Emergence of Art Market in Eighteenth Century Britain

Christina Chaplin

Dalanda Jalloh

Charles Saunders

One of the most important aspects in incentivizing the production of creative work is ensuring that the artist receives full compensation for the fruits of his labor. In short, there is no reason to spend time, money and effort in producing something that is valued to society (be it an invention, a work of art, or a brand name) if the producer can't be assured of just compensation. Copyright laws solve this problem by prohibiting something from reaching public domain until the creator is allowed to profit from his achievement for a specified period of time. It appears that this was a large issue in 18th century Britain. According to the account on the experiences of William Hogarth, piracy was rampant, with etchings, engravings, and prints being so cheap that mass reproduction of an artist's original work was cheap and profitable. Printsellers had a virtual monopoly on the art market, with no other channels existing that connected the artist and the consumer. Printsellers then were able to mass produce reproductions of the original work at no greater benefit to the artist. Other pirates exacerbated the problem, with cheaper knock-off prints flooding the market and hurting the profit margins of artists.

Hogarth experienced considerable personal loss from these factors, leading him to become one of the most vocal proponents for the installation of copyright laws for works of art. Because he worked in a wide variety of mediums and appealed to both the high and low audiences (his works ranged from royal portraits to paintings of condemned prisoners), Hogarth had access to a potentially giant market but experienced very little proportional financial remuneration due to the rampant piracy and printseller's monopolies. He first tried to mitigate this loss through openly advertised subscription services for Midnight Modern Conversation, an etching depicting a drinking house that was popular to its subject matter and the timing of the concurrent unpopular Excise Bill. The subscriptions did not eliminate instances of piracy, but represented an important first step in connecting the producer, Hogarth, directly to his target audience and eliminating the printseller middlemen completely. In this way Hogarth could capture all profit from the primary market and subscription purchases without having a substantial portion of his margins subtracted by the printsellers. Piracy was not lessened, however, and there appeared an infinite variety of copied etchings on everything "from snuffboxes to fan mounts."

Eventually Hogarth, fed up with the rampant piracy from his work Harlot's Progress, led the crusade for the Engraver's Act, nicknamed the "Hogarth Act," to appear before Parliament. This act sought to protect the artist's copyright for a period of fourteen years, guarding against the evils of copying, the evils of the printseller intermediary, and the artist's right to his property. An additional goal was to increase the quality of art in 18th century Britain, as the greater ensured return on produced art was hoped to create a stronger incentive for prospective artists to enter the market, and thus raise the overall quality of British art. This effect would have positive social benefit, as the public would have a greater variety of high-quality art to choose from, it would have positive economic benefit, as a greater supply of artists would increase competition among them, leading to higher quality art as artists competed against each other, and prices would ultimately fall. It would also have positive political benefit, as increased quality of art in Britain would increase the British cultural capital relative to other influential nations on the European continent. Needless to say, the act soon passed, with the final variation extending a copyright to fourteen years and charging a fine per instance of a copied product that was discovered. This act had lasting repercussions throughout the art market and helped legitimize art as a product that carried inherent economic value and was the private property of its creator.

Lipei Yu

H Hunt Bradley III

Daniel Chazen

The readings for today showed me an artist, William Hogarth, who was not willing to sit back and allow his work, especially engravings, to be pirated.  Almost 300 years ago, he realized something that I think is still true for many consumers – namely that "a copy is as good as the original" (Paulson, 36).  However, with the reproduction of artwork by printing and engraving having come into existence by the eighteenth century, it was going to present a problem for Hogarth in terms of making money from his work as England only had a law dealing with the copying of books, but not for artwork.  He realized that his method of "engraving-etching" could not limit the amount of impressions (Paulson, 6).

After he had completed his well-known paintings based on the 1728 play The Beggar's Opera, he went on to create some of his most important works, including Harlot's Progress, A Midnight Modern Conversation, and A Rake's Progress (Simon 2007).  But piracies of all kinds started to appear as early as 11 days after he completed A Midnight Modern Conversation.   If that was not bad enough, pirated copies of some of his other works were available before they were published (Simon, 2007).  Copies of his work were selling for a fraction of the original's price (Paulson, 36).  (There is also a possibility that one of the well-known paintings from the Beggar's Opera was not his as described by Simon).

