maybe because the monarchs were quite ugly. If you're an artist you are more interested in beauty than money (and I don't mean necessarily physical appearance)
Maybe watch the video. Artists have to eat, and they relied on patronage and commissions. The church and the nobles were the only ones with the free cash and the motivation to fund artists and their creations for much of the Christian age in Europe, regardless of their looks.
But also: something changed in the 16th century: do you contend that the monarchs suddenly got uglier to the point that artists didn't want to paint them anymore?
> do you contend that the monarchs suddenly got uglier
If you focus on the Habsburgs then arguably yes, it did got very bad in that regard. They still managed to find willing painters (even if they possible had to pay them a bit more to soften some of the most visible flaws).
> do you contend that the monarchs suddenly got uglier
Yes, because for centuries they were having children with their relatives.
If you studied basic biology you would know that by doing that the gene pool become too small and many physical problems arise (and appearance is only one of them).
Incest, according to many sources, was the cause of collapse of the Egyptian empire. The latest pharaoh had all sort of problems (and mental problem was one of then too)
Other contributory factors include the rise of the mercantile middle class, and a push back against religions and royalty as they typically controlled the wealth and kept people in servitude in various ways.
Something not mentioned was this period was also the little ice age [1], when Maunder[2] and Dalton[3] first started observing the sun, noticing a decline in sunspots over the usual 11 year solar cycle[4], a year without summer[5] due to a volcanic explosion that threw so much ash into the atmosphere, it partially obscured the sun, causing crops and wild plants to die back around the world causing massive famines and death in some parts of the less developed world.
The extent of the artic ice reach was so great inuits could walk across the ice and then kayak across the north sea to Scotland[6]. Cod stocks require 7 DegC waters moved south in the North Sea making fishing harder and with todays higher sea temperatures, forcing fish north, which brings to mind was this a factor for Brexit?
The rise of the Mercantile middle class was due to the traders sailing off discovering the world, bringing back exotic crops, picking up new methods to grow crops and improve yields, they helped to stave off hunger and famine when royalty and religion were failing the general population by not providing any solution.
The Catholic church was losing power, as noted with the Avignon papacy when the Catholic church was based in Avignon in France not Vatican city like today[7],
The French Revolution, again the peasants were not being looked after due to the poor conditions and so starved and hungry, they revolted killing the French King.
Thats why there were lots of snow and ice depictions, just like frost fairs on the river Thames [8], arguably one of the first offshore tax havens to exist, mainly because the river when it froze provided an area in which to trade which was unregulated by the laws of the land.
A unique trading situation caused by ice.
And so this situation was exploited like a hack to make money.
So did the monarchs get uglier?
Keeping the wealth inside the wider family and peers of similar or same stature, has always caused genetical mutations and reduced genetic variation, inbreeding if you will, but there was much more to paint than just a few wealthy individuals helped along by the printing press.
If you're an artist you are more interested in beauty than money (and I don't mean necessarily physical appearance)
This simply isn't true. Am an artist, and I care a lot about having food and a roof over my head.
And in general, artists of yesteryear were either already rich - rich enough so they had the leisure time to make art and the money to afford the supplies - or you were painting because a person with more riches than you have paid you to paint (and you probably weren't poor to begin with).
Folks weren't really painting monarchs out of love for the monarch, they did it because monarchs and other rich folks paid, sometimes handsomely. And you were paid to paint them in the best light possible while still knowing it was them: The Habsburgs had portraits that were likely much prettier than their actual likenesses - comparable to photoshop and other touch-ups today.
And just to drive this in: Painters of yesteryear often had ready-made backgrounds and bodies waiting for a head/likeness and other details. Nothing says "I care more about beauty than money" like prefab portrait blanks, I guess.
Yep. I think a better comparison in our modern world would be the film studio. Painting was something you were taught in a rigid controlled environment and the materials and knowledge how to use them wasn't something you had the freedom to just easily use on a whim however you like. You were taught an entire language and way of thinking by your master, most likely from a young age.
Our modern reality makes it truly hard to imagine how these people thought because we are so used to photographs and images being cheaply reproducible and widely available on screens. A painting used to be something that was located somewhere and you had to travel to get to see it. If you owned a painting, you had this unique privilege of being able to show it to people in your own context. Works of art were incredibly powerful status objects, capable of sending the right messages about your pedigree, about your wealth and power.
What you describe with the prefabs I think gradually came along later, as painting became a more common trade and even the middle-classes started being able to afford to have them made as objects of status.
> And in general, artists of yesteryear were either already rich
Very much a false statement, I can make a never ending list of artists that were born, lived and died as poor man. Van Gogh is one of them (just to make an example)
> or you were painting because a person with more riches than you have paid you to paint
there were plenty of painters that didn't focus on doing portrait of rich people or, for that matter, they weren't painting humans at all.
I don't understand your point, probably you never actually enjoyed art or entered a museum to make this empty arguments.
Or maybe, more likely, you're like many HN commentators that like to write a long empty message for the sake of arguing because you like doing that rather than understanding the comment.
unless you've data that demonstrate what you just said, is simply not true. Just because you have a few anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything.
