The annals of art impresario and art star figures operating for a wide audience dates back to the 18th century. Art traders in Britain started to be important in the time scale between 1714-1830 – unlike antiquities who acted in line with the tastes of art patrons, they were individuals who played a part in shaping tastes. At once, British and American artists, who envied the enormous entrepreneurial success of artists like Rubens and wanted to boost their status instead of being merely artisans, began to prepare themselves and create their very 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; Both opposite poles representing the artist’s attitude towards industry are summarized in what of two men who lived in the 18th century. “Art cannot be made where money appears,” wrote William Blake, the fierce but weak enemy of Sir Joshua. Samuel Johnson in one other pole is around wholesaler as Blake: “No-one, except fools, wrote anything but money.”
It is advantageous to find the truth approximately both of these poles, possibly the pole represented by Johnson rather than Blake will outweigh. The reality is, I was able to become art in places where money manifests itself. The indisputable fact that money, patronage, and trade automatically pollute the fountains of imagination is just a sophisticated fairy tale – a mythic that some utopian leftists and a few genius like Blake believed, but history clearly dictates. The works of Tiziano and Bernini, Piero della Francesca and Poussin, Reisener and Chippendale would not have existed without someone who taken care of them – and paid well. Picasso had become a millionaire in 40, but this did not have a poor impact on his artistry. On the other hand, you can find such painters whose names I will leave to your imagination that even if they are 30 millionaires, there could be no positive development in their artistry. It’s necessary to set up front of young star candidates, that are wandering around as if they’re indispensable Indian fabrics and swollen enough to exceed their ego height thanks to the art market, due to the not enough self-interest and loss in self-confidence. Generally speaking, money benefits artists more than harm. Nobody believes anymore that the grappling with the creditors who train on cold water and dry bread and depend on the door feeds the artist; Similar to the belief that beating is a great breeding method, this belief almost lost its judgment.
So now I’m not likely to repeat you a scenario that people have already been told by new conservatives and we’re already knowledgeable about: 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 truth share in this story does not rise above the fantasies that Ronald Reagan has create about the indegent who made their food scorecards in vodka and received social aid allowances. Needless to say, those two foundations spend unnecessary costs because cost efficiency is extremely hard 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, so far as I am aware, does not pay taxpayers $ 433.45 for a screwdriver or $ 1700 for a steel ladder, while the Ministry of Defense does; moreover, what we call war – a sophisticated sophist – is a fraction appreciation that appeals to the taste of an elite. So my main intention listed here is not how the money-art relationship affects the artist, but what effect it has on art audiences – inevitably a large that includes artists and other art professionals, but has expanded tremendously over the past 25 years.
The church largely left its spot to the museum as a symbolic focus of the American city. Museums are now changed into low-cost mass media. With this particular transformation, museums adopted the strategies of other mass media, partly underneath 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 these unprecedentedly broad audience, or rather, they think so.