Marketing Modernism in Fin de Siecle Europe

Christina Chaplin

As we have read, by the middle of the 1800s the ideology and influence of the Academies on artistic production and sales was giving way to a new era of the dealer-critic system.  To my understanding, the complexities of these systems of artistic exchange cause them to overlap for years, creating a tense atmosphere for both British and French artists hoping to settle into their newly associated "middle-class role" including a predictable salary.  While it is difficult for me to immediately understand the intricacies of changing taste across international bounds over many decades, one thing at least is certain.  The goal of attaining wealth was a huge driver for the emergence of dealers and critics, and for the proliferation of artists trying to market themselves independently or through these dealer-critic avenues. 

With the appearance of a new middle class status in Europe at this juncture (the artist as a learned-man counting himself a part of this group), a new buyer-of-art came to influence the art market.  Yet the middle class had very little use for the grand scale and haughty imagery of Historical painting.  So as a result it seems that we see a greater abundance of genre painting, portraits, and landscapes- all imagery to which the more average patron can relate. 

While naturally the Academies tend to shun a break from their ideologies and teachings, the break was more or less encouraged by dealers arriving on the scene.  These dealers, with their personal agendas for the accumulation of wealth, needed art that could relate to a wide audience.  But further from finding individual paintings that they thought would sell well, dealers were discovering that the practice of "investing" in an artist (monetarily and publicly) could inspire faith in their buyers to also see the benefit of buying from a particular artist.  In this scheme of things, critics emerged as artists, literary men, governmental employees, etc. to have their say about the quality of up-and-coming artists.  Though at first indifferent, critics soon came to be thoroughly entrenched in supporting their own ideas about the arts.  Critics and dealers, it seemed, could control the public's reactions to art through exposure and review, and in turn influence the kinds of art that were becoming popularly accepted. 

Seeing the fiscal advantages of, at least in a small way, controlling the taste of the buyers, the dealer-critic system continued to grow and to slowly overtake the stubborn ideologies of the Academies of both France and Britain.  The art market started to grow into a more decentralized system comprised of many different institutions and individuals all working codependently yet selfishly.  What I find most interesting at this point is the blurred boundaries and influences of each practice on the others.  Art dealers, art critics, artists, and buyers were not all necessarily differentiated in the market place.  There was constant overlap of employ, agendas, and authority.  The grand goal of the sellers was the manipulation of the buyers, and even sometimes the makers, yet one person could inform several different areas of this system at once.  This looks to be a result of the basically informal system of operation inherent in the new art market.  Artists could get their start by knowing the right person, and could in turn influence the career of friends and peers by mediating introductions and relationships.  Buyers could inform the prices of new works, but in some cases the buyers were also the original exhibitors.  Sellers could even manipulate their own reputations through dual employment as art critics and editors with the rise of journals esp. in England. 

This was the case with David Croal Thomson who became both an esteemed art dealer and an influential editor of The Art Journal.  Utilizing his importance in the publication the Art Journal, Thomson furtively promoted his own interests as a branch manager for an important gallery.  He hired New Critics who supported his/his gallery's ideas about the future progression of the art market (implied speculation meant to encourage buyers), he featured articles about artists represented by his gallery the Goupil Maison gallery, and he even went so far as to personally author an article about the prestige and influence of said gallery.  His efforts show us the distinct indistinctness of the boundaries between the market and the press.  The press can here be seen to hold a great deal of sway over the inner workings of the market, and I find that this is very prominently still the case today.  Public opinion has trumped academic sway for many decades (though this is not to say that the public opinion is not educated or informed intellectually).  Marketing and advertisement and "good press" are extremely important for the art market of contemporary artists.  With the expanding global span of the market, press and critics and the role of the dealer come together to inform the public about the endless waves of new art, and to distinguish new artists at a time when seeing them each for ourselves is impractical if not impossible.

Dalanda Jalloh

Response: 

During the period in which there was a decline of the French and British academies and a rise of the art dealer, it seems that there was a much bigger focus on the individual which spurned a new focus on the players in the art market, specifically the art dealer and the critic.

With the emergence of the middle class (bourgeoisie in France) during the 18^th and 19^th century, there was a greater number of people who had financial ability to access elegant artwork. With more buyers, a much larger market for paintings and other art forms was needed. The art dealers recognized this need for a greater market. These dealers were critical in this dealer-critic system in that they were the people who would aid in building up an artist to specific crowds of patrons. In these times, the artists not paintings had become the focus of the system. Also, there was an emergence of genre painting, and subsequently artists began to specialize more.  With artists focusing on a specific subject of art, they were now attempting to make a career of art, and use it as a means of making a living. The artists were clearly essential in providing a specific kind of art now for the buyers. Fine art was no longer inaccessible and now buyers could purchase art which depicted a certain picture. It was no longer limited to an image or structure which would exalt the elite, holiness, or the artist and his community. There were painters who would paint images of military scenes, others who focused on landscapes, or animals, and more.

