...
| Panel | ||
|---|---|---|
Erica Gilbert-Levin The rise of dealer-critic system in 19th-century Europe represented both the result and reinforcement of the shift from the European art world and its market from a hierarchical one concentrated primarily in the Academy to a decentralized configuration consisting of "isolated" artists (White & White, 82) whose work was capitalized upon by dealers, who, functioning "in conjunction with" critics, "accomplished the detailed task of building up an artist in a specific circle of patrons" (White & White, 94). Critics filled the responsibility of generating publicity and establishing the intellectual legitimacy of the artist (not to mention of the critics themselves), while dealers effected the sales, and all three players – critic, dealer, and artist – benefited financially from the arrangement.
The emphasis within the dealer-critic system revolved around the career of the artist rather than the artist's individual works. This benefited the artist, who could, consequently, be assured of secure and "predictable" income and thus a middle-class lifestyle (White & White, 98), and the dealer, who could forge a "monopoly of an artist's production" (White & White, 99). The dealer duo Durand-Ruel trail-blazed this strategy early on, brazenly buying up artists' work and making it effectively impossible for another dealer to intrude on their terrain. The strategy worked – for both Durand-Ruel, who discovered young artists, including the late-19th-century Impressionists, supported them with the aid of publicity afforded by critics, and profited from their monopoly over their discovery (see Chu). |
| Panel |
|---|
Kimberly Ann Phoenix |
...