He obviously was not happy about the piracy and even delayed the original publication of A Rake's Progress until a law could be passed to protect his work.  So in 1733, he created a subscription on terms and petitioned Parliament – which came to be known as the Engraver's Act, also known as Hogarth's Act.  He understood that he had the right to legal ownership and financial profit in his work, but he needed legal protection.  And given, for example, the piracy of his work, I understand why he was motivated to pursue the Act, especially given that "he made most of his money through the sale of engravings rather than original paintings" (Simon, 2007).

Interestingly, Hogarth never engraved The Beggar's Opera, by which which he probably could have made a lot of money given the popularity of the play.  Maybe he was concerned about offending people with the satire of the Italian Opera, or maybe he was afraid of piracy.  I can't figure it out.  Anyone have thoughts on this?    

What I found also very interesting is how Hogarth went about getting his Act passed.  He kind of campaigned like a modern day politician and basically brought about a discussion of fakes and forgeries and their affect on the art market.  He created a pamphlet describing the issue as the "oppressed artist against the monopolistic printsellers" (Paulson, 38).  He also said that the only way the arts could be improved in England is if artists got their just profits with "good" engravings, not "shabby copies" (Paulson 38).  He basically used the oppressed artist (which I'm not sure he was) and the issue of quality to get his Act passed; and it worked as the petition passed in 1734.   His Act is what likely laid the foundation for modern copyright laws that protect artists and their work from piracy.  Without copyright protection, it would be very hard for any artist to make a living or for the value of their work to be maintained.  I would even say that Hogarth's work in getting the Engraver's Act passed is more important today than it was in the eighteenth century.  Modern day machines are better at duplicating original and licensed print reproductions of artwork – sometimes to the point that forgeries are difficult to detect by even the experts.

Kwame Nana-Atoo

June Shin

The Engravers' Copyright Act is often referred to as the Hogarth's Act for William Hogarth's active involvement in its campaign. With the Progress of a Rake, he had first devised the subscription system to "...prevent the Publick being imposed upon by base Copies, before he can reap the reasonable Advantage of his own Performance..." However, the print sellers' exploitation of Hogarth's works continued, and their selling their copies at low prices damaged his sale of the originals, which, along with the low quality of these copies, led him to become the promoter of the enactment of Hogarth's Act. It was fundamentally an extension of the regulations of the Literary Act of 1709 to prints. It granted the copyright period of 14 years at first (Later, it was increased to 28 years at Hogarth's widow's appeal). I think that the petition to the Parliament was especially powerful because he brought up the matter of the overall quality of England's art as a whole. It argued that protecting the rights of the artists would lead them to produce more innovative works of higher quality and benefit not only them but also the buyers as well as print sellers. Hogarth deliberately postponed the publication of his long-awaited Rake's Progress print series to benefit from the Act, which took some time to be in effect. Once in effect, the Act reduced the number of instances of piracy, although it did not eliminate it. Hogarth had available smaller copies at a cheaper price for those who could not afford the original and allowed copies of his prints but only once authorized by him.

What I found interesting is Hogarth's definition of property being inclusive of the artist's control of the meaning of his work. He feared that the print sellers' evil doings were making it impossible for him to control the context, and thus the meaning, of his art. This notion seems to have faded over time. The works of modern and contemporary artists are deliberately ambiguous in meaning (even form). Controlling the meaning of their work does not concern these artists, as many celebrate ambiguity and flexibility of meaning as their works' essence. Thus, today's and the 18^th century's definitions of property seem to be different.

Hogarth also brought about a discussion about fake and forgeries, as he denounced the forgers as well as the forgeries they produced as inferior to his own authentic work. The problem of authenticity in art is still present today. Modern and contemporary artists often appropriate objects or even other artists' works into theirs as their own. A notable example is Andy Warhol, who took the image of Campbell's soup can to use in his art. Most people would agree, however, that Warhol's works are his. But how much appropriation is too much appropriation? Consider Sherrie Levine, who is known for her reproductions of other artists' works of art. In one of her shows, she re-photographed Walker Evans' Depression Era photographs, re-named them, and claimed them as her own. Although Levine's intention in appropriating other people's works is one deeper than that of the forgers of Hogarth's works, both raise the question of artistic originality, authenticity and authorship. Thankfully for many artists and appalling for others, art copyright laws exist today to protect artists' copyright. 

Sherrie Levine, Untitled (After Walker Evans), 1980.

McKenzie Sullivan

Elena Cestero

Kelly Zona

Jacqueline Park

Tadd Phillips

Krystyne Wilson

Nicholas Kristov