First off, the constants of this time period should be addressed. The number one thing that remained unchanged were the themes used in the art—biblical stories. Biblical stories have been used in a wide array of art since the Roman ages, and artists continued to use them throughout the Renaissance. They can be seen in pieces like “David”, “The Annunciation”, “Gates of Paradise”, and “The Tribute Money”. These pieces, while revolutionary in so many other ways, were still a product of what humans used to put their faith in.
A fine example of this would be Fra Angelico. Known as a brother of the church, Fra Angelico was no less of an artist than a priest in the religious world (Vasari, P.169). It is borderline impossible to find a Guido piece …show more content…
A piece that was discussed in my presentation over “David” as well, Angelico painted countless reindentation’s of this iconic piece. Most of them had some sort of linear perspective, but they were also famous for the story they told. The paintings told the biblical story of the angel Gabriel is informing the Virgin Mary that she was pregnant with Jesus.
A lot of people confuse the Renaissance as a time without a religious focus; however, while the art is much more important, those same religious values rang true. The papacy was as strong as ever—especially in the Italian States, and new branches of Christianity were being founded across Europe. Not to mention that it was the papacy that had the money to pay for said art—the craft isn’t cheap, after all. Regardless, between all these things, this is a key point made when talking about how the Renaissance was not revolutionary and an understandable one at that.
Going back to the papacy comment, another key thing that didn’t change were the owners of most pieces. Art is an expensive occupation, and who had all the money back then (and even now)? The church and families like the Medici were the ones who had the money and could afford the craft. The average price tag of art pieces was more than the average citizen would see in a life time—partially because art took more time and was harder to get mediums
A fine example of this would be Fra Angelico. Known as a brother of the church, Fra Angelico was no less of an artist than a priest in the religious world (Vasari, P.169). It is borderline impossible to find a Guido piece …show more content…
A piece that was discussed in my presentation over “David” as well, Angelico painted countless reindentation’s of this iconic piece. Most of them had some sort of linear perspective, but they were also famous for the story they told. The paintings told the biblical story of the angel Gabriel is informing the Virgin Mary that she was pregnant with Jesus.
A lot of people confuse the Renaissance as a time without a religious focus; however, while the art is much more important, those same religious values rang true. The papacy was as strong as ever—especially in the Italian States, and new branches of Christianity were being founded across Europe. Not to mention that it was the papacy that had the money to pay for said art—the craft isn’t cheap, after all. Regardless, between all these things, this is a key point made when talking about how the Renaissance was not revolutionary and an understandable one at that.
Going back to the papacy comment, another key thing that didn’t change were the owners of most pieces. Art is an expensive occupation, and who had all the money back then (and even now)? The church and families like the Medici were the ones who had the money and could afford the craft. The average price tag of art pieces was more than the average citizen would see in a life time—partially because art took more time and was harder to get mediums