What is it about Italy?
May 24th, 2007, 12:02 PM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is it about Italy?
I think the Secret Itineraries guide said something like 45% of the art in the world is in Italy.
Not sure if that includes the works which have been plundered over the centuries by the French, the Germans, the Austrians and so on or if that's the case today, even after the thefts by Nazis, purchases by private collectors, etc.
But that's just an astounding figure if true. Yes Italy had some powerful patron of the arts. A lot of these Renaissance artists were like brands are today. They become well-known for work in a church or wherever and they kept getting commissions. Were some of these workshops factories or did everything produced by the biggest names consistently high in quality?
The other thing is, most of these were city-states occupying little territory. Just what did the de Medicis get rich from exactly? Was wine a big export or trade commodity back then? I understand Venice was the biggest naval power for a time (after economically surging from producing and trading salt).
But why were they able to patronize more art production than say France or Spain, which were at least as wealthy?
Did Italians spend more money on painting, sculpture and cathedrals because of the influence of the Church, which itself was of course a big consumer (commissioned) of works of art.?
The future value of most of these works, especially if well taken care of, is infinite as long as civilization exists and people keep coming to Europe at least partially to see these works. How many tickets to the Louvre are sold just because of the Mona Lisa?
These days, wealthy private collectors have no problems paying tens or over a hundred million for single works. If we're lucky, they will bequest these to museums when they die.
But for all the money they spend, it doesn't seem very many is going into commissioning works, where there is risk compared to buying a known "brand" of painter or artist.
Italian prominence in painting didn't seem to continue into the 19th century. Certainly there were movements like Futurists but they didn't reach the prominence of movements like Cubism, Surrealism, Abstract Expressionism, etc, all of which occurred elsewhere and by practitioners who were mostly not Italian.
Sure there were no longer de Medicis around but there must have been some wealthy industrialists in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Hmm, maybe rich Italians like Berlusconi would rather buy up football clubs.
Not sure if that includes the works which have been plundered over the centuries by the French, the Germans, the Austrians and so on or if that's the case today, even after the thefts by Nazis, purchases by private collectors, etc.
But that's just an astounding figure if true. Yes Italy had some powerful patron of the arts. A lot of these Renaissance artists were like brands are today. They become well-known for work in a church or wherever and they kept getting commissions. Were some of these workshops factories or did everything produced by the biggest names consistently high in quality?
The other thing is, most of these were city-states occupying little territory. Just what did the de Medicis get rich from exactly? Was wine a big export or trade commodity back then? I understand Venice was the biggest naval power for a time (after economically surging from producing and trading salt).
But why were they able to patronize more art production than say France or Spain, which were at least as wealthy?
Did Italians spend more money on painting, sculpture and cathedrals because of the influence of the Church, which itself was of course a big consumer (commissioned) of works of art.?
The future value of most of these works, especially if well taken care of, is infinite as long as civilization exists and people keep coming to Europe at least partially to see these works. How many tickets to the Louvre are sold just because of the Mona Lisa?
These days, wealthy private collectors have no problems paying tens or over a hundred million for single works. If we're lucky, they will bequest these to museums when they die.
But for all the money they spend, it doesn't seem very many is going into commissioning works, where there is risk compared to buying a known "brand" of painter or artist.
Italian prominence in painting didn't seem to continue into the 19th century. Certainly there were movements like Futurists but they didn't reach the prominence of movements like Cubism, Surrealism, Abstract Expressionism, etc, all of which occurred elsewhere and by practitioners who were mostly not Italian.
Sure there were no longer de Medicis around but there must have been some wealthy industrialists in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Hmm, maybe rich Italians like Berlusconi would rather buy up football clubs.
May 24th, 2007, 12:12 PM
#2
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<think the Secret Itineraries guide said something like 45% of the art in the world is in Italy.>
First of all let me compliment you on a brilliantly formed analysis of why lots of great art, at least medieval art, is from Italy.
but i think the Secret Itineraries statement, as printed here, is just a bunch of crapola!
45% of all art in the world - i'd say maybe 1% - art is way more than Old Masters obviously. The statement could be true if time had stopped say around 1650 or so. But today it is just plain stupid unless you ignore say Chinese art, Indian art, modern art, tribal art, graffiti art, etc.
Some folks thing 'art' means what's in the Louvre or Uffizi yet i find that a very haughty culturally judgmental attitude.
What if 'good music' had stopped in 1650 - we'd all be raving over some concertinos, etc.
First of all let me compliment you on a brilliantly formed analysis of why lots of great art, at least medieval art, is from Italy.
but i think the Secret Itineraries statement, as printed here, is just a bunch of crapola!
45% of all art in the world - i'd say maybe 1% - art is way more than Old Masters obviously. The statement could be true if time had stopped say around 1650 or so. But today it is just plain stupid unless you ignore say Chinese art, Indian art, modern art, tribal art, graffiti art, etc.
Some folks thing 'art' means what's in the Louvre or Uffizi yet i find that a very haughty culturally judgmental attitude.
What if 'good music' had stopped in 1650 - we'd all be raving over some concertinos, etc.
May 24th, 2007, 12:50 PM
#3
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paris is the number one destination in the world?
Italy as a whole can't be too far behind.
Sure people don't only go to these places for the art but it can't be a coincidence that one of the big draws of these countries is art (by which I would also include architecture as well, since a lot of architectural sites are attractions because they house important paintings and other works).
She probably was talking about Western Art and specifically, the works which are in the canon. Yes Italians aren't shy about chauvinism.
Maybe the influence of the Church is a big part of it. I recall hearing about how difficult cathedrals were -- when you think about how they took decades to build. They were probably the equivalent undertaking of building tall skyscrapers today.
So you had political and religious leaders (some often the same individuals) commissioning works all the time, which probably drew more and more people to the vocation.
Not to dig on Italian literature but there doesn't seem to be as many prominent Italian writers through the centuries as French or English writers.
Of course, there was a lot of patronage of literature in the history of those cultures.
Italy as a whole can't be too far behind.
Sure people don't only go to these places for the art but it can't be a coincidence that one of the big draws of these countries is art (by which I would also include architecture as well, since a lot of architectural sites are attractions because they house important paintings and other works).
She probably was talking about Western Art and specifically, the works which are in the canon. Yes Italians aren't shy about chauvinism.
Maybe the influence of the Church is a big part of it. I recall hearing about how difficult cathedrals were -- when you think about how they took decades to build. They were probably the equivalent undertaking of building tall skyscrapers today.
So you had political and religious leaders (some often the same individuals) commissioning works all the time, which probably drew more and more people to the vocation.
Not to dig on Italian literature but there doesn't seem to be as many prominent Italian writers through the centuries as French or English writers.
Of course, there was a lot of patronage of literature in the history of those cultures.
May 24th, 2007, 01:49 PM
#5
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, alot of pretty big questions.
Keeping this within the basic framework of the Western canon, obviously Italy's contribution is remarkable. Asking why is the same as asking why did the Renaissance happen- many people have studied and written about it, all the converging factors, but to a degree it's just one of those "things". There will always be an element of the unknown to this question. Like what is genius? and why does it happen? And how?
In terms of sheer volume, including mediocre art, I do imagine the loction of the Vatican is a factor. And Italy's climate is more condusive to having more art showcased outdoors than the Northern countries.
As for the Medici, didn't they practically invent modern banking and capitalism? They made their money from money- investing, lending, etc. Including to the Vatican, if I'm not mistaken.
Keeping this within the basic framework of the Western canon, obviously Italy's contribution is remarkable. Asking why is the same as asking why did the Renaissance happen- many people have studied and written about it, all the converging factors, but to a degree it's just one of those "things". There will always be an element of the unknown to this question. Like what is genius? and why does it happen? And how?
In terms of sheer volume, including mediocre art, I do imagine the loction of the Vatican is a factor. And Italy's climate is more condusive to having more art showcased outdoors than the Northern countries.
As for the Medici, didn't they practically invent modern banking and capitalism? They made their money from money- investing, lending, etc. Including to the Vatican, if I'm not mistaken.
May 24th, 2007, 06:50 PM
#6
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought the 45% sounded high as well. But I just found this statement on the Italian Tourism website:
" Italy has been likened to one vast museum. No other country in the world has such a rich heritage of artistic creativity. A UNESCO study placed 40% of the art of the world in Italy."
Of course, there's also all the art the Vatican acquired from other countries as well!
" Italy has been likened to one vast museum. No other country in the world has such a rich heritage of artistic creativity. A UNESCO study placed 40% of the art of the world in Italy."
Of course, there's also all the art the Vatican acquired from other countries as well!
