Early Modern Period is a historical concept regarding a period from the beginning of the Renaissance to an unevenly defined turning point of the 19th century. A temporal framework of the Modern Period is, in general, unanimously established; different division lines that close this epoch are being pointed out though. Usually they present themselves as follows: civilization - Industrial Revolution; philosophy - end of the Enlightenment; politics - the French Revolution. Each one is appropriate and all emerged at the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century, finishing the Renaissance, Mannerism, Baroque, Rococo and Classicism.

A huge amount of wonderful works of art created during four centuries of the Modern Period and their impressive stylistic and thematic variety (for what could possibly have had in common, say, baroque paintings of Brouwer and Boucher?), would indicate that it was a time of an amazingly turbulent intellectual life and important philosophical turning points. They were embedded deeply and in mass scale in minds of the humankind: previously formed by centuries of gloomy Middle Ages. However, textbooks on the history of philosophy hardly mention the Modern Period. Once in a blue moon a little bit of information is given on the Neoplatonic humanism and Machiavelli;
a little bit more is said on the classics of the Enlightenment—French Enlightenment rather than Scottish though. The one that enabled “the good savage” to design the guillotine. The Reformation, socially and politically eventful, in terms of philosophy remains an unimportant internal discussion of Christianity.

The secret of art will remain: masterpieces do not have to result from a gigantic effort of thought nor the great artists have to be great philosophers. The art is not a testimony of human knowledge; it is rather a testimony of human belief and passion. If a vision of an artist results from their belief—not faith in religious meaning, but an antithesis of knowledge—and if their emotion will reach the zenith and, of course, if they have a talent, then certainly a great work will come into existence. Even if a given work is a projection of a complete delusion, it does not cease to be a testimony of its time. As such it is more precious and more credible than any other kind of testimony.

The art of Modern Period exposes certain internal conflict of that time, understanding of which requires a previous "placement of proportions".

No matter how do we judge the Middle Ages, the period lasted for such a long time it formed the mentality of all orders, together with the creation of an orderly social structure. The participation of all people in an interrelated hierarchical system was its base; limited laws of the vassals balanced the obligations of the lords; soon the system has been religiously sanctioned. In the beginning of the Modern Period no circumstances able to change this basic rule occurred, and the religious sanction was not weakened.
Events of historic importance that initialized the Modern Period, such as the fall of Constantinople, the Age of Discovery, new philosophical trends, scientific discoveries and the like did not have any influence on how did the society work—except for their immediate participants. The scope of their influence has not been broadened in any significant way by the invention of print since this did not concern the illiterate people (that is, a huge majority of population by that time).
Greek scholars who moved from Constantinople to European universities brought the works of ancient classics with themselves. They could have had some influence on their closest university environment only, and even in a long time perspective (in the era of Internet most people still does not know what contemporary scholars are up to). The works of Antiquity were still being copied in medieval monastic scriptoria.

It means that the historic change, credited to the entire era, concerned only an extremely narrow group of people: scholars and, above all, artists. However, this narrow group created the great art and this art became the only generally known testimony of its time and it eventually formed its image.

Nevertheless, if the art of the Modern Period is a reflection of a mentality of the elite of that time—and not of a still common, medieval spirituality—it is even more astonishing that for four hundred years artists of subsequent generations and styles referred to the culture of the Antiquity. Obviously, a wonderful legacy had it left; from a historical point of view, however, it was a complete anachronism since polytheism was its cultural base and slavery the structural one.
The dazzling beauty of the ancient sculpture or the clarity of proportion of the architecture could have been an ideal or an inspiration. However, it is hard to find the reason why grown up people and outstanding artists were cheering with humanistic slogans and were stubbornly trying "to wake the spirit of the Antiquity up" (Renaissance) in order to end up covering modern buildings with dummies of Greek and Roman temples' façades (Classicism).

It is not possible to explain that paradox easily; neither with an endless hypocrisy of modern ideologies (which was total) nor with an increasing hostility to the Christianity and the papacy (as most of Modern Period's theoreticians and artists were zealous Christians). As a matter of fact, even if the Gothic style (which was predominating and burning itself out already in a natural way) created a kind of an aesthetic monoculture and restrained the imagination of artists, they could still replace it with SOMETHING NEW. Now, even if it is still possible to explain the works of Renaissance artists as an attempt of a self-reliant interpretation of the Antiquity—then the road to the Classicism is a complete regression and almost a mere, slavish transfer.
Eventually, at least a correct definition of the problem could probably be approached now. That is if the actual answer cannot be found yet. What caused—and is still causing—the fact that from the end of the Middle Ages the European art created no solid alternative to the Gothic style? Why even the postmodernist architects still stick ancient columns to their buildings?

Those who would like to dig into this matter deeper and on their own, please mind the German term for the period, translated into English as an "Early Modern".