Certainly, capital formation was not up to the level that would invest 12 million in a portable piece of art with the expectation that it would act as a very good bond, or that would take out bonds on David Bowie's musical library or set up foundation to verify and catalogue the art of Andy Warhol. But the nobility and church certainly didn't agree on a belief that the nobility owned all labor. The church and secular nobility frequently clashed over the exact rights of peasants. Ironicly, where the church often supported further rights for peasants church landlords were considered worse because they were harder to cheat. If anything the 'problem' with medieval economies was that peasants were forced to keep too much of their labour rather than being able to leverage land rights indepedently or sell themselves as cheap labor.

Still, without reading the work or having it explained I don't know what I can say against it, aside from the overall point that art was not a fluid a market is certainly correct.

Byzantium is cool, I highly recommend looking up what you can on it. Their artistic traditions and technology suffered fewer disruptions than in the West, they had some really neat tricks, and, at times, pretty sophisticated theory on the matter. Orthodox participation theory is one of the coolest perspectives on art I've run into.