Renaissance Art

There is a prevailing argument that artists during the renaissance matured, from mere craftsman into creative intellectuals, and the process of producing art grew into a philosophical endeavor. Before these statements are explored further, perhaps the literal meaning behind these words should be investigated. What is the difference between a craftsman and a creative intellectual, art as technique and art as philosophy? Are these ideas and modes mutually exclusive? The idea of craftsman seems to imply a type of specialization in a manual craft of some kind. This involves technical knowledge, and skillful application. An artist as a craftsman needs to have all the knowledge available to him/her to succeed in their field. This includes knowledge
A young boy was sent to apprentice under a master artist and learn how to draw, paint, sculpt, etcetera. This apprenticeship would be almost like a trade school is today. The young boy goes to learn a trade, to make a living wage, and this is how one became an artist. Because it was thought of this way, creating art was not considered an intellectual craft, and it was not necessarily taught or practiced as one either. Students would learn the rules, techniques, and methods, practicing them until they were good enough to go out and earn a living as an artist. This was a long trusted way to turn out artists as laborers. However this began to change as a demand for more highly skilled artists grew, and the field became increasingly competitive. With this as the driving force, new more advanced techniques were developed, and art moved from a manual craft to an intellectual endeavor, more along the same lines we think of art today. This is not to say, art was not at all intellectual before, only that this view became generally accepted and encouraged in artists. This change in perspective propelled the way art progressed from the early to the high Renaissance
Not only did he employ the techniques mentioned above, but he was very interested in the sciences, including anatomy and engineering. He drew machines, did studies of water, and dissected bodies. He studied proportions, and seemed interested in the way things operated. This fascination led him to an incredible understanding of the internal workings of things, and of the body in particular. His paintings of the human body show a superiority to human forms represented by artists like Pollaiuolo. The difference between their depictions can be seen in comparing Pollaiuolo’s Battle of the Ten Naked Men c.1475 and da Vinci’s drawing The Vitruvian Man c. 1490. Da Vinci’s drawings and paintings of the human body are much more convincing than artists before him because he understood the internal anatomy of the human body and how that translated