What Makes a Masterpiece?

Summary

This script delves into the concept of 'masterpiece,' tracing its origin from a guild-recognized demonstration of skill to a modern term implying exceptional quality and universal acclaim. It explores the evolution of the term, the role of art history in shaping the 'canon,' and the subjective nature of what constitutes a masterpiece. The discussion also touches on the relativity of masterpieces, the influence of cultural tastes, and the importance of evaluating art based on contemporary standards and values.

Takeaways

• 🎨 The term 'masterpiece' originally referred to a work demonstrating mastery in a craft, allowing artisans to take on apprentices.
• 🌟 In the 1500s, the definition evolved to require extraordinary quality, particularly in the Italian Renaissance.
• 🏛 The term has been used in various fields, including architecture, and was often associated with divine creation in Christian cultures.
• 👨‍🎨 Giorgio Vasari's 'Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors and Architects' significantly influenced the concept of a masterpiece, though his biases and errors have been critiqued.
• 📚 The idea of a 'canon' in art history has been criticized for being exclusionary and biased, favoring those with power to publish and influence.
• 🤔 The concept of a masterpiece is paradoxical, representing both the best of a genre and standing out for its uniqueness.
• 👀 The perception of a masterpiece is subjective and can change over time, with tastes and cultural contexts shifting.
• 🌐 The term 'masterpiece' implies universality, suggesting that it should be recognized as exceptional by anyone, regardless of background.
• 🔍 The distinction between popularity and true quality in art is complex, with both critical and popular attention playing a role in the recognition of a masterpiece.
• 🕰 The longevity of a masterpiece's recognition is unpredictable, with some works fading from glory or gaining new appreciation over time.
• 🏛️ Museums and organizations play a crucial role in preserving and advocating for works considered masterpieces, protecting them against the fickleness of human nature.

Q & A

What does the term 'masterpiece' originally imply in the context of craftsmanship?

The term 'masterpiece' originally implied a work created to demonstrate mastery of a craft, allowing artisans to prove their competence to a guild and take on apprentices.

When did the concept of a masterpiece start to include the idea of extraordinary quality?

The concept of a masterpiece started to include the idea of extraordinary quality during the Italian Renaissance in the 1500s when guilds placed more emphasis on virtuosity.

How did the term 'masterpiece' evolve to represent the pinnacle of an artist's career?

The term 'masterpiece' evolved to represent the pinnacle of an artist's career when it came to mean the top moment or the best work an artist ever made, as indicated by the Latin term 'magnum opus' which entered English usage in the late 1700s.

Who is considered the founder of art history and how did he influence the perception of art?

Giorgio Vasari is often considered the founder of art history. His book 'The Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors and Architects' was influential in creating a blueprint for how art and artists would be discussed, by distinguishing the better from the good and the best from the better.

What is the concept of a 'canon' in art history and how has it been critiqued?

A 'canon' in art history refers to a list of artists, artworks, and movements that experts deem worthy of preservation in history. It has been heavily critiqued for being biased, exclusionary, and created by those with the power to publish and distribute, thus influencing what is considered important.

How does the idea of a masterpiece relate to the concept of universality in art?

The idea of a masterpiece assumes universality, suggesting that it transcends geographic and cultural boundaries and should be recognized as being of superb quality by any human being, regardless of personal taste or background.

What is the paradoxical nature of masterpieces as described by social psychologists?

The paradoxical nature of masterpieces is that while they represent the best of a genre or an oeuvre, they are celebrated for their uniqueness and exceptionality relative to everything else.

How does the concept of a masterpiece relate to the idea of timelessness and changing tastes?

A masterpiece is associated with timelessness, but tastes change over time, and works that were once celebrated may fade from glory or be reinterpreted by future generations, potentially changing their status as a masterpiece.

What role do museums and organizations play in preserving the status of a masterpiece?

Museums and organizations play a critical role in preserving the status of a masterpiece by sanctifying the work, acting as its advocate, and ensuring its safety, thus protecting it against the fickleness of human nature and cultural shifts.

How does the concept of mastery evolve in the context of contemporary art?

In contemporary art, mastery is not just about technical skill but also includes conceptual skill, the ability to engage with current ideas and systems, restraint, and the flexibility to work between media, as well as collaborative, process-based, and ephemeral approaches.

What are some of the factors to consider when evaluating the work of contemporary artists?

