»
Discussion
»
Q & A
»
Artistic License
| Q & A |
|
Artistic License |
|
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan 
|
. Did most painters sign their work before the 19th Century? If not why not? . |
||
| © Copyright 2006 John Pawlik - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Fear of retribution? That would be my thoughtful guess. Most painters were not adored, nor respected. It was idle man's work... and not even work at that. Most lived in poverty... No one respected the art, as it was. At least, that's my garner from my limited education and understanding. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. I think it may have been that before the artist was considered a craftsman whose purpose was to use his skills to note if not praise the subject, determined by who ever was paying for the paint, much like photographers today. The idea that the painter by signing his work, as artist, might or could without ridicule be noting if not praising himself is historically speaking relatively new, say beginning in the increasingly egocentric 19th century. I don’t think Rembrandt signed his work; Vermeer couldn’t have or they wouldn’t have attributed his work to Ter Borch. . |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
