...
| Panel |
|---|
Jacqueline Park |
| Panel |
|---|
Tadd Phillips |
| Panel |
|---|
Khrystyne Wilson Today's readings discussed the importance of the dealer, and the critic in the art market. Prior to the nineteenth century, art was marketed through an academic system, meaning that it was promoted to the higher classes through education in the academy. The enjoyment of art was something only the upper class could do because of their level of wealth, and their ability to spend more time studying art, and visiting museums and art shows. The Academic market, however, was not brought about to make money, but rather focused on the art for arts sake, and art to increase the status of the buyer and the artist. This however, changed with the change in social statuses.With the increased exposure of lower classes to art, coupled with the new emergence of a middle class, poorer citizens, and people outside of the aristocratic class began to acquire a taste for art. Due to the emerging interest in viewing, and purchasing an art piece for themselves, the lower and middle classes of the 19th century began a demand for art that required a new system of selling art. Thus brought about the existence of the dealer and the critic. The upcoming dealers and critics of this time, were innovative businessmen who seized the opportunity brought about by new interest in art, to help himself, but also to enlarge the art market. With the upcoming middle class, who propelled both by love of art, and with a desire to increase their status by obtaining luxury items, such as paintings, the dealers and critics found their skills in selling, and assessing art to be very lucrative. Thus, the art system switched from one based on leisure and luxury, to one based on making money. The dealers found themselves able to make a profit based on representing artists, either previously known, or new by acting as middle men. Dealers would pay in advance for a specific artists' work, and then turn around and sell it to other patrons. Dealers would continually pay for one artist's work, as long as it continued to sell. This shifted the emphasis of the art market from one based on a specific work of art, to one based on a specific artist, meaning instead of buying one piece of art from numerous artists, dealers promoted the idea of buying different pieces from the same artist. This idea is still present today, seen through many people desiring to purchase numerous paintings or works of art from one artist, in order to display a collection of the artist's work. Numerous dealers became quite successful by doing this. One such dealer was Joseph Duveen, who was responsible for extending the French and English art market to the US through promoting English and French artists' work to US millionaires. He did this by promoting the artists behind the work to people in the US who were ignorant of art history. He also promoted the idea of purchasing art as a way to increase one's status. Another successful dealer was Durand-Ruel, who at the time was a dealer. He was adept at predicting what new trends would be most successful, namely Impressionism, and thus was able to find new artists to promote. The role of the critic worked symbiotically with the role of the dealer, in that many dealers would often also fulfill the role of the critic. Critics would publicize in many journals and newspapers new trends and artists that one could purchase. This helped the middle and lower classes, who were ignorant to the popularity and techniques of a certain type of art, to familiarize themselves with the market before acquiring their first piece. It is interesting to note that many of the same issues of the 19th century are still present today in the US. Because of the flexible perimeters of social classes in the US, everyday people are moving up in society. In order to promote this, many people want to decorate their houses in conjunction with their new wealth, however due to their previous lowered position they do not have the knowledge of what artists and pieces will correctly convey this wealth. Thus, they look towards art magazines, critics and dealers to help secure a good purchase. I am surprised that this has not changed, however it is clear that the antiquated Academic System was not large, or versatile enough to contain the art market, and the dealer-critic system worked well to adjust to the increase in demand in art.Krystyne Wilson |
| Panel |
|---|
Nicholas Kristov With a rising middle-class and a distribution of wealth throughout France spread more evenly, the dealer-critic system was able to flourish. The previous system of a focus on French and British Academies focused on a linear rise to fame, with warranted commissioning from patrons looking to make grandiose statements. The dealer-critic system brought art collecting to the masses. Instead of ordering a custom piece which highlighted aspects of it's patron, the new system pushed art to become an appreciable commodity for which dealers, buyers and sellers could create arbitrage opportunities. The system created both a pull and a push relationship with buyers and sellers. Buyers needed a way to purchase art without having to special order extensive projects. However, with the insurgence of available artists, buyers needed to know which artists were going to be successful and which works were going to appreciate in value. On the other hand, artists could create what they wanted to essentially without much buyer control and had an avenue, through dealers, to distribute their art with compensation. The dealers essentially bridged the gap for the artist patron relationship. In the dealer-critic era, dealers would commission artists to create works for them to sell- ensuring a supply of art to the public. The critics played an interesting role in this relationship as a semi-knowledgable resource for art. The critic occupation was often not their primary job. In J.C. Sloane's work, documenting the biographies of well-known critics, he mentions that nearly half of the critics held two other occupations simultaneously (canvass and careers 95). The critics were trusted with giving knowledgeable opinions on the value and possible appreciation of art, despite not being an absolute expert. The Durand-Ruels family is a great example of how the Art Market grew stronger with the dealer-critic system. The Durand-Ruels were a father and son team who gained the trust of many buyers and sellers in terms of their ability to judge paintings. They not only provided opinions on pieces, but also created arbitrage opportunities for themselves, buying the majority of certain Barbizon productions, limiting the availability to the public, and ensuring they could create an arbitrage opportunity. Many misgivings were prevalent in the rise of the dealer-critic system. However, the dealer-critic system was used to ensure that buyers could accurately judge art, and dealers could provide art to the public at a profit. One benefit to the artist besides the influx of money from the dealers were their rise in fame due to dealers and critics promoting their work. Bonvin is a perfect example of the use of the system to gain notoriety. Born of meager resources, Bonvin studied art at certain points in his education but did not have an artists' education from a normal elite background. Instead, Bonvin studied evenings and eventually through connections had some of his work featured in the Odeon Theater. The use of dealer-critic friends and acquaintances to propel his career eventually led him to receive government commissions and industry praise.The rise in wealth not only meant that many more citizens of non- elite backgrounds could own art, but artists of non-elite education could rise in fame, as well. |
...