When evaluating contemporary art, one should consider factors such as innovation, the ability to push boundaries, adherence to or deviation from tradition, the importance of novelty, and whether the work unsettles, challenges, comforts, or reaffirms.

Outlines

00:00

🖌️ The Essence and Evolution of Masterpieces

This paragraph delves into the concept of a 'masterpiece,' exploring its historical roots and evolving meaning. Originally, a masterpiece was a 'chef-d’oeuvre' created by artisans to demonstrate their mastery and gain the right to take on apprentices. The term emerged in 13th Century France and later evolved during the Italian Renaissance to signify extraordinary quality. In England, 'masterpiece' was reserved for painting and sculpture, while in Christian cultures, it became associated with divine creation. The paragraph also discusses the term 'magnum opus,' the idea of a masterpiece as the pinnacle of one's career, and the role of art history, particularly Giorgio Vasari's influential book, in shaping the canon of masterpieces. It raises questions about the subjectivity of what constitutes a masterpiece and the biases inherent in the canon.

05:01

🌟 The Paradox of Masterpieces and Universality

The second paragraph examines the paradoxical nature of masterpieces, which are both representative of the best within a genre and celebrated for their uniqueness. It questions the universality of a masterpiece, suggesting that while it is considered to transcend cultural boundaries, our perception of what constitutes a masterpiece is influenced by our training and cultural context. The paragraph also discusses how the concept of a masterpiece has been used to validate art, implying a consensus on its quality. It touches on the fickleness of human nature and how tastes change over time, leading to the rise and fall of masterpieces. The discussion includes the role of museums and organizations in preserving and advocating for these works, as well as the unpredictable nature of what becomes a masterpiece and how long it remains one.

10:06

🎨 Redefining Mastery in Art

In this paragraph, the focus shifts to the modern understanding of mastery in art. It challenges the traditional notion of a 'master' as someone with control or domination, suggesting that mastery today involves more than technical skill. The paragraph highlights the importance of conceptual skills, restraint, and the ability to work between media. It acknowledges the collaborative, process-based, and ephemeral nature of contemporary art and questions the standards we use to evaluate art. The discussion invites reflection on what we value in art, whether it's innovation, tradition, novelty, or the ability to challenge or comfort. The paragraph concludes by emphasizing the significance of the word 'masterpiece' in shaping our cultural heritage and the importance of considering the implications of labeling a work as such.

Keywords

💡Masterpiece

A 'masterpiece' is a term used to describe a work of exceptional skill and quality, often widely acclaimed. In the video, it is discussed in the context of its historical evolution, from a demonstration of mastery by artisans to a work of extraordinary quality in various fields. The script explores the relativity of what makes a masterpiece and questions the criteria used to designate one.

💡Guilds

Guilds were organizations of craftsmen in medieval Europe that regulated the trade and set standards for quality. In the script, they are mentioned as the original judges of a 'masterpiece', where members would create a 'chef d'oeuvre' to demonstrate their competence and gain the right to take on apprentices.

💡Virtuosity

Virtuosity refers to exceptional skill or talent in a particular field. The script mentions that during the Italian Renaissance, guilds began to emphasize virtuosity, requiring a 'masterpiece' to exhibit not just quality but extraordinary quality.

💡Magnum Opus

Latin for 'great work', 'magnum opus' is used to describe the greatest work of an artist's career. The script explains that this term entered English usage in the late 1700s and reflects the idea of a personal best rather than an objective standard of excellence.

💡Canon

A 'canon' in art history refers to a collection of works or artists that are considered most important or representative of a period or style. The script discusses how the idea of a canon can be limiting, as it often excludes certain artists and is influenced by those with the power to publish and distribute art.

💡Giorgio Vasari

Giorgio Vasari is considered the founder of art history. His book 'The Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects' was influential in shaping the narrative of art history. The script points out that Vasari's work, while informative, was not without bias and error.

💡Mastery

Mastery is the state of having complete control or command over a subject or activity. The script discusses the evolution of the concept of mastery from demonstrating skill in a specific craft to a broader understanding that includes conceptual and restraint skills in art.

💡Uniqueness

Uniqueness refers to the quality of being the only one of its kind. The script describes how a 'masterpiece' is celebrated for its uniqueness, setting itself apart from standard products or works within the same genre.

💡Universality

Universality implies that something is applicable or understandable to all people. The script discusses the assumed universality of a 'masterpiece', suggesting that it should be recognized as being of superb quality by anyone, regardless of their background.

