The real history 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 period between 1714-1830 – unlike antiquities who acted in line with the tastes of art patrons, they were those who played a role in shaping tastes. At the same time, 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 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 get back to the founding of Burlington House, which hosted the Royal Academy exhibitions; Both 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 one other pole is as much as wholesaler as Blake: “No-one, except fools, wrote anything but money.”
It is useful to consider the truth approximately these two poles, most likely the pole represented by Johnson rather than Blake will outweigh. The truth is, I surely 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 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 a person who paid for them – and paid well. Picasso had become a millionaire in 40, but this did not need a poor 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 inside their artistry. It’s necessary to put in front of young star candidates, who’re 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 not enough self-interest and loss of self-confidence. Generally, money benefits artists a lot 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 great breeding method, this belief almost lost its judgment.
So now I am not likely to repeat you a situation that people have now 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. Anyone who meets the conditions of the American culture knows that the truth share in this story does not exceed the fantasies that Ronald Reagan has setup about poor people who made their food scorecards in vodka and received social aid allowances. Obviously, those two foundations spend unnecessary costs because cost efficiency is extremely hard in regards to works of art. It is also true that some of the products they support attract the minority taste and are liked by an elite group. However, the National Arts Foundation, so far as I understand, does not pay taxpayers $ 433.45 for a screwdriver or $ 1700 for a metal ladder, since 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 listed 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 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 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 think so.