Page History

June Shin

The political and social changes in France in the 19^th century brought about social mobility, and the rise of the bourgeoisie marks one of the most important characteristics of the period. Under a new government, state commissions and aristocratic patronage decreased while pubic sales through the market system thrived more than ever before. Technical developments such as lithography, paint tubes, and prepared canvases also contributed to forming the new wind in the art world. Lithography made it easy for art to be widely distributed and naturally the market was enlarged and broadened. The invention of Paint tubes and prepared canvases gave physical mobility to the artists, who were no longer confined to the walls of their studios. It also lessened the gap between professional amateur artists, causing a dramatic increase in the number of painters. The newly risen bourgeois class preferred landscapes and genre paintings over history paintings because they were looking for affordable, pleasant paintings that could be hung in their homes. Naturally, the favored size of the canvas shrunk.

The expanded market and the change in artistic taste and preference gave rise to a new system that Cynthia A. White calls the art dealer-critic system. In this new system, the dealer wanted to profit by opening up a larger market for the artists and the critic wanted to build a reputation as an intellectual whose opinions mattered. The third actor, the artist, wanted a steady flow of income. The dealers paid the artists “salaries” while artists produced the promised works in return. I would say that an art dealer was like a scout for talents. The dealers were monopolists, trying to buy as many paintings of the chosen artists as they could. Since one dealer is likely to have been in possession of most of their works, the artists must have been dependent on the dealer. But all three actors were dependent on each other. It seems that the dealer-critic system was based on faith. Artists had to trust that the dealers would promote and sell their paintings at a good price, the dealers had to have faith in the artist’s talent, style, and works to be able to promise the buyers of the paintings’ value. The buyers had to have faith in the dealer’s judgments on which paintings to invest in. Also, the new system shifted the focus from the individual paintings to the artists. Out of needs on all actors-dealers, critics, artists-the focus needed to be on the career of the artist, not on individual works of art, for once the artist’s fame was established, his works would sell. But this long-run market value of the painters was constructed by the cooperation of the critics and the dealers. It seems that, if the new system allowed the artists to break away and be independent from the traditional Academy, they were now dependent on this new system instead for the sales of their paintings.

Because now with this new system there were no ideologies or styles that were enforced and on which judgments were based, the role of the art critics became an especially important one. They were to render the new types of painting understandable and provide a basis on which artworks could be judged. However, they were not always favorable to the independent artists, as can be seen in the famous example of the Impressionists. The term Impressionism, which we use today without any negative connotation, was coined by an art critic Louis Leroy, who ridiculed the Impressionists’ new, unfamiliar painting style. John Ruskin is also known to have given biting comments to Whistler’s painting. So it doesn’t seem that the dealer and the critic necessarily and deliberately collaborated, but the dealer-critic system worked because it met the needs of all and because the preexisting system of the Academy failed.

The dealer-critic system was flexible whereas the Academy was rigid and unable to cope with the increased number of painters in the 18^th century France. The dealer-critic system came to control the communication on which the Academy depended. The new system provided for the overflowing number of artists many of whom the Academy rejected or never reached because they were outside of Paris. There were simply too many artists doing different things. The Academy demanded ideological and stylistic conformity, and there were no categories into which different types of painting could be divided and under which the artists in each field could flourish. Styles different from the “ideal” preferred by the system were suppressed, rejected, and reviled. Moreover, it is through the dealers that an artist like Francois Bonvin who had not had professional training at such institutions as the Ecole des Arts-Beaux could get opportunities to exhibit and sell his works as well as official notice and consistent state commissions. When religious genre painting, in which he specialized, fell out of favor in the government, the dealers kept Bonvin at work.

