While patronage is a well-known facet of Renaissance art, and out of hand

the modern researcher might only consider it in passing as the necessary

means for which many an artist found work and through which countless
masterpieces were created. What has not always been consideredthough it
has become increasingly researched over time, with various views and
opinions emergingis the exact nature of the relationship between patrons
and artists, and how patronage affected Renaissance artwork. The questions
of who or what really contributed to the mastery of a piece naturally arises,
and scholars must consider just how limiting or freeing patronage really was
for the Renaissance artist and their works.
Patronage was, as said, a necessity in Renaissance art. Patrons provided the
monetary means to producing costly works of art, and artists put to oil and
marble the imaginings of their patrons (Kent 3). Patronage came in many
waysthe Church was a common patron, contracting the construction of
chapels, churches, altarpieces and frescoes; the clergys hand can be seen in
pieces ranging from Bellinis San Giovanni Crisostomo Altarpiece (Goffen
112), to Bregno and Montelupos Monument of Benedetto Pesaro in Venice
(Goffen 64), to Michelangelos famous Sistine Chapel. Frequent patrons also
lay in the wealthy, the nobility, and royalty, with many noteworthy examples,
some which explored in greater detail later on, including Isabella dEste, the
Sforzas, Cosimo, and of course the ever-prominent de Medici. Guilds, too,
played a part in patronage; many records still exist of contacts between
artists from Bruni to Ghiberti with organizations such as the Cloth Guild
(Chambers 47) and the Money-changers Guild (Chambers 42).
No matter which form it took, patronage formed an integral part of
Renaissance artistry, serving as the main means by which art of all kinds,
from sculpture to painting to architecture, was produced. However, common
practice or no, the essential idea behind it is still suspect to debatethe
patron paid the artisan to produce what they asked for. How yielding a patron
was to suggestion, how much flexibility an artist was given, how much an
artist need or need not defer to the patronall lead to the questions of a
patrons influence in a particular work of art, and lead to questions as to the
impact of patronage as a whole on the art created during the Renaissance.
Considering patronage in a positiveor, at least, an advantageous onelight
is easy and automatic. Patrons poured money into all forms of art; music,
literature, painting, sculptureall flourished under the financial influences of
countless patrons, be they wealthy dukes, nuns (King, Medieval 375), the
consorts of rulers (King, Medieval 376), or famed Florentine bankers.
Buildings such as the church of San Lorenzo and convent of San Marco rose
under Cosimo de Medici (Kent 5), while renowned artisans such as Raphael
found commissions in the painted panel Madonna del Baldacchio (Burke 8081)now in the Pitti Palaceand for observing the building of St. Peters
Basilica (Chambers 30). Raphael himself writes of the luxurious income

provided for him by his Vatican patrons:

I find myself present with possessions in Rome worth three thousand ducats
[] because the Holiness of Our Lord has provided me with three hundred
gold ducats [] I shall not lack for as long as I live, and I am sure I shall have
more from others (qtd. in Chambers: 30).
Obviously, some artists were not lacking fiscally thanks to their patrons. And
in some cases, it was actually the patron themselves that found greater
difficulties in the patron-artist relationship than did the artist.
A series of letters between Isabella dEste and Giovanni Bellini reveal a fiveyear quest by dEste to have Bellini create her an allegorical painting to then
be hung beside that of Bellinis brother-in-law. The painting was changed
from an allegorical painting to a nativity scene as per Bellinis reluctance to
paint an allegory, and thereafter, following a suggestion of Bellinis that St.
John the Baptist would look out of place in a nativity sceneas dEste wished
the painting finally settled on a picture of John the Baptist with Mary, the
infant Christ (qtd. in Chambers: 129), and another saint. More than three
years after the subject of the painting had been settled, dEste was finally
delivered her much-changed painting, and while Bellinis pay for the
commission had been much reduced, this one example illustrates that the
patron was not always the one in charge.
Another example of this seemingly atypical dynamic can briefly be read in a
letter by Filippo Lippi to a private Florentine patron; Lippi had been paid to
decorate a family chapel, but wrote to the man in 1489, essentially
abandoning the project for three years in favor of a much more profitable
commission in Rome (Chambers 14). While it can be argued that Bellini was
able to have more flexibility with his patronage under dEste, a womanit
was difficult for a woman to sue an artist for defaulting on a commission, if a
particular woman even had the freedom to commission an artist at all (King,
Renaissance Women 79)the presence of other examples of artists having
an upper hand in the process of a patron-paid art piece demonstrates that
not every artist, at least, was subject to their patron. What is more, some
artists spoke very plainly to even the patrons they actually completed work
for; Paul McClean cites several examples of the informal address and
language used between artists and their patrons, sometimes even speaking
more familiarly with the de Medici themselves (73).
When considering a patrons overall role in helping to create the myriad of
Renaissance art, there are also more concrete, visual means to judge them
as largely a minor background influence. While the patron may occasionally
appear in the art itselfeither as a self-portrait, such as in Lippis Double
Portrait of Piero del Pugliese and Filippino Lippi (Burke 86), or cast in the role
of a saint, as seen in Piero di Cosimos Virgin and Child with Saint Nicholas,
John the Baptist, Peter, and Dominic and Adoration of the Magi, where the
Medici appear as the magi in this altarpiece by Botticelli (Burke 112)by and

