Arists during 18th century England?

Question

In my story, my hero is an artist. I'm just wondering what difficulties Artists go through in life. Do they, like writers, have patrons and such during this century (1799 to be specific)?? And were artists looked down on?? I'm guessing that they didn't make a lot of money though . . .

Answer 1

At the time you speak of, there were no galaries for artists to show their creations. Nor were there substantial centers of wealth outside of the aristocracy and the churches. As a result, the artist's life was very difficult. Without a patron, you were dead.

Please understand, artists in any any age (even now) exist because of social surplus. They are purveyors of beauty, and that is a luxury. In the 18th century, only the aristocrats and churches had the money to indulge in these things. And unfortunately, these people were often very lax in paying in a timely manner for the things they purchsed. As a result, many artists were reduced to poverty because they had little recourse to compell rich partons to cough up what they owed.

Artists, as such, had no social status at that time. They were considered "craftsmen" and had no more standing than weavers, candle-makers or butchers. At this time in history, status was largely a matter of birth, not talent.

To give you some idea of how low artists were thought of at the time -- actors were not allowed to be buried in consecrated church grounds until the 19th century, because authorities believed that acting was a form of allowing spirits to possess one while working. They were considered unclean. It was a tough time all around

Answer 2

Unless they were specifically religious/church artists, yes, they were looked down upon. I don't think they were *quite* at the same level as actors and prostitutes, but they certainly weren't considered upstanding citizens.

The exception here might be either the aforementioned church artists, or a possible patron. It wasn't a terribly common practice at this time--it had died down since the Renaissance, but...well, it depends on the location, actually. In Europe, you've got the French Revolution and a new look at human rights, which was a big movement in England, where art was starting to become more respected as a form of human expression; a patron might well be possible, especially if you're looking at an artist who worked on things that were popular at the time (the major movement in England at the time, for example, was the notion of the sublime). Even having a patron, though, would certainly have been no guarantee of more money than necessary to scrape by or any kind of social standing.

Answer 3

european artists had patrons and were paid quite well until the end of the 18th century -- most of the art has been condsidered are sold as antiquities you would be hard pressed to find them in art history books. 1799 might be a past established artist with money but an up and coming artist would be poor. it is the time period of the mad genius of William Blake and and the then condsidered radical landscape artists Turner and Constable who painted contemporary common landscapes. maybe further studying them would give you more insight.

Answer 4

I bear in strategies analyzing that the final time finished armour became worn on the battlefields became in the17th century in the process the English civil conflict. i don't understand if the warriors who wore it have been knights purely that they wore finished armour notwithstanding cannons and weapons have been in use via that component and lots of squaddies did not positioned on any armour in any respect. some heavy cavalry regiments persevered to positioned on a breast plate reported as a cuirass till the 20 th century working example the French cuirassiers have been nonetheless wearing them on the commencing up of the super conflict in 1914. yet that became an prolonged way from being finished amour.