National Art Education Association

Review
Reviewed Work(s): The Rise of the Artist in the Middle Ages and Early Renaissance by
Andrew Martindale
Review by: Ronald W. Neperud
Source: Studies in Art Education, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Autumn, 1973), pp. 70-72
Published by: National Art Education Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1320061
Accessed: 09-10-2016 18:14 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

National Art Education Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Studies in Art Education

This content downloaded from 87.83.57.218 on Sun, 09 Oct 2016 18:14:22 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

REVIEWS

Martindale, Andrew, THE RISE OF THE ARTIST IN THE MIDDLE AGES AND
EARLY RENAISSANCE, New York: McGraw Hill, 1972, 144 pp.
Originally, the content of this book appeared as a chapter in the voluminous The
Flowering of the Middle Ages, 1966, a Thames and Hudson publication. Now, in a
somewhat revised and enlarged form, Rise of the Artist traces the changing attitudes

toward art and artists during the middle ages and the early Renaissance from
approximately 1300 to 1450. A chapter is devoted to each position of the artist in town
and country, in the court, in the cloister, as architect, and finally in the Renaissance.
Using such sources as taxation rolls and ordinances, the author indicates that artists as
image-makers in the early middle ages were but one craftsman among the makers of

shoes, clothing, bread and other necessities of life. Medieval trades and crafts were
organized on a guild basis by city, the guiding ordinances of which provide some insights

into the role of the painter. Painters during the thirteenth century whether in London,
Florence, or Paris were primarily engaged in nothing more glamorous than the painting of
saddles and horse trappings or armor.
"Image-makers" were quite commonly specialized masons of whom the imagier most
nearly approached the sculptor; among these was a Claus Sluter, the sculptor of the Duke
of Burgundy. Senior masons were accorded the highest prestige as a sort of engineer in

charge of the construction of chapels and the like. The author concludes that public
recognition for a painter or image-maker was nonexistent. An interesting account is
related of the recognition accorded Giotto in Florence. In a successful attempt to get him
to stay in the city, this foremost of early Florentine painters was made City Architect in
1334. In effect, the most appropriate existing honor was bestowed rather than raising the
craft of painting to a level of honor.

The author speculates that the initial rise of the artist had little to do directly with
artistic matters. The first development in the relationship of the artist to royal circles was

to find a place for him in the household. A distinction was made between general service
to the king and service at court with membership in the royal familia of the highest honor.
The position in the household might range from usher and sergeant-at-arms to the more

common valet de chambre or personal attendant to the king. The object of retaining a
painter was to insure availability of the services of a good craftsman when needed. The
lot of the artist particularly in assignment to lesser members of the royal family was not
particularly an envied one with payments uncertain, and demands outrageous, often for
such monotonous productions as numerous pennants and banners.

The greatest achievement of the monastic artists was in the period prior to the
fourteenth century. The author confines his discussion to those artists belonging to a

religious community and bound by vows to some form of religious observance. St.
Benedict in the monastic Rule, the basis of western monasticism, defined the conditions
for admittance of craftsmen to a monastery. These forbade that they allow their skill to

be a source of temptation to pride, either to themselves or to others. The author

considers the relatively small account of information available about craftsmen in
religious communities as "the top of an iceberg," with much conjecture regarding
development of artistic activities in each monastery. Book illumination, painting, and
metal sculpture were practiced, often to supply the necessities of texts, plate and utensils,
and painted imagery decorating the monastery.

This content downloaded from 87.83.57.218 on Sun, 09 Oct 2016 18:14:22 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

BOOK REVIEWS

71

"Architects," treated separately in Chapter IV, were men of a mason's training w

rose to senior managerical positions. As early as the twelfth century architects wer
royal service in charge of building castles, churches, and military engineering. There

some interesting speculations about the degree of control the architect extende
appears that early in medieval times the architect's influence may have ended w

problems of general design and engineering, giving painters and sculptors a relatively
hand. The change toward the architect as "master-mind" becomes apparent in such l
examples as portions of Canterbury cathedral or the work of Brunelleschi in Floren

The division between the labor and the planning of architecture was apparen

mid-thirteenth century, a development which the author considers a movement tow

"intellectual respectability" which was to be followed by the other arts in the fourtee
and fifteenth centuries.