May 24th, 2007, 07:00 PM
#7
To paraphrase Waring's previous post, perhaps we need to know UNESCO's definition of "art."
As an aside, the daughter of a close friend completed the Christie's masters program. She had studied French all through high school and college, spent her junior year and several summers in Paris and was fluent. The professors at Christie's told her, however, that in the world of art, auctions, museums and galleries the preferred language is Italian. Interesting.
As an aside, the daughter of a close friend completed the Christie's masters program. She had studied French all through high school and college, spent her junior year and several summers in Paris and was fluent. The professors at Christie's told her, however, that in the world of art, auctions, museums and galleries the preferred language is Italian. Interesting.
May 24th, 2007, 07:58 PM
#8
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<Italy has been likened to one vast museum. No other country in the world has such a rich heritage of artistic creativity. A UNESCO study placed 40% of the art of the world in Italy.">
again the 'art in the world' come on give me a break - this statement is so ludicrous - so silly if you think about it - all the art in the world 45% in Italy - depends how narrowly you define art - extremely narrow it seems.
Do you really believe this preposterous statement? Really what self-absorbed rubbish!
again the 'art in the world' come on give me a break - this statement is so ludicrous - so silly if you think about it - all the art in the world 45% in Italy - depends how narrowly you define art - extremely narrow it seems.
Do you really believe this preposterous statement? Really what self-absorbed rubbish!
May 24th, 2007, 08:05 PM
#9
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 49,560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I, too, think this is rubbish rubbish rubbish. OK, we all know Italy is awash in art. So are hundreds of other nations
What's the definition of art?
Are we talking about Renaissance art? And if so, what kind of Renaissance art? Sculpture? Painting?
This, to me, is so ridiculous it can't even be logically and sensibly discussed. I could make a case that India or Iran or Russia or even the USA has 45% of the world's "art."
Sorry...don't want to go there. Totally silly concept.
What's the definition of art?
Are we talking about Renaissance art? And if so, what kind of Renaissance art? Sculpture? Painting?
This, to me, is so ridiculous it can't even be logically and sensibly discussed. I could make a case that India or Iran or Russia or even the USA has 45% of the world's "art."
Sorry...don't want to go there. Totally silly concept.
May 24th, 2007, 08:36 PM
#10
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forget about the 40 or 45% for a second.
Would you agree that Italy had more art production relative to her size, especialy back when these were city states?
The other thing to keep in mind, about prosperity which I think is a necessary condition for art patronage, is that most of the cities were constantly under attack, so they had to build walls and ward off raiders.
Or maybe I'm getting the periods wrong. Perhaps the days of medieval fortifications were before the Renaissance or even the century or two preceding it, which is when art appears to have started flourishing.
Would you agree that Italy had more art production relative to her size, especialy back when these were city states?
The other thing to keep in mind, about prosperity which I think is a necessary condition for art patronage, is that most of the cities were constantly under attack, so they had to build walls and ward off raiders.
Or maybe I'm getting the periods wrong. Perhaps the days of medieval fortifications were before the Renaissance or even the century or two preceding it, which is when art appears to have started flourishing.
May 25th, 2007, 08:26 AM
#11
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Western Art seems to have first flourished in Italy, especially with the Renaissance and also has roots in Roman and Greek times. But didn't Flanders perhaps have even more such art per its miniscule population than much more populous Italy.
I mean in Ghent, Antwerp, Amsterdam, Brussels, Delft, etc. there was and is Old Masters art galore - got to think it was even higher in relation to its importance and size than Italy.
I mean in Ghent, Antwerp, Amsterdam, Brussels, Delft, etc. there was and is Old Masters art galore - got to think it was even higher in relation to its importance and size than Italy.
May 25th, 2007, 09:27 AM
#12
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"What is art?" is a question posed to all first year art students.
My preferred definition is "art is what is found in in art galleries"
Touring the Tate Modern, my favourites were a chipped urinal, a light switch made out of projected light, and an embalmed oven ready chicken in a bikini.
My preferred definition is "art is what is found in in art galleries"
Touring the Tate Modern, my favourites were a chipped urinal, a light switch made out of projected light, and an embalmed oven ready chicken in a bikini.
May 25th, 2007, 10:42 AM
#15
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Similarly I have a French friend who won't accept that French cuisine isn't the best in the world.
The best sushi? the best curry? the best chinese? the best chili? the best pasta? the best Sunday roast?
Creme fraiche? What's all that about?