An important contribution the dealers made is that they paved way for the international flow of artworks. London was a great city for commerce and many French felt that their works had a better chance of being sold in the British art market than in the French counterpart because the British artists had already been catering to the market demand with their still lifes, genre paintings, landscapes, and portraits. Very different from France, there were numerous different groups and societies of artists in England, and the British artists had been exhibiting in groups or alone, apart from the Royal Academy’s annual exhibition, a British equivalent of the Paris Salon. It was thanks to the dealers in London that such artists as James McNeil Whistler, Fantin-Latour, and Alphonse Legros were able to sell many of their works in England. Also, an art dealer Gambart regularly showed French, Belgian, and Dutch paintings in his gallery, which became known as the “French Gallery.” Another important dealer was Durand-Ruel, a French. He organized regular exhibitions of the Impressionists’ works as well as one-man exhibitions in his gallery in Paris. In London, when the British were no more than scornful of the Impressionists’ radical style, Durand-Ruel continued to have Impressionist exhibitions, until the Impressionist paintings began to receive favorable reviews.The dealers like Gambart and Durand-Ruel not only brought the market to the artists but also made international exchange of art possible, all of which were done for their benefits as well.

Thus, it seems that the dealer-critic system was a win-win structure for all. However, I cannot help but think that the dealer was still at an advantage to the artist because if the artist had to communicate with the buyer through the dealer rather than directly with the buyer himself and the dealer had a monopoly over the artist's works, it could be possible and probable that the dealer had a control over how much he would pay the artist. So this relationship between dealer and artist doesn't seem to have completely broken away from but rather stayed very attached to the old patronage system. Do you think that this a reasonable assessment to make?

McKenzie Sullivan

With the emergence of a middle class in Europe, a new buyer-of-art came to influence the market. Although the middle class could not relate to these extravagant artworks with their grandeur imagery, it still meant that there was a large part of the population who were potential buyers of art. Thus a surge in the art market occurred with a new focus on the players, specifically on the art dealer and the critic. Dealers recognized, encouraged, and catered to the new social markets.

These dealers needed art that could relate to a wide audience and that would sell well. Dealers discovered the practice of investing and backing an artist, which would inspire faith in their buyers. The job of the critics was to work in conjunction with the dealers who accomplished the detailed task of building up of an artist in a specific circle of patrons. Dealers and critics, once subsidiaries to the Academic system, grew in numbers and independence. This growth was a response to the very success of the official system in recruitment of painters, and to the increased public interest, which had been generated by the publicity and attention given to art by the state. Seeing the advantages of controlling the taste of the buyers, the dealer-critic system, emerged and took over the stubborn ideologies of the Academies of both France and Britain. To sum up: the dealers primary purpose was to find a way to profit from the larger market that could be opened up, and the critic was interested in establishing his reputation as an influential intellectual.

The focus of the dealer-critic system was on the artists not the paintings. The new system triumphed because it could command a bigger market than the academic-governmental structure. It also dealt with an artist more in terms of his production over a career and thus provided a rational alternative to the chaos of the academic focus on paintings by themselves. A current painting as an isolated item in trade was too fugitive to focus a publicity system upon. Harrison and White’s Canvases and Careers states that “One does not buy a copy of a recognized paintings: the next best thing for inspiring the warmth of confidence in the breast of the shrewd but nervous buyer is a younger sibling of the recognizes principle directly hostile to the institutional imperatives of the dealer-critic system, and to the social and financial needs of the artist.” They point out how important it was for the dealer-critic system to focus on the artists over the paintings for the system to be successful.

In particular one enormously successful dealer was Paul Durand-Ruel. He, along with his son, was by far the most intelligent and far-sighted dealer. Durand-Ruel was committed to a middle-class way of life by the whole ethos of the Academic system, he wanted above all a predictable income, which was at the forefront of the middle-class concept of a career. Duran-Ruel was so successful in this that other dealers followed. Durand-Ruel not only brought the market to the artists but also made the international exchange of art possible. The Durand-Ruels, were superb judges of paintings and their clients developed a faith in this judgment, and faith was the key to successful career her led. 

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.

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.

Jacqueline Park

Tadd Phillips

One of the main roles of the dealer-critic system was to allow artists to rise to prominence even if they were outside the circles of the Academy. François Bonvin was such an artist. Although he attended an art school, it was not the Ecole dex Beaux-Arts, described by White and White as the “premier source of training” for artists; most of Bonvin’s classmates went on to careers in industry. Bonvin worked in an office, then for a printer. He later received some informal training from another painter, Granet. With this background, Bonvin would not have been able to succeed under the Academy system. But small dealers, such as Painel, were willing to take a chance on him. Bonvin gained some regular buyers and eventually was able to regularly exhibit his work at Salons.

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.

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. 

Nicholas Kristov