The artist was essential to not only creating unique images but also allowing buyers to develop personal taste and art preferences. They enabled those individuals interested in art to find a specific genre they liked and capitalize on the many new emerging styles of art. The dealers were essential in promoting these artists and exposing the patrons to all these various styles along with recognizing what would be well received.

One of the most "intelligent and far-sighted dealers, Durand-Ruels" was one of those dealers who was able to detect the potential of a certain artist and promote the probability of that artist's success based simply on speculation. As the new era of art emerged, he was moving in sync with the new demands.  In one instance, he successfully shifted his support from Barbizon landscapists to Impressionism. They had a knack for assessing talent. The "father and son were superb judges of painting [... and] they were also superb business men who saw how to reap the ransoms as well as commissions [...]" and made a successfully living together representing many artists.

One such artist was Francois Bonvin, a French genre painter. Durand-Ruels. After art training in France, followed by his first initial sales of drawings, Bonvin gained enough popularity to progress to bigger dealers. These dealers were the only ones who cold help Bonvin, and other painters alike, "from a circle of buyers, but also upon occasion bring him the official notice" in order to maintain a living.   

The reading about the new system emerging by White and White was very interesting the way it showed the change. It is very intriguing to see how the dynamics between the artists and the dealer has only slightly modified from one of self-interest and dependence. Dealers and artists alike do not seem to have the aggressive urge to solely interact with each other based on status and the prospects of a great sale. It seems that individual preferences prevail in the new dealer-critic system interactions. I wonder though if any other regions (besides Paris and London) could have been the forefront of the art education development and art-selling arena. I'm not sure if it was in the reading and I missed it but what was the event that brought about this emergence of such a large middle class? How do you think the art market system would have been different if there was no middle class and the elite were the main supporters of fine art?

Charles Saunders

Lipei Yu

H Hunt Bradley III

Daniel Chazen

It's amazing how changes in society can affect the way art is marketed.  White and White's analysis of the institutional changes in the French art market from an Academy System to a system based on dealer and critic is very interesting in that, in hindsight, the change seems to have been inevitable because society is more powerful than a single institution, even a prestigious one like the Academy was in France.

On the one hand, it would have appeared that the Academy's power in influencing and essentially controlling art based on a painting's academic qualities would last forever.  But on the other, as early as the eighteenth century, attendance at art exhibitions already included many common people, such as "footmen and servants" (White, 79).  By the nineteenth century, social mobility increased to the point where people of lower economic backgrounds became interested in "serious art" (White, 78).  Yet, the Academy was not sensitive to the social and economic realities that required a "larger market for paintings" and the building up of an artist (White, 94).  So the art exhibitions needed to promote the artwork to new markets – promotion that became based on the dealers and critics who used to be subsidiaries of the Academy system.

The change from an academic system to a dealer-critic system, in my opinion, was not only inevitable, but also made sense and was crucial for everyone involved, especially aspiring artists.  In order to engage in promotion to a growing market, the dealers and critics had to "look at artists more than individual paintings" (White, 98).  The dealers wanted to make money from the growing market and the critics wanted to advance their reputation.  The academic focus of a painting gave way to the needs of a much broader market and less known artists, which meant more people and more money and necessarily involved a dealer-critic system.   I think Fletcher and Helmrich describe it best when they write "the rise of the dealer-critic system was the product of human action and interaction" (Fletcher & Helmreich 343).

One very interesting example of the dealer-critic system is with dealer David Croal Thomson and critic Harry Quilter in late 18^th century London.  Thomson used connections between the press and the market to promote the artists he represented, while Quilter was against that.  As a dealer, Thomson saw the press as a means of marketing the goods from France for which he had access.  However, Quilter, the critic, saw the increasing partisan criticism and the connections between the press and the market as a threat.   The art market relies on cooperation between different, yet closely related, agents to be successful.  That is why I find it very telling about the large overlap between the role of dealer and critic that Thomson was able to occupy both positions simultaneously, particularly given that each role is important to one other.  While a market based on a dealer-critic system requires both a critic and a dealer, they do seem to work hand in hand, and it is possible for one person to take on both roles.  However, if the same person is acting as a dealer and a critic for the same artist or piece of artwork, it seems that the integrity of each role would be severely compromised. 

But the question then is for the lesser-known artist who has not yet received any critical acclaim - can or should the artist's dealer also act as his or her critic?  

What do you think?

Kwame Nana-Atoo

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. Much like a patron, 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, the art-critic system was a win-win structure for all, at least for the 18^th century.

McKenzie Sullivan

Elena Cestero

Kelly Zona

Jacqueline Park

Tadd Phillips

Krystyne Wilson

Nicholas Kristov