5 of 28

Write now Article Tools

Page 2 of 2

he did not consider himself an artist. In his letter seeking the Duke's patronage, he describes himself as a scientist, engineer and only in the last lines does he say that he paints and draws. There is a simple explanation, painting and drawing were simply skills: he drew, for example, to explain his machines, or to better understand anatomy. They were skills which any educated man of that time would have at some level. Importantly, it also underlines the fact that the concept of the artist only came into being much later, and the concept of art for art's sake is relatively new. Certainly in Da Vinci's time what we now call art' was done for a purpose. Paintings commemorated events, celebrated victories, demonstrated wealth, glorified God, or even simply decorated walls. Braggadocio, P.R., yes . But not art for art's sake.

Interestingly the wealthy now use art' for this purpose: rather than having a painting done of family and property' the wealthy demonstrate their wealth by collecting art and putting their name to the collection. Guggenheim, Saatchi, Frick. Incidentally, this is not meant as a criticism. Better than we are able to have access to these collections, than they languish in truly private collections, it is included simply to demonstrate the connection between art and wealth.

So where does that leave the starving artist: any ideas, Damien? Do you know any, Tracey?

Learn more about this author, Rowland Jones.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

• << previous page
• 1
• 2

Add your voice

Know something about Reflections on the starving artist?
We want to hear your view. Write now!