Superstar

There are several reasons why some of the artists of the Renaissance and Baroque periods became thought of as “masters” or to use the modern vernacular, “stars.” Part of it, as others pointed out, concerns the high level of artistry and innovation. There were certainly improvements made concerning perspective and the ability to render objects in a lifelike manner. But perhaps more to the point is the fact that artists were no longer, only hired guns of the Catholic Church. They were making art that was more aligned with their sensibilities and less about the sensibilities of the people or institutions that commissioned the work. There was more diversity of patrons. Where at one point it was almost entirely commissions from the church; now rich patrons were having art created for themselves. Along with the fame that these artists gained came more latitude in what was accepted in their work. Caravaggio for example was thought of as crude by some for using the gritty characters that he depicted in his paintings, but as he became more famous, the acceptance of his work grew, as did the painters who tried to copy his style. Artists were now personalities and not just artisans and because of this “celebrity”, their status increased.

Do we have “art stars” today? If we are talking about painting and sculpture I think the answer is no. Not because we no longer produce great painters or sculptors, but because painting and sculpture no longer holds the same place in society as it once did. Painting does not seem to have the same universal appeal that it did in the past. I would argue that film has replaced painting as the most universal visual art form today. Perhaps people such as Stanly Kubrick, Martin Scorsese and Orson Welles are more analogous to the stars of the Renascence than any painter living today.