I think we might better credit the PATRONS of the arts like the Medici and Borgesses for being the real motivation behind the Renaissance. It is important to remember that this era was sustained because of economics....these artists and writers did what they did for economic gain and not only because of art for art's sake. Although the movement began when some men became obsessed with the ancients it is a bit naive to think that it was sustained by anything other than money. These great, and in some cases less than great artists and writers were paid very well for their work and like all people, their main intent was to earn a living. Art patronized by the wealthy made that possible.
Quoting - The Renaissance
Beginning And Progress Of The Renaissance
R. A. Guisepi
Fourteenth To Sixteenth Century
The new birth of resurrection known as the "Renaissance" is usually
considered to have begun in Italy in the fourteenth century, though some
writers would date its origin from the reign of Frederick II, 1215-1250; and
by this Prince - the most enlightened man of his age - it was at least
anticipated. Well versed in languages and science, he was a patron of
scholars, whom he gathered about him, from all parts of the world, at his
court in Palermo.
I will agree that the sack of Constantinople and driving Islam out of Spain provided a tremendous impetus in many ways and also made the great literature of antiquity available to a re-emerging Europe, it still would not have taken such hold had there not been a good living in it as well.
So again, perhaps we should credit the patrons for providing a reason for the Renaissance to take hold and gain in popularity more than the artists who simply were out to make a buck....at the heart of what they did was the dream of making money and the better the writer/artist you were, the more you earned. Take the money provided by the wealthy Italians out of it, and I doubt that the thing would have had the chance to make the impact it did make.
just a thought here folks.