The author questions the commonly held view of the anonymous medieval artist

undergoes some fundamental change in response to humanistic Renaissance ide

emerge as an individual artist. A comparison of the works of artists between medieva

renaissance periods suggests no less an individualism for the medieval artist. Howev
there are few detailed records of the medieval artists while art and artists become the

object of intelligent interest among educated and articulate men during the Renaissance.
Apparently, there was "little evidence for an informed interest in the arts by non-artists at
all" during the middle ages. It is suggested that the entry of artists into the royal circle, if
even for other than artistic purposes, was a step towards professional recognition. It
becomes clear that it is difficult, indeed dangerous, to generalize about the rise of the
artist in the middle ages in terms of the often fragmentary and scattered accounts.

Having been initially accepted among royal circles for other than purely artistic
reasons, the artist during the Renaissance gradually gained a new respectability. This new
dignity came as a result of renewed interest in classical literature wherein the artist was
regarded more favorably than in the middle ages. The author regards the interests in
antiquities as effective in changing attitudes "because the artists had themselves narrowed

the credibility gap between the two images of themselves as city craftsmen and as
'near-gentlemen'. Moreover, this area of propaganda could only be effective because of
the compelling fascination of Classical antiquity, as polite fashion followed in the wake of
humanistic enthusiasm." The result of this interest was an increased awareness of the

individual achievements of artists of the Italian Renaissance. However, the author

concludes that "it would be misleading, therefore, to suppose that medieval artists were

essentially different creatures from those of the Renaissance.... It is still possible to

build up a picture of medieval artists as industrious, useful and, more especially, human
members of the community."

In an interesting Postscript, Martindale responds to an earlier criticism that the

original Flowering of the Middle Ages was a "glossy" work, not particularly sympathetic

or reflective of the uncertainties of the middle ages. This criticism is dispatched by

suggesting that the purpose of the medieval artists was to instruct and to please - to

create a thing of beauty. He questions the over-simplication that art is immediately

reflective of the society in which it was created.
Martindale's work may not be definitive, but his scholarship does much to establish

that "every work of art is a unique creation by an individual in a particular set of

circumstances," especially with respect to a period which has often been reduced to vague

cliches. It serves to call to our attention that perhaps too often in our haste to give
students historical overviews, art becomes reduced to a generality lacking any connection
to individuals in that slide, illustration, or stylistic definition, existing as in Malraux's

This content downloaded from 87.83.57.218 on Sun, 09 Oct 2016 18:14:22 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

STUDIES IN ART EDUCATION 15/1

72

"museum without walls." Martindale's work causes one to wonder if we haven't

sometimes fostered generalizations, such as those questioned by the author,

monochromatic survey courses. Just as changing times give us differing perspectives

which to view art, the scholarship of Martindale and others provide that knowledge i
light of which our pre-conceptions diminish while re-vitalizing our relationships to
visual arts.

Art education, as defined as a profession that is essentially concerned with

changing relationships of individuals to the creation and understanding of art,
legitimate concern for the relationship of the artist to society. And thus, investiga
such as Martindale's can provide art education with perspectives and structure by w

to further consider how societies regard and value artists and art today. This entire ar

artist-societal relationships is, in my opinion, richly deserving of art educators' atten

Reviewed by Ronald W. Neperud, Department of Art, University of Wisconsin-Mad

Madison, Wisconsin.
* * * * * * *;

Albrecht, Milton, C., Barnett, James H., and Griff, Ma

AND LITERATURE: A READER. New York: Praeger Pub

This book of readings on art in society is important for

those of us who are concerned with the "why" aspects of b

authors of the forty-six papers gathered here have not ig

the usual, more traditional concerns with: "what", "how",

Albrecht's own paper "Art as an Institution" is used

sociological study of art. The other readings are in six sec

editors and followed by a bibliography of supplementary
upon: the cultural determinants of form and style; artists,
their social position and roles; distribution and reward sys
methodology for the study of art and society; and the hist
studies of the arts. This "stocktaking" of work done in the

papers and work from previous collections by both the

known. The eclectic nature of the sociology of art is ev

seemingly diverse publications as: American Sociological R

Anthropologist; Psychiatry; Journal of Aesthetics and
action; Daedalus; Social Problems; The French Review;
Journal, and Harper's Magazine. Not only do the editor
library, they also provide a necessary synthesis. The three

that their collection will not please everyone, and for t

strengths of the collection is the extensive additional bibl
"bibliography of bibliographies."

These readings make it abundantly clear that the art (inc

culture not only expresses the available tools, materials, and

values of that culture. We are shown that art derives from the environmental,

psychological, and historical components of human existence. By isolating art from social
factors, we isolate it from life.
Reviewed by F. Graeme Chalmers, assistant professor, Graduate Programmes in Fine Arts,
Sir George Williams University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

This content downloaded from 87.83.57.218 on Sun, 09 Oct 2016 18:14:22 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms