...
| Panel |
|---|
McKenzie Sullivan |
| Panel |
|---|
Elena Cestero The dealer-critic system emerged in the last half of the 19th century in response to a combination of factors including the emergence of a larger middle class, a more widespread interest in art, and increasing numbers of painters (aided by advances in painting materials). The elite patronage and academic systems of the art market declined and were replaced by the dealer-critic system. This change represented a shift in focus from the art to the artist and from single works to an artist's body of work over their career. The creation of tin paint tubes made painting accessible to amateurs and gave artists the freedom to paint anywhere. The freedom to paint outside a studio led to plein-air landscapist art and the stereotypical image of the "romanticist artist". The emergence of genre art, especially landscapes was a precursor to Impressionism. With so many artists, both amateur and professional, it was impossible for the academic/government system to control such a large volume of such varied art, and a larger market was needed for the influx. With the increasing interest in art that crossed social class lines and the dispersion of buying power, the number of dealers grew and they began to cater to and create new social markets. This is where the critics entered, and in conjunction with dealers, they influenced the varied groups of patrons. The art market in London was booming and some French artists attempted to take advantage of it. While some were successful, many were not initially due to the differences in art taste. Impressionist art was not appreciated in England until closer to the turn of the century. Some French dealers, such as Durand-Ruel, also tried to take advantage of the power of the London marketplace with varying degrees of success. Durand-Ruel was important in introducing Impressionist art to London although he later closed his London gallery. The art connection between the cities of Paris and London was "complex and tenuous" during this time. While Paris was the center for art training, the dealer-critic system started in London due to its leadership in periodical press as well the "modern commercial gallery system". Art criticism rose alongside the production of art, and critics became key agents as educators and tastemakers. The critics were as varied as the art and there were disagreements among them as to the role of critics in the system, nationalism versus cosmopolitanism, and conflict of interest and unfair influence. A prime example of the ties between the press and art was dealer and editor, David Croal Thomson. As the editor of the Art Journal and a dealer for Goupil gallery, Thomson used the journal to promote and review art that the gallery represented in what many would call a conflict of interest (although Thomson did not acknowledge this). Interestingly, Thomson seems to have been mostly favorably regarded despite his potentially unfair influence. Another critic, who had also been an artist and editor, and had different approach, was Harry Quilter. Quilter had more traditional and nationalistic views regarding art and was concerned by its increasing "commodification". He was adamant that critics should be disinterested reviewers and believed that the, "...loss of fair-minded review was a disaster for art." Quilter was not generally well regarded by artists or his peers. The art market became too large and varied for the older centralized systems to be effective, and so the dealer-critic alternative replaced them. Dealers were looking for financial profit while critics were concerned with improving their intellectual reputations, and together they formed a new art market system that met the needs of both. This system was also responsible for the introduction and later rise of Impressionist and other modern art. It seems to me that the same dealer-critic system or something similar but more complex is still very much alive today. |
| Panel |
|---|
Kelly Zona The dealer-critic system emerged as the new relationship between artists, dealers, and critics, or the art market and the press, in nineteenth century Europe. This came about due to a multitude of social, cultural, and economic factors, resulting in the decline of the Academy, and its gradual replacement with commercial galleries. The role of the artist, dealer, and critic were closely intertwined, with a certain amount of fluidity between them. The interplay between the three and their struggle to establish their relationship to one another pushed the art market to evolve into its next form and enabled it to operate on the international scale for the first time. The dealer-critic system began to emerge in nineteenth century France and England due to several factors. In England, the art market steadily increased due to advances in technology (Fletcher, 323).The middle class began to grow, adding such an increased demand for art, that for the first time, one could think of art in terms of a market and not solely individual buyers (White,78). Beginning in the 1850s, the dealer-run commercial gallery began to replace individual exhibitions and other means of selling art (Fletcher, 324). Together, these conditions made England the leading art market in the world, attracting international dealers, patrons, and artists. Meanwhile, Paris, art's academic center, began to swell with such a great influx of new art students, that the Academy was no longer a viable route for the recognition of artistic merit (White, 100). French artists began to look to the commercial galleries as a means to achieve notoriety, and moved to London, which had a much stronger market. The Franco Prussian War provided the final catalyst for and exodus of French artists to London between 1870 and 1871 (House, 45). Concurrently, the focus began to shift to the careers of individual painters instead of individual works. As speculation began to dominate the market, it became strategic for dealers to concern themselves with the careers of artists, for if a painting became popular or well known, it would be strategic to market other works by the same artist (White, 89-90). This system benefited the artist, who now considered part of the middle class, required a salary instead of sporadic income (White, 98). Thus the relationship between the artist and dealer was firmly established. At the same time, art criticism began to flourish, as it served as a guide for potential consumers (Fletcher, 324). The critic educated the new market about which artists were particularly talented. Periodicals and art journals had major impact of the marketability of artists, who were to a large extent dependent on the press to cast them in a favorable light (Fletcher, 326). Thus the relationship between the artist and dealer was linked to the critic and the press. The intricacies of the dealer-critic system are well illustrated through the career of Harry Quilter, an art critic 1890s England. Quilter exemplifies the fluidity between roles- he was actually both a critic and an artist, which perhaps helps to explain certain biases he held. Quilter had a strong judgmental basis for aesthetics, based on "valuing art for its sincerity, evidence of work, and moral purpose" (Fletcher, 336). Quilter sided himself with the British landscape tradition and vehemently attacked foreign art, particularly that of the Impressionists (Fletcher, 336). Though at the time, as artists and dealers sought to differentiate their works from on another, and new aesthetic criteria placed a high value on originality and cosmopolitanism. Quilter, however, did not accept these new criteria as legitimate and continued to defend the British tradition. He grew concerned abut the commodification of the art market, particularly advertising (Fletcher, 337). He began to write about what he perceived as the paradox of the art market- a growing audience is becoming interested in art, though workmanship is declining to the point where most art is fraudulent. He blamed the influence of advertising and the link between the dealers and the press, a link which he felt was highly susceptible to corruption (Fletcher, 338). He felt that critics were in a dangerous position, and could be easily influenced by the opinion of those who finance their periodicals. He also criticized New Journalism, which he believed to favor "good copy" over real critical value, and concluded that it was impossible for the everyday reader to know the difference (Fletcher, 339-340). Quilter also noted the possible conflict of interest concerning the new speculative market, which now focused on artists careers instead of individual works, anticipating that criticism was likely to be skewed to promote an artist even after his work declined. Quilter, who had exposed the potential corruptions of the dealer-critic system and established his position supposedly outside of it, established himself as a critic with integrity, unsuceptable to the pressures of the system. Yet, he used his position to condemn popular foreign movements. Quilter had correctly revealed the potential abuses of the dealer-critic system, yet took part in those abuses to advance his own opinion. Quilter's biography reveals the intricate connections in the dealer-critic system and the new implications that this system had for the art market. Bibliography: Harrison C. White and Cynthia A. White, Canvases and Careers : Institutional Change in the French Painting World Petra Ten-Doesschate Chu, "The Lu(c)re of London: French Artists and Art Dealers in the British Capital, 1859-1914", in Monet's London : Artists Reflections on the Thames, 1859-1914 (St. Petersberg and Uitgeverij: Museum of Fine Arts, St. Petersberg and Snoeck, 2005), 39-54. Pamela M. Fletcher and Anne Helmreich, "The Periodical and the Art Market: Investigating the Dealer-Critic System in Victorian England", Victorian Periodicals Reviews, 41:4, Winter 2008, 323-346. |
...