was yet another important parameter.Although the exact price varied depending on size, medium and subject-matter (drawing), paintings cost ten times up the price of prints in mid-sixteenth century.25 Prints were thus easily transferred between individuals, through different time periods and across geographical borders. It is also these characteristics that allow prints to engage in a dialogue with the viewers, introducing them to a “practical collaboration”. According to Barthes, texts are not only consumed by readers but also produced by readers. Although the author and the reader are divided by time and geographical limitations, there is a vivid dialogue in how the text is “read”. The same applied to prints. There were several examples of “viewers” that entered in a “practical collaboration” with their prints. Jacopo Rubieri, a Renaissance notary, cut out and in some cases even painted over his prints and glued them in his juridical notes, while Ferdinand, the Archduke of Tyrole arranged his prints in a way to provide for complementary juxtaposition between the different elements of his collection.26 Although prints encouraged acollaborative engagement, such interactions were not without tension. They invited an “active” viewer–one who participated not just as an observer but as a practical collaborator and interpreter, permitted to cut, color, and copy the images. This period also marked the emergence of the possessive author. Perhaps it was precisely the evolving role of the viewer that compelled the author to redefine their own role in response. Such frictions are very interesting if we take into consideration how common it was for sixteenth century artists to copy other artists’ works. The more they respected and admired the work of another artist, the more they wished to copy their work. Apprentices working in workshops were taught the skills of painting by copying the work of others, particularly the work of Masters. Even patrons would at time order copies when they were unable to acquire the original. With regards to prints these were copies produced either by the author of the initial drawing or a third party, either authorized to do so or not.27 80 disruptive technology and materiality as vessels of authorship 25 See Bury, Michael ‘The Print in Italy 1550–1620’ at the British Museum (27 September 2001–6 January 2002) pp. 46–47. See also, Peter, Parshall, David Landau, Jean Michel Massing, Peter Fuhring, Robin de Beaumont, and Anne Lyles, ‘Notes’ inPrint Quarterly 3, no. 4, 1986, pp. 347–257. 26 Pon, Lisa, Raphael, Raphael, Dürer, and Marcantonio Raimondi: Copying and the Italian Renaissance Print, 2004.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=