large, the patrons behind the countless works of Renaissance art go largely
unknown. The artists themselves, of course, usually seal their work with a
signature, sometimes cleverly hidden within the painting itself, as seen in
Lottos Christs Farewell to His Mother (Matthew 616) and Savoldos Man
With Flute (Matthew 637), and sometimes struck boldly across the work itself
a common practice amongst sculptors and seen in works like
Michelangelos celebrated Piet (The Agony and the Ecstasy). And an artists
claim over their works did not end at their signature; whereas it is often
common and easily gained knowledge as to the artist of a particular work of
the Renaissance, Renaissance patrons are not only infrequently credited (as
one might say is understandable), but they are also often difficult to trace;
rarely is it easy to link a patron to any particular art pieces they may have
purchased (Gilbert 393).
Taking all this into considerationfrom the wealth lavished on some artists,
to the freedoms others exhibited in choosing their commissions and how
they approached them, to the artists prominent placement in their art
versus the almost non-existence acknowledgement to the patrons
benefactionof the two most obvious sides as to the question over a
patrons influence in the art of the Renaissance, this one is clear: the patrons
purchased the art. Nothing more, nothing less. The patrons may have tried to
throw their weight around, and occasionally succeed, but in the end, the
master, and only master, behind their works of art.
In contrast to the multiple arguments for the Renaissance artists freedom in
their patron-artist relationship, there are equally many arguments to support
the idea that patrons had a much heavier hand in Renaissance art, and by
reflecting on the powers a patron could wield, the question as to who the real
mind behind some of the great works of the Renaissance surfaces. As the
Renaissance patron was often more learned than the typical artist, even as
artists position in society of the time rose, led them more easily able to
dictate religious and symbolic art, and with the money and, often, power to
back up their visions, its little wonder that patrons can be seen holding much
of the power in the relationship between themselves and their artists.
As mentioned previously, the exact details of the relationship between artist
and patron varied from person to person, and indeed, from commission to
commission (McGrath 298), though concurrent with every patron was the
fact that they had some particular demand, opinion, or detail they wanted
donemeaning, from the start, the artwork would (if kept to what the patron
requested) be fully the original work of the artist. Some patronsIsabella
dEste being a noteworthy examplewere more detailed in their descriptions
of precisely what they wanted; dEste often goes on to elaborate on clothing
(Chambers 150), character and age (Chambers 147), and even, at times, into
excruciating, minute detail over each individual character and their meaning
and significance, such as seen in her letter to Perugino, discussing The Battle

of Love and Chastity (Chambers 136-137), wherein almost everything dEste

described is what Perugino painted, right down to her description of And
Pallas should seem to have almost vanquished Cupid, having broken his
golden arrow and cast his silver bow underfoot (qtd. in Chambers: 136).
Other patrons were not necessarily quite so rigorous in their attention to
detail, but that does not mean these artists still did not have their work
dictated to them. Creighton E. Gilbert quotes a contract between Stefano di
Giovanni and the friars of Saint Francesco (McGrath 298), where Giovanni
must paint those stories and figures as specified to him by the priors and
friars (397), and where Giovanni is held to and must (qtd. in Gilbert: 397)
paint the stories and figures indicated to him in the precise locations,
positions, and appearances the friars specified (McGrath 298). It is supposed
that further detailing as to how a commissioned piece should look was
sometimes discussed in person rather than written out in contract,
apparently if it was an idea more difficult to describe on paper, such as the
colors a patron wanted an artist to use (McGrath 299). Patrons would also
sometimes make small sketches for the artist, to better convey the patrons
intent, or else the artist would draw either a rough or finished drawings that
were submitted for the patrons review. DEste included a drawing in her
letter to Perugino (Chambers 137), and Ghirlandaio fashioned a
monochromatic drawing for his 1485 contract, Adoration of the Magi
(McGrath 300).
Frequently, a patron would dictate the materials to be used, orin the case
of the list of Pope Nicholas Vs plans for altering the appearance of Rome in
order to emphasize Romes permanence as the location of the papal court
(Chambers 18) and the popes legacies as the successors to Roman
emperorsa series of materials to be used as well as other, more minor
commissions; the list touches down on the expenditures allotted for
everything up until and including glass for windows in the palace, all sorts
of paintings, and buying bricks, roof tiles, gutters, painted floor bricks and
stone (qtd. in Chambers: 18-19). Indeed, listing off the materials to be used
was one of the most common forms of patronage, alongside that of dictating
the subject the artist was to paint (McGrath 298). So, even amongst the
patrons more willing to allow the artists free range, there was always at least
a small aspect of the patrons desires in the artists product; the relationship
between patron and artist was not a charitable one, nor was it even
necessarily a relationship forged for the act of creating art for the sake of the
artwork itself. It was a business relationship, and as the one with the money
to pay both the artist and for the materials the artist used, the patron,
ultimately, remained in control.
There are countless examples of patrons having a hand in the artists work,
either by helping to create it or to hinder its creation. Girolamo Terzi drew up
a multitude of designs for Lorenzo Lottos thirty-two colored Old Testament

