If Leonardo da Vinci had to please stockholders instead of expressing himself, we’d have a thousand versions of the same painting instead of a collection of unique and individual paintings.
A lot of what we consider “works of art” have nevertheless been contract work though, i.e. work that has been explicitly ordered. That’s not necessarily the same as having to please shareholders, but having to please clients can be quite tricky itself.
But everyone that’s an artist wants to make money from it. And contract work back then is more akin to an artist nowadays doing commissions. The problem with pleasing shareholders is that, in all honesty, they don’t give a shit about the art. All they care about is profit. If money was the only goal of the clients, then Michelangelo (or whomever he worked for) would have never been commissioned to paint the Sistine Chapel. They would have just paid some schmuck to paint it grey or something to save on money.
Not trying to be confrontational, just trying to make my point more clear.
A lot of what we consider “works of art” have nevertheless been contract work though, i.e. work that has been explicitly ordered. That’s not necessarily the same as having to please shareholders, but having to please clients can be quite tricky itself.
But everyone that’s an artist wants to make money from it. And contract work back then is more akin to an artist nowadays doing commissions. The problem with pleasing shareholders is that, in all honesty, they don’t give a shit about the art. All they care about is profit. If money was the only goal of the clients, then Michelangelo (or whomever he worked for) would have never been commissioned to paint the Sistine Chapel. They would have just paid some schmuck to paint it grey or something to save on money.
Not trying to be confrontational, just trying to make my point more clear.
Yeah Michelangelo has some great “fuck you” art. The man hated both frescoes and his boss