The best sushi? the best curry? the best chinese? the best chili? the best pasta? the best Sunday roast?
Creme fraiche? What's all that about?
May 25th, 2007, 11:09 AM
#16
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever the number or definitions, I think must would agree Italy has an unusually rich artistic legacy.
no doubt but dozens of other countries could fit that bill as well. Art is everywhere - from the cave walls in Dordogne to graffiti all over Europe today.
It seems Italy's unusually long art history seems to have ended with the Renaissance - name one famous Italian artist that most people would recognize by name - none that i can. But i can many other countries so the long history is a longtime ago perhaps.
no doubt but dozens of other countries could fit that bill as well. Art is everywhere - from the cave walls in Dordogne to graffiti all over Europe today.
It seems Italy's unusually long art history seems to have ended with the Renaissance - name one famous Italian artist that most people would recognize by name - none that i can. But i can many other countries so the long history is a longtime ago perhaps.
May 25th, 2007, 11:44 AM
#18
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Went to the Ca' Rezzonico today.
They don't have a lot of Tintorettos but it's interesting how different in style his smaller canvases are from his more well-known large pieces in the various famous churches.
Also thought it was striking that a lot of the 16th century works seemed to show little influence of the Renaissance. Florence was close enough but Venetians were doing their own thing.
When I went to Padova, I breezed through their main museum, the Eremitani and among the older works, I came across this exhibition:
http://padovacultura.padovanet.it/ho...i_di_pado.html
Never heard of him but he obviously produced a lot of works at the same time as more well-known modernists. Still, outside of Italy or maybe even outside of Padova, people may not care.
There continued to be painters after the peak of Italian art but they just never achieved the international renown.
Perhaps the value of the art is partly determined by how much a patron is willing to fund it or how much it fetches in auction. Van Gogh sold few paintings in his life time but now they go for 8 or 9-figures. Do we have a better grasp of the intrinsic merit of his works? Or is a lot of it speculation fueled by his popularity, not just for his work but for his biography?
They don't have a lot of Tintorettos but it's interesting how different in style his smaller canvases are from his more well-known large pieces in the various famous churches.
Also thought it was striking that a lot of the 16th century works seemed to show little influence of the Renaissance. Florence was close enough but Venetians were doing their own thing.
When I went to Padova, I breezed through their main museum, the Eremitani and among the older works, I came across this exhibition:
http://padovacultura.padovanet.it/ho...i_di_pado.html
Never heard of him but he obviously produced a lot of works at the same time as more well-known modernists. Still, outside of Italy or maybe even outside of Padova, people may not care.
There continued to be painters after the peak of Italian art but they just never achieved the international renown.
Perhaps the value of the art is partly determined by how much a patron is willing to fund it or how much it fetches in auction. Van Gogh sold few paintings in his life time but now they go for 8 or 9-figures. Do we have a better grasp of the intrinsic merit of his works? Or is a lot of it speculation fueled by his popularity, not just for his work but for his biography?
May 25th, 2007, 11:52 AM
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
"no doubt but dozens of other countries could fit that bill as well. Art is everywhere - from the cave walls in Dordogne "
Oh, I doubt even a dozen that compare.
"to graffiti all over Europe today."
Oh. You're one of those. (groan) Vandals. Exterminate the brutes!
"It seems Italy's unusually long art history seems to have ended with the Renaissance - name one famous Italian artist that most people would recognize by name"
Well, let's not forget the Baroque.
Modernist painting one might cite Georgio de Chirico, for one.
" - none that i can."
Guess I'm one up on you, then. But, I'll concede they seem to be in a lull just now as far as Official Art History goes.
Oh, I doubt even a dozen that compare.
"to graffiti all over Europe today."
Oh. You're one of those. (groan) Vandals. Exterminate the brutes!
"It seems Italy's unusually long art history seems to have ended with the Renaissance - name one famous Italian artist that most people would recognize by name"
Well, let's not forget the Baroque.
Modernist painting one might cite Georgio de Chirico, for one.
" - none that i can."
Guess I'm one up on you, then. But, I'll concede they seem to be in a lull just now as far as Official Art History goes.
May 25th, 2007, 11:53 AM
#20
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
when a price value is put on art, does it change the piece of art and the more expensive it becomes does it make it artistically better in the eyes of the beholder or buyer? Good question.
does 'good art' have to have a good selling value to be 'good art'?
does 'good art' have to have a good selling value to be 'good art'?
