How the greatest figure of the northern Renaissance invented a new business model

Having lived a time in Germany, it seemed most cities had an Dürerstrasse somewhere. He certainly deserves that.

My first exposure to his art was a high quality pewter stein engraved (in "3D" for lack of a better term) with his art, which my grandparents purchased in Bavaria, I believe. His art is singularly striking, and I appreciate this insightful look at his craft.

Well, guys, sorry, but I was a big fan of Durer for the last decade, and, in many cases, this article stretches things.

Firstly, let's clear out one thing: Durer was from Germany. His career options were very different from the people in Italy, where there was a much higher number of possible patrons and more potential demand for art. Yes, he did study in Venice, but, generally, he couldn't beat Italians in their own game (his style was quite distinct, and not quite in the demand), so, essentially, he followed the natural career path: that of German artist.

Secondly, in Germany the path that Durer followed was pretty natural, as engravings were already quite common (cough cough - don't forget where bookprinting originated from), and there was a market. So that's what he did.

Durer was more of a freelancer. He wasn't a businessman as such, and did a lot of things for the fun of it. It is a very big stretch that he stayed away from courts completely, since his collaboration with Maximillian was very similar to a typical court artist. Yes, it is true that he carried with him engravings all the time - but it is not quite accurate to say that that was all he did. Not that many artists can engrave, to begin with - it requires a very good technique, and, with his father being a goldsmith, if I remember correctly, he had a much better training on working with hands than most artists at the time.

All the sources indicate that while Durer wasn't exactly poor, he wasn't terribly good with money either and was more similar to a typical freelancing artist of today (yet very popular) than a true entrepreneur. It is true to say that he introduced himself a lot, but it was less in the spirit of marketing than in spirit of simply getting yourself known.

I find the "penny counting" over commissioned paintings vs. engravings completely misleading in this article. Firstly, Durer tended to shame his customers this way, hardly anything else. Secondly, Durer quite wilfully "blew his time" on two big books that he found important to write without much expectation of an actual return. Thirdly, the entire Maximillian ordeal was a true loss of time and money, since, pretty much, Maximillian had a very bad credit score, so to speak - but for some reason Durer stuck to him longer than warranted by finance alone.

And, yes, besides, the works of Durer, particularly the one covering fortification, paint largely a picture of curious individual who can earn money but who doesn't seem to think that money making is means to an end rather than a true capitalist.

If anyone wants a true art capitalist, one should look at Rubens. That's a prime example. Compare and contrast, so to speak.

Alas, the article fails to mention that the business side of the Dürer enterprise was handled largely by Mrs. Dürer who travelled annually to the Frankfurt trade fair to sell the products of the five-storey Dürer workshop that still stands opposite the castle of Nürnberg to this day.

But Dürer's enterprise was relatively small compared to the Cranachs of Wittenberg who operated a veritable factory of art extending across several buildings.

"If anyone wants a true art capitalist, one should look at Rubens. That's a prime example. Compare and contrast, so to speak."

Exactly my thought when I was reading the article.

I always wondered why people admired his prints so much, I've always been more impressed with his painting. Now I know why his house was full of them!

I have to add that there's an awful lot of stereotyping and misunderstanding when it comes to artists' sources of income.

I mean, even Toulouse-Lautrec, who is normally (and, well, rightfully) portrayed as an alcoholic womaniser with complicated character, by this gauge, was a savvy businessman. He also - ironically - largely focused on litography; he was even more institutionalized and, pretty much, managed to build at least a part of his reputation as an artist on advertising. Perhaps, it can be argued that he was even more of a "businessman" type than Durer, as he had a much more modern relationship with media and affiliated industries (in his case - entertainment productions in Paris).

While my take on things is that Lautrec the Businessman is a very big stretch (I personally feel that he did an awful lot of things because they made sense, not because he had a business plan of any kind. I.e. I feel that he specifically followed Monmartre because that's where he could get laid, to put it blunt, not because he wanted to build "brand awareness" or create "media synergy" for his paintings, and I feel that he painted Monmartre because that's what he wanted to do, and not to "exploit the hot topic"), after this article I personally feel that The Economist may want to make it to illustrate the origins of modern media. Or something.