How is sacred art different than art made for private patrons?  Period
of interest is during the Renaissance.  The Medici family probably
being the largest patrons of the time.

---

Clarification of Question by zen_surf_master-ga on 29 Sep 2005 19:27 PDT

I know what sacred art is...but, I need to know how is the art made
for private patrons different from sacred art(maybe made for the
church)?  There is supposed to be a difference and that's what I'm
looking for.

---

Clarification of Question by zen_surf_master-ga on 30 Sep 2005 08:05 PDT

MYOARIN- You mentioned a site but, gave no indication of it.

I don't quite understand the question.  Sacred art has a religious
content, but much of it at that time was commissioned by private
patrons.  Your mention of the Medici lets me immediately think of
Michelangelo's chapel (?) for the tomb of Lorenzo di Medici.
Since the question is not exclusively related to the Renaissance, the
sacred art of earlier "books of the hours" (prayer books) such as the
famous one of the du Barry family in France come to mind.

Maybe this site can help you.  You can click on sacred art at the left
to get a similar essay.
The primary difference is the content or theme of the art works, but I
expect that you know that already, hence my not mentioning the obvious
immediately.
The Renaissance was a time when classical art, literature and
architecture were being rediscovered and used as models:  male and
female figures from Greek and Roman mythology, but also representing
Old Testament persons as nudes:  Adam and Eve and Michelangelo's
David, for example.  Portraits of the patrons and others were made, it
being a period when selfconfidence in the importance of the individual
replaced the devote, selfdefacing attitude in the medieval period, in
which individuals were much less frequently represented.

SOmeone may contradict the above, but then you will have a better reply.
Myoarin