Patronage

I suppose it's time we gave some serious thought to preparing in a structured way for the AS History of Art exams this year. For those of you who are still contemplating sitting the exams, or those of you who are still not sure, I think it's best if, over the next few weeks, we take a look at some of the big themes that you will need to be aware of. One of the trickiest to get your heads around is Patronage. Fortunately, the excellent Smart History site has a great resource which uses Voice Thread to present a discussion of the story of the relationship between the city of Florence and the subject of David (the biblical prophet who was responsible for defeating Goliath and the Philistine army). This story centres of the artists Donatello and Michelangelo and takes in the shifts in context and meaning relating to a variety of representations of David over many years, beginning with the Florentine republic and including the possibly the most famous of all patrons, the Medici family.

I'd like you to listen carefully to the discussion on this Voice Thread and make some notes on the key points. By the end you should have a pretty good grasp of some of the key issues related to the theme of patronage. I would then like you to research another famous work of art and think about how issues of patronage contribute to our art historical understanding of it. Please include your observations here in the form of a comment or post.

A Visual Puzzle

Language can often seem inadequate for articulating thoughts about paintings. A useful word to remember is 'syncretic', which can be used to describe a complicated aspect of an artwork. Some painters have experimented with fusing disparate ideas, themes and different visual idioms to create a challenging visual puzzle. An example of this is Poussin's 'Adoration of the Shepherds' which can be seen in the National Gallery in London. During the summer, motivated by TJ Clark's book about Poussin, 'The Sight of Death', I spent an hour or so staring at this curious painting. TJ Clark refers to the need to read paintings from the details and to follow the questions that these throw-up; in Poussin's 'Adoration' the objects and characters painted immediately give rise to problems. Why is the stable set within a crumbling ancient temple? Why are putti throwing garlands of flowers on to Christ? Why is there a canephore carrying a basket of fruit to the shepherds? The painting is difficult.

Recently a colleague of mine has pointed to Poussin's interest in drawing parallels between Dionysus and Christ. Dionysus too was the son of a god, Zeus and a mortal woman, Semele. The classical references that I have pointed to in 'Adoration' are all connected to Dionysus. However, this is only an interpretation. Validity for this can be checked by asking who Poussin made the work for, as these connections would not have made a more general public comfortable in the 17th century. A single patron may have shared Poussin's interests to test the boundaries of meanings and relationships. Even if true, or possible as an interpretation of this puzzle, finding a way to articulate how this syncretic painting remains a forceful and unified work is difficult. Not to mention the fact that why there is such a predominance of a clay colour is also an odd thing.

Syncretic is a word that could be used to describe Picasso's 'Les Demoiselles d'Avignon', which you might like to explore. Another interesting word which seems relevant to Poussin's 'Adoration' is liminal. What's happening between the two characters about to cross the shadowy threshold from the field into the stable?

V