💡Influence

Influence refers to the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something. The script questions how long a work's influence needs to be sustained to be considered a masterpiece and what happens when that influence fades.

💡Cultural Heritage

Cultural heritage encompasses the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, and artifacts recognized by a group of people as part of their collective identity. The script mentions the role of museums and organizations in preserving cultural heritage, including masterpieces, as a way to protect against the fickleness of human nature.

Highlights

The term 'masterpiece' originally referred to a work demonstrating mastery, allowing artisans to take on apprentices in guilds.

In the 1500s, the term evolved to imply extraordinary quality, particularly during the Italian Renaissance.

The concept of a 'masterpiece' became intertwined with the divine in some Christian cultures, with artists honoring God through depictions of human beauty.

The term 'magnum opus' emerged in the 1700s to denote the pinnacle of an artist's career.

Art historian Giorgio Vasari's influential book helped establish a 'canon' of artists and works, shaping how art is discussed.

Vasari's work, while influential, contained errors and biases, reflecting the Italian art world of his time.

The idea of a 'canon' in art has been critiqued for being exclusionary and biased, favoring those with power.

Masterpieces are paradoxically celebrated for their uniqueness while representing the best of a genre.

The Mona Lisa exemplifies a basic portrait that defies expectations and possesses a certain mystery or magic.

The concept of a 'masterpiece' assumes universality, transcending cultural boundaries and being recognized by all as superb.

Masterpieces can fade from glory or change in perception as tastes evolve over time.

The distinction between popularity and true quality is crucial in determining the status of a masterpiece.

Masterpieces may be conceived with ambition or fall into public favor posthumously, demonstrating unpredictability.

The cycle of acceptance and rejection of a masterpiece is influenced by human nature and the speed of communication.

Museums and organizations play a critical role in sanctifying and preserving works considered masterpieces.

UNESCO's work extends to 'Proclamation of Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage,' advocating for less visible cultural expressions.

The term 'masterpiece' serves as a helpful construct in navigating large museums and understanding cultural heritage.

The concept of mastery in art has evolved beyond technical skill to include conceptual and collaborative approaches.

Evaluating art today requires considering what standards we apply and what values we wish to elevate in the present and future.

Transcripts

When the word “masterpiece” is used to describe something, there are a few assumptions

I make about whatever it is, whether it’s painting, sculpture, photography, architecture,

performance, opera, dance, literature, film, a video game, a meal, or what have you.

Like, I’m probably going to think it demonstrates some serious skill on the part of whomever

made it, that it’s exceptional in some way, and that it’s widely acclaimed.

But what do we really mean when we call something a masterpiece?

Who gets to decide what becomes one?

Who makes them?

And is it still a constructive label to dole out when we talk about art?

What Makes a Masterpiece?

In its original use, a masterpiece was a thing you made to demonstrate mastery.

Starting in late 13th Century France, artisans in a variety of fields would create a “chef

d’oeuvre,” or a work that proved their competence in the eyes of a guild and allowed

them to take on apprentices.

Like a silk weaver, usually early in his career (this was only for men), created a weaving

that showed he could do all the things a master silk weaver should be able to do.

It didn’t need to be amazing, though.

That idea seemed to come along at some point in the 1500s in Europe, during the Italian

Renaissance, when guilds started placing more emphasis on virtuosity.

A masterpiece now needed to show not just quality, but extraordinary quality.

The term was often applied to architecture, but it served a number of fields.

In England, guilds referred to some works as “proof-pieces”, and reserved “masterpiece”

mostly for painting and sculpture.

In some Christian cultures, the concept of a masterpiece became entwined with the divine.

Like if God’s masterpiece was the creation of man, by depicting humans as the beautiful

phenomena they are, artists have, in their way, served and honored God.

But “masterpiece” also evolved to mean the top moment of one’s career, or the best

thing you ever made.

“Magnum opus,” Latin for “great work”, entered English usage in the late 1700s, and

meant this exactly.

A thing you made might not be a masterpiece when you compare it to, let’s say Rembrant’s

The Night Watch, but it might be your masterpiece (when compared to all the other stuff you’ve

made).

It’s when we think about the relativity of masterpieces, though, that the topic gets

interesting.

Because who decides this stuff?

Well, at first it was the guilds that made the call about what work was good enough.

But then we really have the field of art history to blame.

