- This topic has 4 voices and 8 replies.
-
Posts
-
Since Rafael (or others) had “assistants”, does this mean that Rafael did not necessarily paint something alone although it is attributed to only him?
Yes. The assistants might do the background/less important work. Think about a painter who was in high demand and how many commissions he would have going on at the same time. In the Renaissance, contracts would sometimes specify that such and such figures (or faces of people, or their hands) in a painting would have to be done by the hand of a master painter to ensure that the work done was by the desired artist.
Aside from assisting in art, what other duties did the apprentices have?I know that fondness for the bodies of young men was accepted in some earlier cultures, including the Japanese Samurai, where the mentor (or commanding officer) would select a favorite pupil whom he would take to bed. Did any of this occur in The Renaissance?
Aside from assisting in art, what other duties did the apprentices have?I know that fondness for the bodies of young men was accepted in some earlier cultures, including the Japanese Samurai, where the mentor (or commanding officer) would select a favorite pupil whom he would take to bed. Did any of this occur in The Renaissance?
Like was there some sort of pedophiliac relationship going on as well? I don't actually have any knowledge to confirm or deny that, but then again I haven't heard anything that would indicate it to be so. I should add here that Michelangelo was somewhat an exception in that he didn't always use apprentices to help him with his work (well, sometimes he did, but not always).
Like was there some sort of pedophiliac relationship going on as well? I don't actually have any knowledge to confirm or deny that, but then again I haven't heard anything that would indicate it to be so. I should add here that Michelangelo was an exception in that he didn't use apprentices to help him with his work.I don?t know if ?pedophiliac? is the appropriate word because, as someone on this forum pointed out, we need to envision this from the perspective of the indicated times, and we?re talking about an age when teenage girls would commonly be married. Nevertheless, intercourse did take place. Hey, I guess this response means I'm no longer an auxiliary... My first rise in rank!
Marrying a teenage girl and having a homosexual relationship with young boys was frowned on in the west even during the Renaissance. We are not talking about the Arab world here. Renaissance Europe was Christian and marrying a fertile teenager was not a sin because if she could bear children she was considered a woman. Yes royalty was married earlier but thpose were arranged marriages and more political than emotional. You are comparing apples and oranges here. I would say that “pedophiliac” is the right word to use. Unless you can point me to a source showing that homosexual relationships between men and boys was considered normal for artists, scholars, and the like during the Renaissance.
You have a point there, Scout. At the same time, we should recall that homosexuality or pedophiliac relationships were accepted in Roman times, which is what led me to speculate.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome
I dont deny that homosexuality was not uncommon in the Roman and Greek world but it is important to look at each time period or era within its own context and not think that because it happened somewhere else before it naturally follows that it happened also later. Cultures, just like states, change over time as well.
Right, cultures change over time. Yet, remember when we were comparing Rome to America? Homosexuality was completely rejected in the US before, and now it's becoming a norm. How does that grab you?