This actually reminds me on what I've read about a period in French monarchy (I'm a bit foggy on the specifics of the time and place and people involved) where the French aristocracy developed a fascination with the "simple life" and would play dress-up to recreate the perceived "ease" of the life of the peasantry (because they were of course entirely detached from the burden carried by their subjects). This wasn't fueled by some sort of Calvinist attempt to appear humble but rather the belief that those peasants were all having a lot more fun so by trying to dress like them and play pretend you could have fun like they do.
jwhite|2 years ago
But also: something changed in the 16th century: do you contend that the monarchs suddenly got uglier to the point that artists didn't want to paint them anymore?
gfedtbyby|2 years ago
If you focus on the Habsburgs then arguably yes, it did got very bad in that regard. They still managed to find willing painters (even if they possible had to pay them a bit more to soften some of the most visible flaws).
ausudhz|2 years ago
Yes, because for centuries they were having children with their relatives.
If you studied basic biology you would know that by doing that the gene pool become too small and many physical problems arise (and appearance is only one of them).
Incest, according to many sources, was the cause of collapse of the Egyptian empire. The latest pharaoh had all sort of problems (and mental problem was one of then too)
darkclouds|2 years ago
The youtube video opens with the fact the Bruegel in the opening scene was the first reproducible print.
The reproducible print is mentioned again at 76seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC-cyrIq-qI&t=76s
Other contributory factors include the rise of the mercantile middle class, and a push back against religions and royalty as they typically controlled the wealth and kept people in servitude in various ways.
Something not mentioned was this period was also the little ice age [1], when Maunder[2] and Dalton[3] first started observing the sun, noticing a decline in sunspots over the usual 11 year solar cycle[4], a year without summer[5] due to a volcanic explosion that threw so much ash into the atmosphere, it partially obscured the sun, causing crops and wild plants to die back around the world causing massive famines and death in some parts of the less developed world.
The extent of the artic ice reach was so great inuits could walk across the ice and then kayak across the north sea to Scotland[6]. Cod stocks require 7 DegC waters moved south in the North Sea making fishing harder and with todays higher sea temperatures, forcing fish north, which brings to mind was this a factor for Brexit?
The rise of the Mercantile middle class was due to the traders sailing off discovering the world, bringing back exotic crops, picking up new methods to grow crops and improve yields, they helped to stave off hunger and famine when royalty and religion were failing the general population by not providing any solution.
The Catholic church was losing power, as noted with the Avignon papacy when the Catholic church was based in Avignon in France not Vatican city like today[7], The French Revolution, again the peasants were not being looked after due to the poor conditions and so starved and hungry, they revolted killing the French King.
Thats why there were lots of snow and ice depictions, just like frost fairs on the river Thames [8], arguably one of the first offshore tax havens to exist, mainly because the river when it froze provided an area in which to trade which was unregulated by the laws of the land.
A unique trading situation caused by ice.
And so this situation was exploited like a hack to make money.
So did the monarchs get uglier?
Keeping the wealth inside the wider family and peers of similar or same stature, has always caused genetical mutations and reduced genetic variation, inbreeding if you will, but there was much more to paint than just a few wealthy individuals helped along by the printing press.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_Minimum
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
[6] https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/brexit-news-europe-news-mys...
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avignon_Papacy
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Thames_frost_fairs
Broken_Hippo|2 years ago
This simply isn't true. Am an artist, and I care a lot about having food and a roof over my head.
And in general, artists of yesteryear were either already rich - rich enough so they had the leisure time to make art and the money to afford the supplies - or you were painting because a person with more riches than you have paid you to paint (and you probably weren't poor to begin with).
Folks weren't really painting monarchs out of love for the monarch, they did it because monarchs and other rich folks paid, sometimes handsomely. And you were paid to paint them in the best light possible while still knowing it was them: The Habsburgs had portraits that were likely much prettier than their actual likenesses - comparable to photoshop and other touch-ups today.
And just to drive this in: Painters of yesteryear often had ready-made backgrounds and bodies waiting for a head/likeness and other details. Nothing says "I care more about beauty than money" like prefab portrait blanks, I guess.
scyzoryk_xyz|2 years ago
Our modern reality makes it truly hard to imagine how these people thought because we are so used to photographs and images being cheaply reproducible and widely available on screens. A painting used to be something that was located somewhere and you had to travel to get to see it. If you owned a painting, you had this unique privilege of being able to show it to people in your own context. Works of art were incredibly powerful status objects, capable of sending the right messages about your pedigree, about your wealth and power.
What you describe with the prefabs I think gradually came along later, as painting became a more common trade and even the middle-classes started being able to afford to have them made as objects of status.
ausudhz|2 years ago
You're one, you're not "all artists"
> And in general, artists of yesteryear were either already rich
Very much a false statement, I can make a never ending list of artists that were born, lived and died as poor man. Van Gogh is one of them (just to make an example)
> or you were painting because a person with more riches than you have paid you to paint
there were plenty of painters that didn't focus on doing portrait of rich people or, for that matter, they weren't painting humans at all.
I don't understand your point, probably you never actually enjoyed art or entered a museum to make this empty arguments.
Or maybe, more likely, you're like many HN commentators that like to write a long empty message for the sake of arguing because you like doing that rather than understanding the comment.
unless you've data that demonstrate what you just said, is simply not true. Just because you have a few anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything.
hnbad|2 years ago
tekla|2 years ago