BIRTH OF THE ARTIST

Richard Sennett’s The Craftsman is a modern classic. The book unpacks the process of craftsmanship, of working with ones’ hands the satisfaction of doing it well. A subtheme of the book is the question of creative work – can anything be considered creative? Working in a factory is monotonous labour, but there are still ways to personalize the chores, to invent a personal approach to things, if only in the most minor of details. Sennett blurs the line between creative and other forms of work, showing that many people are more creative than they think. 

In the book, Sennett also outlines the development of the “artist”. The concept of the artist developed during the Renaissance, as an effect of a new understanding of the individual’s relationship with the collective. Before this period, the group’s wellbeing was more important than the individual’s. One lived and acted with the best of the collective – the family, village or region – in mind. Life was not about fulfilling one’s own destiny or expressing one’s personality, but about ensuring the continued existence of one’s community. What mattered was not if the individual prospered (or even lived), but that the community remained resilient and strong. 

When this changed and individualism became the main societal discourse, it altered the way creativity was perceived. Before the Renaissance, creativity was a skill developed by craftsmen. Painters would decorate walls and ceilings with their work, and art was primarily decorative (though albeit a form of decoration that was simultaneously used to communicate wealth). To make a room decorative was a skilled shared by many workers. 

The painted interiors still visible in many ancient homes are a reminder of this shift in how creativity was perceived. The Renaissance brought with it an increased focus on the individual, and so the skilled craftsmen were divided into two; one category that continued painting interiors for decorative purposes (as a craft) and one that now was viewed as independent and free, and whose artistic mind was considered a gift from God. This person, elevated and lauded because of his creative gifts, became known as an artist. The artist was not really part of a community or even of society. He lived in his own world and according to his own rules. And beginning in the 14th century, he painted on a canvas and not walls or wood. 

In the late 19th century, the demeanour of the artist changed, and he began dressing in opposition with bourgeoise values. If the general social code required people to dress properly, the artist was unorganized and dishevelled. If most people kept their hair short, the artist had long hair. If most people took care of their hygiene, the artist did not. This sartorial practice further enhanced the idea that the artist was an individual thinker, existing outside of the collective norm. 

This is the reason so many artists today take offence when it is suggested that their art is decorative and that it would fit nicely in someone’s living room – they don’t want to be reminded of the fat that the concept of the artist is a fairly recent cultural construct, and that before, they were considered skilled craftsmen, and their talent was used to make mansions of the rich more beautiful. 

Photos taken at The Painted Hall , Old Royal Naval College, London.