Artistic "Masters?"

In my opinion the reason that artists such as Michelangelo, Da Vinci, and Caravaggio are known as “masters” is because they were highly skilled. Not only were they able to create awe-inspiring art but they influenced the art of others. I think the ability to inspire others and being really great at what they did accounts for the change in status, becoming “masters” as opposed to being contracted artisans. When you look at art from this time period there is obviously a gradual improvement in the aesthetics of art. Or maybe this is just the way it appears because of what we are given to look at and compare. But it does seem that the works were more believable, more lifelike, proportions were better, they were using light and shadow the highlight certain aspects of their work. Does it even matter how they achieved this or was the fact that they did in fact achieve it enough?

Somehow I think that there were probably many artists that should have been considered “masters” that one way or another were overlooked. I find it strange that all the so-called “masters” were white men. These are the ones you read about in art history, yet surely other races and women somewhere were creating highly skilled and awe-inspiring art that should have been and probably was inspiring others. I guess it is all just politics. When enough people tell you something is great and that one work of art is better than another maybe we just start to believe it.

I guess if being highly skilled and inspiring others makes someone a master then of course we still have masters today. I find myself being amazed and inspired quite often by various artists old and new. But I don’t need someone else to tell me something is worth my praise. That is what makes art so great; one man’s treasure is another mans trash, right?

“Art never improves, but the material of art is never quite the same.” Eliot, T. S.