The end of the Golden Age
Why do the "golden ages" in arts come to abrupt ends?
Consider, for example, the Dutch Golden Age. Hals, Steen, Vermeer, Rembrandt. Nothing in 1670 suggested the end of the era. By 1690 it was all over. In art books, this sudden reversal of fortune is explained by economic and political decline of the Netherlands at the end of the 17th century. I find this hard to believe: there were "golden ages" that occurred during the periods of great upheaval; there is no obvious connection. The popularity of the Old Masters in the 18th century can only be compared to the popularity of the Impressionists in the 20th century. Regardless of the domestic situation (which was not really dire), the artists working in the Dutch tradition could have easily supported themselves through international sales, as their art was appreciated across the entire Europe.
Other books suggest that the ground yielded when the Dutch began copying the latest rococo fashions. The originality was instantly gone; as imitators of the French, the Dutch were not even second rate. Was it the artists who started this "revolution" -- or was it a change in the popular taste that forced the artists to accommodate? I doubt that it was the public that wanted "new". The Dutch art collapsed well before the popularity of this art peaked in Europe. The same can be said about the Flemish Primitives: their art quickly became insignificant when it became imitatory. Once more, I do not believe it was the public that demanded this change. Could it be that the artists themselves got tired of their tradition? If so, they've gained little from this betrayal. The wealthy Dutch did not buy Dutch imitations of French art, they preferred the real thing. Meanwhile the French were avidly collecting Old Dutch masters.
Here is my idea (I do not know how original it might be):
What drives the value of period art is understanding that the golden age is over and its artistic achievements are priceless and irreplaceable. The group that is most interested in the ending of the golden age are art dealers, patrons, and collectors. It is their vested interest that the era suddenly comes to a close, so the value of their collections begins to increase, rapidly. However, there is a technical problem: convincing the artists. A clever way of solving this problem is persuading the artists that their art became obsolete, that there is new mood in the air, that the public wants the latest fads, that they should experiment with new forms or become unsellable, etc. In other words, the golden ages end when the collectors accumulate enough masterpieces to desire their golden age to collapse. They want their artists great and dead. It is the ruthless economics of art collecting.
By this logic, the greatest menace to visual arts was the emergence of national museums, these collectors and dealers par excellence. They are not interested in the living art at all; the chief value of art is in being irretrievably dead, so its value increases astronomically. They call it safeguarding national treasure. Perhaps one day people will tire of seeing art only in museums, and it will return again.
Why do the "golden ages" come to abrupt ends?
-s.jpg)
Consider, for example, the Dutch Golden Age. Hals, Steen, Vermeer, Rembrandt. Nothing in 1670 suggested the end of the era. By 1690 it was all over. In art books, this sudden reversal of fortune is explained by economic and political decline of the Netherlands at the end of the 17th century. I find this hard to believe: there were "golden ages" that occurred during the periods of great upheaval; there is no obvious connection. The popularity of the Old Masters in the 18th century can only be compared to the popularity of the Impressionists in the 20th century. Regardless of the domestic situation (which was not really dire), the artists working in the Dutch tradition could have easily supported themselves through international sales, as their art was appreciated across the entire Europe.
Other books suggest that the ground yielded when the Dutch began copying the latest rococo fashions. The originality was instantly gone; as imitators of the French, the Dutch were not even second rate. Was it the artists who started this "revolution" -- or was it a change in the popular taste that forced the artists to accommodate? I doubt that it was the public that wanted "new". The Dutch art collapsed well before the popularity of this art peaked in Europe. The same can be said about the Flemish Primitives: their art quickly became insignificant when it became imitatory. Once more, I do not believe it was the public that demanded this change. Could it be that the artists themselves got tired of their tradition? If so, they've gained little from this betrayal. The wealthy Dutch did not buy Dutch imitations of French art, they preferred the real thing. Meanwhile the French were avidly collecting Old Dutch masters.
Here is my idea (I do not know how original it might be):
What drives the value of period art is understanding that the golden age is over and its artistic achievements are priceless and irreplaceable. The group that is most interested in the ending of the golden age are art dealers, patrons, and collectors. It is their vested interest that the era suddenly comes to a close, so the value of their collections begins to increase, rapidly. However, there is a technical problem: convincing the artists. A clever way of solving this problem is persuading the artists that their art became obsolete, that there is new mood in the air, that the public wants the latest fads, that they should experiment with new forms or become unsellable, etc. In other words, the golden ages end when the collectors accumulate enough masterpieces to desire their golden age to collapse. They want their artists great and dead. It is the ruthless economics of art collecting.
By this logic, the greatest menace to visual arts was the emergence of national museums, these collectors and dealers par excellence. They are not interested in the living art at all; the chief value of art is in being irretrievably dead, so its value increases astronomically. They call it safeguarding national treasure. Perhaps one day people will tire of seeing art only in museums, and it will return again.
Why do the "golden ages" come to abrupt ends?