Цитата:
Сообщение от Meister
but interestingly, if we imagine that the artist is provided from infancy that he would not have to think what to eat tomorrow, and for how much and to whom to sell their work, he can concentrate fully on their work and find out whether we have about him? Why should he sell something that, if he already has everything?
|
Here's the first thing that came to mind - Bosch: "In 1478 Bosch had married a rich patrician Aleida van Merverme, whose family belonged to the top of the urban aristocracy.'s Marriage to a rich patrician put him above the circle of respectable burghers, to which he belonged by birth. Life Bosch nebolshom flowed into his wife's estate near 's-Hertogenbosch, where the artist, procurement and independent of the orders could give vent to his rich imagination. "" On the material well-Bosch platimyh showed high amounts of tax specified in the surviving archival documents. similar situation and a Vermeer of Delft. He was also married to a wealthy aristocrat, lived in the manor, only wrote 2-3 pictures a year and gave them a token money to his friends - the baker and printmaker. The way he had 14 children.
Toulouse-Lautrec - also yes. Here's another - Manet. "Family of Man has an annual income of 25,000 francs, which allows you to take it to the typical middle class bourgeoisie." After his father's death in 1861 Edouard Manet received a total of 40 000 francs of capital, which enabled him to hire a manager and a stable income. By the way a worker's salary then was in Paris for about 2 francs per day.
But here is found. Renoir said, according to the recollections Vollara: "Imagine a Cezanne, if he did not have the rent and he would have to wait for customers!"