The annals of art impresario and art star figures operating for a wide audience goes back to the 18th century. Art traders in Britain started initially to be important in the time between 1714-1830 – unlike antiquities who acted in line with the tastes of art patrons, they certainly were those who played a role in shaping tastes. At the same time frame, 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 reason 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 marketplace are summarized in what of two men who lived in the 18th century. “Art can’t be made where money shows up,” wrote William Blake, the fierce but weak enemy of Sir Joshua. Samuel Johnson in another pole is as much as wholesaler as Blake: “No body, except fools, wrote anything but money.”
It pays to to find the truth somewhere between both of these poles, possibly the pole represented by Johnson rather than Blake will outweigh. The fact remains, I could 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 story book – a story book 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 a person who paid for them – and paid well. Picasso had turn into a millionaire in 40, but this did not have a negative impact on his artistry. On another hand, there are such painters whose names I’ll leave to your imagination that even if they’re 30 millionaires, there might be no positive development in their artistry. It’s necessary to set up front of young star candidates, who’re wandering around as if they’re indispensable Indian fabrics and swollen enough to exceed their ego height as a result of the art market, due to the insufficient self-interest and lack of self-confidence. Broadly 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 entranceway feeds the artist; Similar to the belief that beating is an excellent breeding method, this belief almost lost its judgment.
So now I am not planning to repeat you a situation that we have already been told by new conservatives and we’re already familiar with: the story of talent that unnecessarily spoils with great funds from the National Arts Foundation and the Humanities Foundation. Anybody who meets the conditions of the American culture knows that the reality share in this story does not go beyond the fantasies that Ronald Reagan has setup about poor people who made their food scorecards in vodka and received social aid allowances. Needless to say, both of these foundations spend unnecessary costs because cost efficiency is difficult as it pertains to works of art. It can also 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, in terms of I understand, doesn’t pay taxpayers $ 433.45 for a screwdriver or $ 1700 for a metal ladder, as 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 here is not the way the money-art relationship affects the artist, but what effect it has on art audiences – inevitably a large which includes artists and other art professionals, but has expanded tremendously in the last 25 years.
The church largely left its destination for a the museum as a symbolic focus of the American city. Museums are now turned into low-cost mass media. With this specific 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 the unprecedentedly broad audience, or rather, they think so.