The person often considered art history’s founder was Giorgio Vasari, who wrote the

1550 book The Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors and Architects, which

as you might guess is a compilation of biographies of the Italian artists and architects whom

Vasari considered the most important.

Vasari’s intention was, in a translation of his words: “to distinguish the better

from the good, and the best from the better.”

And that book was hugely influential, creating a blueprint for how art and artists would

be talked about for some time.

Vasari was an artist and writer steeped in the Italian art world of the time, employed

by the powerful Medici family, who did his research, and happily we have him to learn

from and trust.

Right?

Yes and no.

Vasari made errors and loved to embellish stories.

He described the years between Ancient Greece and Rome and his day, the Italian Renaissance,

as The Dark Ages when very little happened of note artistically, which we know just isn’t

true.

He also had favorites among the artists, as anybody would, that colored his view.

Vasari’s book formed what’s been called a “canon” of artists of his time.

That is, a best-of or greatest-hits list of the artists and artworks and movements that

have been vetted by experts and, according to those experts, deserve to be preserved

in history.

The idea of a “canon” in art history or in literature or in many fields has been heavily

critiqued, and for good reason.

Canons leave people out, they’re biased, they’re created by those with the power

to publish and distribute and influence.

The word “canon” comes from Latin and means “standard” or “measuring rod.”

The Ancient Greek sculptor Polykleitos made a figure of a spear-bearer considered so perfectly

proportioned that it earned the alternate title “canon,” because it was standard

against which all other sculptures were to be compared.

A lot of artists tried to live up to Polykleitos’s legacy, including the Italian Renaissance

artists that Vasari venerated.

And then a lot of artists tried to live up to the legacies of those artists, and so on

and so forth.

Which brings up a peculiar aspect of the masterpiece.

It represents the best of a given something, but it also has to set itself apart in some

way.

Some social psychologists recently observed that:

“Masterpieces represent what standard products are not: unique and exceptional relative to

everything else.

Their nature is paradoxical: standing for the best of a genre or an oeuvre, they are

celebrated for their uniqueness.”

So if you take, for example, the Mona Lisa, you have a work that is a pretty basic portrait

of a woman for the time.

Yes, it was made by the very gifted Leonardo da Vinci, but objectively it conforms to expectations

within its own category.

If you look at the painting that conservators say was made side by side with the original,

by one of Leonardo’s main assistants, there does seem to be something about the “real”

Mona Lisa that defies expectation.

That deviates enough from the norm to be innovative, special.

That has a kind of mystery or magic that the copies do not?

Or does it?

How much is what we’ve been trained to recognize as “masterpiece,” and how much is our

objective assessment?

Which brings us to another feature of the “masterpiece”: its assumed universality.

Baked into the idea is that it doesn’t matter who’s looking at it, the masterpiece transcends

geographic and cultural boundaries, and should be recognizable as being of superb quality

by pretty much any human being.

Calling something a masterpiece is a way of validating it.

Saying that it’s not a matter of opinion.

It’s good, case closed, we can all accept this and move on.

r And that’s part of what we love about art,

right?

It brings us together, allows us to like something as a group of people who may disagree about

a lot of other things.

Just as people from around the world, of different religions and belief systems, can get together

to admire, say, Liverpool Football Club, an artwork that we can mutually accept as a “masterpiece”

is something in this fractured world that we can share.

But tastes change!

A masterpiece has an air of timelessness about it, but there are indeed works that have been

celebrated in their day but then fade from glory.

A crucifix at a French Cathedral was singled out as a masterpiece in 1595, but today no

longer even exists.

Rosa Bonheur’s 1853 painting The Horse Fair drew enormous praise and was heralded as a

masterpiece, but it, ah… doesn’t really do anything for me.

As tastes change, can something that was a masterpiece cease to be one?

Likewise, can a work that might have once been viewed as rudimentary or primitive, become

a masterpiece from the perspective of it’s onlookers from the future?

How do we begin to differentiate popularity from true quality?

To be a masterpiece, it seems an artwork needs to receive both popular as well as critical

attention.

But how long do each or either of those need to be sustained?

It needs to be written about and agreed upon for a long time, but what about when its influence

fades, when people stop recognizing it or writing about it.

Or when artists stop making work inspired by it.

It’s worth thinking about how a work of art becomes a masterpiece.

Is it so from the moment of its creation, when the final daub of paint is applied to

just the right location?

