When we mention workshops or collaborations in bottegas, we are, in fact, reexamining the relationships established between artists who worked together during the Renaissance in Italy. Unlike what we observe in the 19th century, the Renaissance did not witness solitary artists creating artworks solely according to their own tastes or desires. As Martin Kemp states, the Renaissance was “an age that did not expect its artists to be solitary geniuses working erratically on the unique products of their individual creativity” (Kemp, 2007, p. 21). In Italy, it is notable that the commission preceded the creation of the artwork, and contracts guided and limited the relationships between patrons and artists. Therefore, all artistic production during the Renaissance was collaborative, since “the production of most great works of art and artistic complexes was to a large extent a matter of a multi-member working collective” (Wackernagel, 1981, p. 313). However, this does not mean that “credit” was given to all those involved in the creative process. Generally, the “head” artist of the workshop was the one who signed the work, even if they had not participated in its execution. This occurred because supervising, sketching, evaluating, and guiding were also considered important forms of participation, alongside practical and operational aspects. 

     Michael Baxandall addresses the commercial relationships between artists and patrons, highlighting the interactive dynamic resulting from this contact, which offered mutual benefits to the parties involved. In the 15th century, we observe a social relationship in the art world in which patrons and artists “acted according to commercial, religious, perceptual, and social institutions and conventions,” as Baxandall emphasizes (1991, p. 11). In this context, “the best painting produced in the fifteenth century was made to commission for a client who required it to be done according to his specifications” (Ibid.). According to Wackernagel, individual will was limited by collective interest, which was guided by two main factors: the contract and the guidance of the master of the workshop in question. Considering a hierarchy of wills, at the top of the pyramid were patrons, commissioners, and religious orders, while below them were, respectively, the master, apprentices, and assistants.

     The role of the master of the workshop involves managing the activities within the workshop, including bureaucratic tasks, attending to demands, directing the work, and finalizing details—all of which are responsibilities expected of him. However, when it comes to the roles of apprentices and assistants, it is important to address these two distinct positions. The apprentice is the student or pupil who resides in the master's workshop and whose goal is to study and work in order to become an artist in the future. If successful, they may eventually open and manage their own workshop. Typically, these apprentices come from wealthy families or families with the financial means to sponsor their children’s education. The duration of an apprentice's training depends on several factors, including their personal performance, the master's approval of their work, and, ultimately, a favorable evaluation from the guild regarding a previously submitted piece. According to Wackernagel, on average, the training period tends to last around twelve years (Wackernagel; Luchs, 1981, p. 330). 

     Regarding the role of assistants, it is important to note that their tasks often overlap with those of the apprentices, since in a collective work process that involves several stages, people occasionally perform duties interchangeably. “(...) the transition from pupil to assistant occurred smoothly; for even the pupil, almost from the beginning, in a certain sense already performed assistant functions simultaneously” (Ibid., p. 333). However, the distinction between the functions of apprentice and assistant lies in the purpose of these roles. As mentioned earlier, the apprentice seeks to acquire knowledge in order to become an artist, while the assistant plays a supporting role in helping the apprentice and the master achieve their goals. This includes tasks such as preparing paints, organizing and cleaning the bottega, purchasing supplies, among other responsibilities. In some aspects, the role of the assistant resembles that of a servant, as when the master traveled from one place to another, these assistants were often compelled to accompany him, as they were financially dependent on this relationship. The apprentice, on the other hand, did not always feel equally obligated, since they paid for these services and had the freedom to seek another master if their expectations were not met. 

    Leonardo had a workshop in Milan that hosted several artists, some of whom took on the traditional role of apprentices. Others entered his bottega as collaborators, coming and going according to their own individual interests and curiosity. However, as was later consolidated, the idea that Leonardo not only created an art workshop with all the aforementioned Lombard artists, but also founded and led an Art Academy in Milan, helped to promote the preconceived image of an intellectual and artistic hierarchy between Leonardo and the Lombard artists. In 2008, the scholar Jill Pederson conducted extensive research based on the traces of this supposed “Leonardo Academy” in Milan. 

      This Art Academy in Milan did not formally or bureaucratically exist; on the contrary, “the Milanese academy followed the same basic principle of dynamic exchange and entertained similar philosophical interests and activities” (Pederson, 2008, p. 451). Among the members of this fluid group, prominent names stood out, including Leonardo and Bramante. Pederson argues that there is a considerable body of evidence supporting the existence of the academy, and “although these visual and textual sources do not paint a coherent picture of the academy, they certainly indicate that Leonardo was involved in an active and highly connected intellectual circle” (Ibid.). When discussing Leonardo’s Academy in Milan, Pederson specifies that this circle, composed of notable figures of the time in the artistic, intellectual, and philosophical spheres, did not necessarily have a central figure or formal meetings among members; instead, it was a circle of debate guided by shared interests among participants (Ibid.). There is no evidence that Leonardo founded such an academy, as this circle already existed before his arrival in Milan. Pederson also suggests that the academy likely adopted Leonardo’s name as a form of identification due to his posthumous fame (Ibid.). 

      Pederson’s claim highlights two crucial points, as it prompts us to question the creation and recreation of the image of Leonardo as a central and decisive figure in Milanese culture—someone who would have guided, coordinated, and led an artistic movement. This is highly controversial when we consider the collaborative context of workshops and the visual evidence of Lombard artists producing works that do not align with Leonardo’s style, in addition to accepting independent commissions with no connection to the Florentine master. 

         Moreover, Leonardo was an individual deeply engaged in sharing knowledge and learning from the intellectuals around him. This is evidenced by his scientific side, which developed considerably in Milan, as shown by his advanced preparatory drawings and studies in various fields of knowledge. This suggests that Leonardo viewed that Milanese intellectual circle as an opportunity for learning and intellectual contribution. According to Walter Isaacson, Milan was the place where Leonardo worked the most and developed his research. Although several factors may have influenced this progress—such as a consistent patron and the guarantee of a stable income—it is believed that the rich artistic network of the Sforza court played a key role. The court attracted artists from various parts of Europe, offering a diversity that cannot be underestimated.

Sara Tatiane de Jesus

Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais

16 de maio de 2025

Part of this analysis is included in the dissertation entitled The Lombard Artists: Collaborative Dynamics in Fifteenth- and Sixteenth-Century Milan at the Sforza Court, available at:  https://repositorio.ufmg.br/bitstream/1843/79057/4/Disserta%C3%A7%C3%A3o%20Sara_Tatiane%20vers%C3%A3o%20final%20reposit%C3%B3rio.pdf.

KEMP, Martin. Leonardo da Vinci: the marvellous works of nature and man. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. 

AGOSTI, Barbara. Michelangelo. São Paulo: Ed. Abril Coleções, 2011. 

WACKERNAGEL, Martin; LUCHS, Alison. The world of the Florentine Renaissance artist: projects and patrons, workshop and art market. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981.

BAXANDALL, Michael. O olhar renascente: pintura e experiência social na Itália da Renascença. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra, 1991.

WACKERNAGEL, Martin; LUCHS, Alison. The world of the Florentine Renaissance artist: projects and patrons, workshop and art market. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981. 

HALE, John R. Dicionário do Renascimento italiano. Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar, 1988.

PEDERSON, Jill. Isola beata de Henrico Boscano: novas evidências para a Academia Leonardo da Vinci na Milão renascentista. Estudos do Renascimento, v. 22, n. 4, p. 450-475, 2008.