Astrid Mania - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

Talks by Astrid Mania

Art dealers have been the target of frequent and recurrent attacks and have had a bad press for a... more Art dealers have been the target of frequent and recurrent attacks and have had a bad press for almost forever, or at least since the 17th century. They are generally considered as having no legitimacy to discuss and judge the artistic production. Most of the attacks usually associate them with depravity of morals and art. They are also attacked on their knowledge or rather on their absence of knowledge. Indeed, art dealers are often presented as ignorant, as for example in La confession publique du brocanteur, an anonymous pamphlet published in 1776, where the art dealer can neither read nor write, has never studied history and can only quote, in the field of art, "the figures of Bamboche, the beggars of Callot, the drunks of Ostade, the smokers of Téniers": "Most of us Brocanteurs, we only know the names of the Painters, because we do not have enough lights to make distinctions of their different works". The very name given to this brocanteur says a lot about the image conveyed by his profession: Ferre-la-mule, in other words, the one who accepts bribes. Depravity of morals, ignorance, corruptible! It is not surprising that many players in the art market defend themselves from exercising a profession that is so decried. Thus, the wellknown dealer Jean-Baptiste-Pierre Lebrun, in a complaint dated November 15, 1793, will argue that "Various amateurs of arts fear to be deceived if they had to deal with what / one calls rightly a dealer, then they ask me to guide them to bid / for them and to acquire". It is true that he is motivated by the fact of not paying a patent, but this declaration is to be resituated in the context of the French Revolution. The denunciations were then legion and the climate of suspicion towards the dealers was growing. After a presentation of the different sources of the image of art market players at the end of the Ancien Régime and during the revolutionary period, I would like to examine at a deeper level their strategies for rehabilitation. The attacks and other pamphlets are not the only ones to illustrate the negative image of these actors of the art market. Indeed, the various forms of the commercial discourse that we examined put forward the construction of a double legitimacy, a moral legitimacy and a legitimacy to judge the artistic productions. They are generally opposed to artists in these two fields and this dispute about the supremacy in judgement crystalized around the new Museum in preparation (the future Louvre museum). We will conclude by asking who was the most legitimate to manage such an institution, to gather and curate the national collections? Artists or dealer? Did the art dealers succeed in their quest for legitimacy? Sarah Bakkali is an independent scholar, currently completing a PhD in the History of Art at the University of Paris X Nanterre, entitled 'The art market players in Paris around 1800: picture dealers, experts, collectors. Her research interests include French painting 1770-1830, the history of collections and art market, history and geography of taste, history of artistic institutions, provenance and circulation of paintings, the creation of a database of art market players (dictionary) and analysis of art sale catalogues 1789-1830. She has participated in numerous conferences and been published in several edited volumes including London & the Emergence of a

Art dealers have been the target of frequent and recurrent attacks and have had a bad press for a... more Art dealers have been the target of frequent and recurrent attacks and have had a bad press for almost forever, or at least since the 17th century. They are generally considered as having no legitimacy to discuss and judge the artistic production. Most of the attacks usually associate them with depravity of morals and art. They are also attacked on their knowledge or rather on their absence of knowledge. Indeed, art dealers are often presented as ignorant, as for example in La confession publique du brocanteur, an anonymous pamphlet published in 1776, where the art dealer can neither read nor write, has never studied history and can only quote, in the field of art, "the figures of Bamboche, the beggars of Callot, the drunks of Ostade, the smokers of Téniers": "Most of us Brocanteurs, we only know the names of the Painters, because we do not have enough lights to make distinctions of their different works". The very name given to this brocanteur says a lot about the image conveyed by his profession: Ferre-la-mule, in other words, the one who accepts bribes. Depravity of morals, ignorance, corruptible! It is not surprising that many players in the art market defend themselves from exercising a profession that is so decried. Thus, the wellknown dealer Jean-Baptiste-Pierre Lebrun, in a complaint dated November 15, 1793, will argue that "Various amateurs of arts fear to be deceived if they had to deal with what / one calls rightly a dealer, then they ask me to guide them to bid / for them and to acquire". It is true that he is motivated by the fact of not paying a patent, but this declaration is to be resituated in the context of the French Revolution. The denunciations were then legion and the climate of suspicion towards the dealers was growing. After a presentation of the different sources of the image of art market players at the end of the Ancien Régime and during the revolutionary period, I would like to examine at a deeper level their strategies for rehabilitation. The attacks and other pamphlets are not the only ones to illustrate the negative image of these actors of the art market. Indeed, the various forms of the commercial discourse that we examined put forward the construction of a double legitimacy, a moral legitimacy and a legitimacy to judge the artistic productions. They are generally opposed to artists in these two fields and this dispute about the supremacy in judgement crystalized around the new Museum in preparation (the future Louvre museum). We will conclude by asking who was the most legitimate to manage such an institution, to gather and curate the national collections? Artists or dealer? Did the art dealers succeed in their quest for legitimacy? Sarah Bakkali is an independent scholar, currently completing a PhD in the History of Art at the University of Paris X Nanterre, entitled 'The art market players in Paris around 1800: picture dealers, experts, collectors. Her research interests include French painting 1770-1830, the history of collections and art market, history and geography of taste, history of artistic institutions, provenance and circulation of paintings, the creation of a database of art market players (dictionary) and analysis of art sale catalogues 1789-1830. She has participated in numerous conferences and been published in several edited volumes including London & the Emergence of a