drawings, while the Bishop of Trent rejected Dosso Dossis the Sack of Rome
fresco, citing it as expensive and diplomatically awkward (Gilbert 433).
Sometimes, it was not the patron themselves intervening, but one of their
advisors; Dale Kent reacts negatively towards the way learned advisors are
presented in the patron-artist relationship (331), but they are none the less a
frequently occurring aspect in exchanges between patron and artist. Usually,
the advisor would either dictate the wishes of the patron to the artist, or
would convey to the patron any opinions or difficulties of the artist. Through
their advisors, patrons were able to take part in a piece they were not even
around to observe the production ofthe advisors interacted with the artist,
relaying messages, while the patron went about their daily lives back home.
Even from another city or country, patrons still found a way to have some
sort of presence in the creation of the artwork they had commissioned.
And so, two debates emerge from the study of Renaissance patronage. On
the one hand, patrons would sometimes merely provide money and little
else; depending on the relationship between artist and patron, the exchange
may not have been one of uncomprehending or hostile strangers (Kent
331). Artists could be well paid, and with the luxury of income an artist might
be allowed to be more selective as to the commissions they took, and from
which patrons. In this, patrons are generally at a disadvantage, as patrons
could deduct from an artists pay, and sue if an artist defaulted, patrons
generally were left at the whims of whenever the artist chose to begin
working on and complete their commissioned piece. By all intents and
purposes, more than appearing as a more-or-less even-footed relationship,
one could say the patron might be the one most at the disadvantage.
In the end, however, patrons had moneyand while an artist might abandon
a project and patron that did not interest them either financially or
thematically, artists would still have to bow to the wishes of the more
powerful and wealthy patrons. And the Church, of course, was not a patron
many artisans could resist, much as artists like Michelangelo may have tried.
Be it for casting the subject in a positive or negative light, the two major
sides of the debate surrounding Renaissance patronage is evenly splitthe
artist had times when they could exercise freedom and follow their own
whims, and there were other times when the artist could do nothing but
default to the patron. It does seem, however, like there is more validity in the
argument of the power a patron wieldedif only because, from the very
beginning, a patron would have some part in shaping the piece. The artist
may render it, but the patron commissioned it, provided the materials;
whether or not they elucidated further their exact imaginings for their
commissioned piece, the patron was still the one determining everything
from the medium to the artist to, typically, the subject matter.
In conclusion, while most patrons have been forgotten in the annals of
history, one can not help but look on any piece from that time period and

consider the influence the patron might have had over that piece, how they
determined it to be a commissioned work of marble or oil painting or
decorations on a ceiling, how that patron chose that particular artist and the
artist produced the result modern viewers see today. Whether one believes
the patrons to be a hindrance or a help, whether one believes artists to have
had a good, productive relationship with their patron or one ever-dominated
by the patrons whims, that question, that wonder, remains, and a modern
researcher can not study the relationship of artist and patroncan not learn
of the debates surrounding this still-emerging field of study, can not be
presented with the tantalizing idea of how much the Renaissance patron did
or did not influence the great works we see todayand not be made to
consider, when presented with works from that time, just where the mastery
of the art of the time lieswhat is the artist? What is the patron?

Works Cited
The Agony and the Ecstasy. Dr. Carol Reed. Perf. Charlton Heston, Rex
Harrison, and Diane
Cilento. 20th Century Fox, 1965.
Burke, Jill. Changing Patrons: Social Identity and the Visual Arts in
Renaissance Florence.
Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2004.
Chambers, D.S., ed. Patrons and Artists in the Italian Renaissance. Columbia:
University of
South Carolina Press, 1971.
Gilbert, Creighton E. What Did the Renaissance Patron Buy? Renaissance
Quarterly 51.2
(1998): 392-450.
Goffen, Rona. Piety and Patronage in Renaissance Venice: Bellini, Titian, and
the Franciscans.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986.
Kent, Dale. Cosimo de Medici and the Florentine Renaissance: the Patrons
Oeuvre. New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2000.
King, Catherine E. Medieval and Renaissance Matrons, Italian-Style.
Zeitschrift fr
Kunstgeschichte 55.3 (1992): 372-393.
---. Renaissance Women Patrons. Manchester: Manchester-St. Martins, 1998.
Matthew, Louisa C. The Painters Presence: Signatures in Venetian
Renaissance Pictures. The
Art Bulletin 80.4 (1998): 616-648.
McGrath, Thomas. Color and the Exchange of Ideas Between Patron and
Artist in Renaissance

Italy. The Art Bulletin 82.2 (2000): 298-308.

McLean, Paul D. A Frame Analysis of Favor Seeking in the Renaissance:
Agency, Networks,
and Political Culture. The American Journal of Sociology 104.1 (1998): 51-91.