Özet:

In 1550, Vasari’s The Lives of the Artists, the first art encyclopedia of its kind, was published. Though it began as a commission intended to show-off the emerging schools of art at the time, a reflection of the cultural powers of the Medici regime, and penned with the help of several other authors, its collaborative model was read as a series of homages to the individual masters, and Vasari was subsequently dubbed the forefather of a biographical reading of art, depending upon the artist’s identity for an understanding of their work. There are several reasons why the singular artist has been glorified and his or her assistants, partners or discourse in the making of their work dismissed: the art market relies on a hierarchy of attribution – the single signature being most valuable; it is easier to research and insert a singular author into a teleological history; and the all-too-common story of the tragic artist’s life makes for a more interesting reading of his works. While it might be useful to know a little about the artist whose work we are viewing, it is generally accepted that a biography is subjective and socially constructed. Moreover, it is constantly reconstructed. For example, how does it change the way you view Van Gogh’s work knowing he accidentally cut his ear during an epileptic fit rather than during a bought of depression?

Anahtar Kelimeler: