...
| Panel |
|---|
Vincent Anthony Falkiewicz Before discussing the crucial role of the critic-dealer system in the art market it is important to note a crucial factor which caused the need for this system. The hyper-production of paintings and other art in 19th century France, "at least 200,000 reputable canvases...in each decade proceeding midcentury," created a need for some new system of critique. These numbers are even excluding women and occassional painters. With so many paintings being produced, a regulated system where art could be judged and sold was necessary. However, the critic-dealer system that derived was not all positive for the art market. As the reading provides, artists could be hindered by critics, causing a sort of reputation based system. "The demand for an individual painter's works depended on several circles of art opinion." Artists who might have sold numerous works could have been slowed or stopped completely by bad reviews of their work. People always seem to believe what they hear, and no one wants to be associated with something understood as bad or distasteful. For this reason, buyers might stray from works they like due to the reviews or reputation of the artist. Additionally, the increasing demand for art worldwide caused a need for this system. Social changes widened the market for artists, and this created a central system by which any individual of any country could judge art. Especially those who were not particularly involved in the art market, but rather interested in the social appeal of it. An example of the art critic is the 19th century British art critic John Ruskin, who is most famous for his strong support of naturalism. He helped support numerous artists throughout his life, as well as strongly critiquing the works of some. His strong connection with naturalism in art shows how the art market can at times be very biased. Many critics are not objective, and prefer certain types of works over others not because of how good they are, but because of how it appeals to them. This can cause the critic-dealer system to be slightly skewed sometimes, although it is a necessary evil in the art market. |
| Panel | ||
|---|---|---|
Erica Gilbert-Levin The rise of dealer-critic system in 19th-century Europe represented both the result and reinforcement of the shift from the European art world and its market from a hierarchical one concentrated primarily in the Academy to a decentralized configuration consisting of "isolated" artists (White & White, 82) whose work was capitalized upon by dealers, who, functioning "in conjunction with" critics, "accomplished the detailed task of building up an artist in a specific circle of patrons" (White & White, 94). Critics filled the responsibility of generating publicity and establishing the intellectual legitimacy of the artist (not to mention of the critics themselves), while dealers effected the sales, and all three players – critic, dealer, and artist – benefited financially from the arrangement.
The emphasis within the dealer-critic system revolved around the career of the artist rather than the artist's individual works. This benefited the artist, who could, consequently, be assured of secure and "predictable" income and thus a middle-class lifestyle (White & White, 98), and the dealer, who could forge a "monopoly of an artist's production" (White & White, 99). The dealer duo Durand-Ruel trail-blazed this strategy early on, brazenly buying up artists' work and making it effectively impossible for another dealer to intrude on their terrain. The strategy worked – for both Durand-Ruel, who discovered young artists, including the late-19th-century Impressionists, supported them with the aid of publicity afforded by critics, and profited from their monopoly over their discovery (see Chu). The Durand-Ruel father-son dealer duo |
...