Or is it dependent on its reception, an honor bestowed when other people, or the right people,

recognize its greatness?

Some of the works generally understood as masterpieces were indeed conceived to be such.

Ambitious in scale and content and technique, pushing a medium or genre in new directions.

But other times it’s not something the artist sets out to do.

It’s just a painting of your bedroom, not dissimilar from a lot of other paintings you’ve

made, that falls into the right hands after you die, that takes hold in the public imagination.

To a large extent, what becomes a masterpiece is unpredictable, and so is how long a masterpiece

remains one.

If you spend any time on youtube, you know people are contrary!

These days, as soon as anything is proposed to be a masterpiece, there are naysayers.

It’s in our nature.

The cycle of acceptance and rejection may happen faster today, but the impulse to question

old norms and propose new ones has been around for a long time.

The moniker of “masterpiece” may help protect against our fickle human nature.

We cannot be relied upon to consistently care for our cultural heritage, and museums and

organizations play a critical role by sanctifying a work, acting as its advocate, and keeping

it safe.

UNESCO does this important work too, not just for monumental world heritage sites, but also

for their exquisitely named “Proclamation of Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible

Heritage.”

Less visible works of cultural expression like folklore and rituals and language need

attention and advocacy, too.

The idea of a “masterpiece” may be a construct, but it can be a helpful one.

When you walk into an enormous museum, it’s really useful to be told what to see.

You don’t have time to be an expert in every field, so looking to those with credentials

and experience makes a lot of sense.

Especially if you walk into a gallery self-conscious about what you know or don’t know, it’s

a relief to have someone distinguish for you “the better from the good, and the best

from the better,” to quote our old friend Vasari.

But where does that self-consciousness come from?

Like, maybe it stems from the belief that there are objective factors that determine

whether something is good or not.

Or that there are standards and rules for art that are possible to know.

While that was arguably once the case, when guilds and academies created and enforced

the rules, over the course of the last century those rules have been largely thrown out.

Today, art historians and museums have a say in whose work is collected and displayed,

and so does the art market.

But what works now enter the pantheon of greatness really can’t be determined by any set of

rules.

That’s what infuriates some people about art today, but it’s also what makes it exciting

and fun!

A masterpiece was originally meant to demonstrate skill and competence on the part of its maker.

Its root word, “master,” is a gendered term, historically describing a man who has

people working for him, including sometimes slaves.

In its current usage, “master” as a noun or adjective or verb, still involves an exhibition

of control or domination.

You can earn a Master of Arts or Sciences or Quantitative Finance.

You can “master” a given technology.

But what does mastery really mean for the artists of today?

It’s not just about the way you handle a given medium or hew to a set of rules.

There are other skills that bring great works into being.

There’s conceptual skill, engaging with the ideas and systems currently shaping our

world.

There’s also the skill of restraint, using less as opposed to more.

There are still artists who make astounding and accomplished paintings, but more and more

artists work between media, selecting their materials and approaches depending on the

particular aims of a project.

There are also increasing numbers of artists whose work is collaborative, process-based,

and ephemeral.

We are constantly redefining what mastery means.

And when we evaluate the work we experience today, it’s worth considering what standards

we’re weighing the work against.

What do you want to value in your summation of this work?

Does it innovate, but in a language you still recognize?

Does it push you, either subtly or forcefully in a new direction?

How important to you is a given tradition?

How important is novelty?

Do you want art that unsettles you or challenges you?

Or art that comforts or reaffirms?

Perhaps you like the flexibility of art to do all of those things.

You can't define mastery without addressing those questions, or without considering who's

doing the mastering and what--or who--is being mastered.

Because when we talk about masterpieces, we're talking about what we want the future to know

about the present.

We're advocating for the voices we want to elevate and preserve.

On the one hand, it’s just a word, but on the other, it’s history making!

It’s consequences are too great to leave unconsidered.

What’s the point of beer foam?

What makes dark chocolate so bitter?

Serving Up Science—hosted by history buff, science writer and foodie Sheril Kirshenbaum—is

BACK and ready to give you science-backed answers to all of your biggest food questions.

Head on over to PBS Zest to catch new episodes of Serving Up Science!

Thanks to all of our patrons for supporting The Art Assignment, especially our grandmasters

of the arts Tyler Calvert-Thompson, Divideby Zero Collection, David Golden, and Ernest Wolfe.