The real history of art impresario and art star figures operating for a broad audience dates back to the 18th century. Art traders in Britain started to be important in the period between 1714-1830 – unlike antiquities who acted according to the tastes of art patrons, these were individuals who played a function in shaping tastes. At the same time, British and American artists, who envied the enormous entrepreneurial success of artists like Rubens and wanted to increase their status instead to be merely artisans, began to organize themselves and create their own markets. The institution they used for this specific purpose was the Royal Academy, led by an Englishman (Sir Joshua Reynolds) and then an American (Benjamin West).
The roots of the art-money relationship today go back to the founding of Burlington House, which hosted the Royal Academy exhibitions; The two opposite poles representing the artist’s attitude towards the market are summarized in what of two men who lived in the 18th century. “Art can’t be made where money appears,” wrote William Blake, the fierce but weak enemy of Sir Joshua. Samuel Johnson in one other pole is as much as wholesaler as Blake: “No body, except fools, wrote anything but money.”
It is useful to find the facts somewhere within both of these poles, possibly the pole represented by Johnson as opposed to Blake will outweigh. The fact remains, I was able to become art in places where money manifests itself. The idea that money, patronage, and trade automatically pollute the fountains of imagination is a sophisticated mythic – a story book that some utopian leftists and several genius like Blake believed, but history clearly dictates. The works of Tiziano and Bernini, Piero della Francesca and Poussin, Reisener and Chippendale wouldn’t have existed without an individual who taken care of them – and paid well. Picasso had turn into a millionaire in 40, but this did not have a negative affect his artistry. On one other hand, you can find such painters whose names I will leave to your imagination that even if they are 30 millionaires, there may be no positive development in their artistry. It is necessary to set up front of young star candidates, who are wandering around as if they are indispensable Indian fabrics and swollen enough to exceed their ego height because of the art market, due to the insufficient self-interest and loss of self-confidence. Most of the time, money benefits artists significantly more than harm. No-one believes anymore that the grappling with the creditors who train on cold water and dry bread and count on the door feeds the artist; Just as the belief that beating is an excellent breeding method, this belief almost lost its judgment.
So now I am not going to repeat you a scenario that individuals have already been told by new conservatives and we are already familiar with: the story of talent that unnecessarily spoils with great funds from the National Arts Foundation and the Humanities Foundation. Anyone who meets the conditions of the American culture knows that the reality share in this story does not exceed the fantasies that Ronald Reagan has setup about the poor who made their food scorecards in vodka and received social aid allowances. Needless to say, these two foundations spend unnecessary costs because cost efficiency is difficult in regards to works of art. It can be true that a number of the products they support interest the minority taste and are liked by an elite group. However, the National Arts Foundation, as far as I understand, does not pay taxpayers $ 433.45 for a screwdriver or $ 1700 for a metal ladder, while the Ministry of Defense does; moreover, what we call war – a sophisticated sophist – is a community appreciation that interests the taste of an elite. So my main intention here’s not how a money-art relationship affects the artist, but what effect it has on art audiences – inevitably a mass that features artists and other art professionals, but has expanded tremendously over the past 25 years.
The church largely left its place to the museum as a symbolic focus of the American city. Museums are actually turned into low-cost mass media. With this particular transformation, museums adopted the strategies of other mass media, partly under the influence of transitions, partly intentionally: highlighting the magnificent show, cult of fame, masterpiece-treasure syndrome, etc. Only through these tools can museums retain the loyalty of their unprecedentedly broad audience, or rather, they think so.