Gokce & Goksu
The annals of art impresario and art star figures operating for an extensive audience dates back to the 18th century. Art traders in Britain started initially 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 increase their status instead to be merely artisans, began to arrange 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; The two opposite poles representing the artist’s attitude towards the market are summarized in the words of two men who lived in the 18th century. “Art can not be made where money turns up,” wrote William Blake, the fierce but weak enemy of Sir Joshua. Samuel Johnson in another pole is as much as wholesaler as Blake: “Nobody, except fools, wrote anything but money.”
It pays to to look for the truth somewhere within both of these poles, most likely the pole represented by Johnson as opposed to Blake will outweigh. The simple truth is, I surely could become art in places where money manifests itself. The idea that money, patronage, and trade automatically pollute the fountains of imagination is really a sophisticated mythic – a mythic that some utopian leftists and a couple of 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 become a millionaire in 40, but this did not need an adverse impact on his artistry. On the other hand, you can find such painters whose names I’ll leave to your imagination that even if they are 30 millionaires, there may be no positive development inside their artistry. It is necessary to set up front of young star candidates, who are wandering around as if they’re indispensable Indian fabrics and swollen enough to exceed their ego height as a result of the art market, because of the not enough self-interest and loss in self-confidence. Generally speaking, money benefits artists more than harm. No-one believes anymore that the grappling with the creditors who train on cold water and dry bread and rely on the door feeds the artist; Just as the belief that beating is a good 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 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 doesn’t exceed 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, these two foundations spend unnecessary costs because cost efficiency is not possible in regards to works of art. It is also true that some of the products they support appeal to the minority taste and are liked by an elite group. However, the National Arts Foundation, as far as I know, 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 minority appreciation that appeals to the taste of an elite. So my main intention here is not how a money-art relationship affects the artist, but what effect it is wearing art audiences – inevitably a mass which includes artists and other art professionals, but has expanded tremendously within the last 25 years.
The church largely left its place to the museum as a symbolic focus of the American city. Museums are now converted into low-cost mass media. With this specific transformation, museums adopted the strategies of other mass media, partly beneath the influence of transitions, partly intentionally: highlighting the magnificent show, cult of fame, masterpiece-treasure syndrome, etc. Only through these tools can museums wthhold the loyalty of these unprecedentedly broad audience, or rather, they think so.