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 between 1714-1830 – unlike antiquities who acted according to the tastes of art patrons, they were people 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 of being merely artisans, began to prepare themselves and create their own markets. The institution they used for this function 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 get 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 not 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 consider the reality somewhere between these two poles, most likely the pole represented by Johnson rather than Blake will outweigh. The simple truth is, I was able to become art in places where money manifests itself. The proven fact that money, patronage, and trade automatically pollute the fountains of imagination is just a sophisticated story book – 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 a person who taken care of them – and paid well. Picasso had turn into a millionaire in 40, but this did not need a negative affect 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 could be no positive development in their artistry. It is necessary to include 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, due to the insufficient self-interest and loss of self-confidence. Generally, 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 depend 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’m not planning to repeat you a scenario that we have now 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 go beyond the fantasies that Ronald Reagan has setup about the poor who made their food scorecards in vodka and received social aid allowances. Obviously, both of these foundations spend unnecessary costs because cost efficiency is not possible when it comes to works of art. It can also be true that a number of the products they support attract the minority taste and are liked by an elite group. However, the National Arts Foundation, in terms of I am aware, 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 is not the way 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 within the last 25 years.
The church largely left its spot to the museum as a symbolic focus of the American city. Museums are now actually turned 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 believe so.