Downside of a free art market
A free art market, such as capitalism, affords artists with the privilege to form a relationship with their clients which in effect determines the cost of the artifacts as well as the health of the market. Greater though, a free art market allows the artists to follow their passion in the shape and form they deem pleasing to themselves. Nonetheless, a significant number of artists would have preferred to work as established patron such as the Church or Monarchy. This is because the lack of the patronage of the Church or Monarchy has an array of disadvantages. First, the guarantee of an artist’s work to have consistent income when the artist is not under an established patron is largely modest.
Secondly, some artists favor having a patron to commercialize their work of the competitive nature of the free market. This is especially the case when the artist lacks the business acumen to go it all alone in the overly competitive market. This is an aspect that relates to the fact that, since olden days, the greater market for art products has been with the top cream of society, the royalty and the Church. In this sense, not many artists may get the opportunity to come up-close with these class of high-end consumers necessitating the need for a respected acknowledged patron to do the selling of the art to for the lowly artists. The lack of a patron can make the artist in a free market to experience greater obscurity.
Finally, a free market as pertains to art has a downside in the sense that the turning of art products to commodities that are bought and bought in a free market exposes them to the danger of price fluctuation. As result the art may end up fetching far low price than its true worth. Similarly, the quality of art products in a free is highly varied as opposed to those under the commercialization of a patron who must ensure high quality for the consumers. In summary, therefore, free market does not entirely portend well for art and therefore better to work under patronage.
Question 2: Rembrandt and Caravaggio
I would not differ with the acclamation of Rembrandt as “The Painter of Light”. From an informed position, there is doubt in my mind that he deserves the prestigious title thanks to his innovative and lasting influential approach to presenting light.
It common knowledge that the human eye perceives things through a sifted view meaning that it selects particular elements onto which it focuses on. As such it casts those high interest images to light while casting those with lesser weight into shadow (Pipes 132). Such fluidity that the human eye sees was the depiction and use of light by Rembrandt. He utilized diffused light as opposed to sharp contrasts in the effort to convey an emotion or mood as probably carried by the viewer.
Rembrandt borrow much from tenebrism where he expertly uses casting shadows to dramatize emotion in his painting. However, he differs with Caravaggio by employing more subtle light with less contrast as opposed to the latter who favored striking contrast.
As evidenced by his painting “Self-Portrait, 1659-1660”, the exchange with light depicts and older man whose facial expression is of a “lived life”. The facial expression is emphasized by dark shadows above the brow, through the crease of the eye, and on the sagging cheeks. Furthermore, light and shadow converge around the old man’s pensive eyes further underscoring his maturity (Pipes 136). Rembrandt’s technique differs with Caravaggio’s in the sense that he (Rembrandt) makes sure to blur the dark-light contrast so that the portrait emerges more naturally as perceivable by the human eye. Caravaggio, on the other hand, would basically make use of finer lines to separate the portrait from the background which is not how it would appear in one’s line of vision. Thus, Rembrandt’s work is more realistic and believable.
Reference:
Pipes, Alan. Foundations of Art and Design. London: Laurence King Publishing, 2003
