What negative effects, if any, did the patronage system have on artistic integrity in Renaissance-era Europe?

by Rusted300

The patronage system obviously allowed some of our most celebrated artists to produce their work, but was that money ever a corrupting influence that essentially reduced the artist to a sponsored messenger?

"Artistic integrity" is a vague concept, but this is a question I've been wondering about for some time. Any insight would be welcome.

pipkin42

During the Renaissance the term "artist" had somewhat different meanings than it does today. During that time artists were considered closer to something we might today call an "artisan." They were skilled tradesmen who oversaw a shop of apprentices and journeymen, all of whom collaborated on major works, with the master perhaps performing the most difficult or signature aspects of a work (such as human figures), but leaving more ancillary elements (such as landscapes) to other members of the atelier. Many of the famous artists of the Renaissance yearned for greater status, but it was not until later that that became more of a reality.

Patronage ensured stability for an artist. In exchange for a steady income the patron would receive right of first refusal on works of art he produced. Integrity didn't really enter into it, as the range of appropriate subjects was more-or-less limited to religion, mythology,, and portrait anyway.