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 to be important in the period between 1714-1830 – unlike antiquities who acted according to the tastes of art patrons, they certainly were people who played a position 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 improve their status instead to be merely artisans, began to organize themselves and create their particular 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 industry are summarized in what 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 one other pole is as much as wholesaler as Blake: “No-one, except fools, wrote anything but money.”
It pays to to find the truth somewhere between those two poles, probably the pole represented by Johnson as opposed to Blake will outweigh. The stark reality is, 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 a sophisticated story book – a fairy tale 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 would not have existed without somebody who covered them – and paid well. Picasso had become a millionaire in 40, but this did not need a negative impact on his artistry. On one other hand, there are 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 is necessary to put in front of young star candidates, that are wandering around as if they are indispensable Indian fabrics and swollen enough to exceed their ego height thanks to the art market, because of the insufficient self-interest and loss in 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 doorway feeds the artist; Similar to the belief that beating is a great breeding method, this belief almost lost its judgment.
So now I am not planning to repeat you a situation that we have now been told by new conservatives and we’re already acquainted 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 rise above 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 extremely hard in regards to works of art. It is also true that a number of the products they support appeal to the minority taste and are liked by an elite group. However, the National Arts Foundation, so far as I know, does not pay taxpayers $ 433.45 for a screwdriver or $ 1700 for a metal ladder, whilst the Ministry of Defense does; moreover, what we call war – a sophisticated sophist – is a group appreciation that interests the taste of an elite. So my main intention here is not how the money-art relationship affects the artist, but what effect it has on art audiences – inevitably a large that features artists and other art professionals, but has expanded tremendously over the past 25 years.
The church largely left its destination for a the museum as a symbolic focus of the American city. Museums are actually changed into low-cost mass media. With this specific 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 wthhold the loyalty of their unprecedentedly broad audience, or rather, they believe so.