«n ~l. £314... 1 til‘hnuflun& ‘ .. I \ ‘Islb. Q... .IIWJ‘ . .r a. I Mic. $3 ;. .4 .. i 53):. .I'. 4 {it}? 1.61:. .i. it. :3}... k» 3.. A... . a... {9.21: 31:.) K 2...... )3. ‘3- (huntii‘Ifi ilixlints . §|$..¢\ ..l. E? a. '70.... o J! ‘3! ~30 :fif, b~ nn ‘0‘. II!» 5 , 1 t 1 1x33 :4... 3O. Q6.(.}vvl.sasua (- 0.. o... -t\- unfiux» .1. .1 (Ill 1.. ‘..I\..hrv...l| (3.15.619. . It. ‘1 {ti..u.t.\.l\lti, 5". sun.“ I. v: .b... cs .52.... I {‘3‘ .19....r: I O "firt‘vn ‘0'! m 47 gmvfim J4. .. kt 2. Timitiifi'iiimiii/iii L 3 1293 01026 2289 ll LIBRARY Michigan Statg Unlverslty This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE DEVELOPMENI' OF THE mom ARTIST-PATRCN RELATIONSHIP: AN INTERNATICNAL COMPARATIVE STUDY OF AR‘I'DEALINGINFRANCE, THEUNITEDS'I‘ATES, ANDJAPAN presented by Yuko Mito has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M.A. degree in History Of Art Major brofegsor Associate Professor Phylis Floyd m A» 1d Date C1 ’C'QQ’ #613 0-7639 MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution PLACE II RETURN BOX to remove We checkout from your record. To AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MSU Ie An Afflrmetlve Action/Equel Opportunlty lnetltulon . Wanna-c1 THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODERN ARTIST-PATRON RELATIONSHIP: AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ART DEALING IN FRANCE, THE UNITED STATES, AND JAPAN By Yuko Mito A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Art 1993 ABSTRACT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODERN ARTIST-PATRON RELATIONSHIP: AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ART DEALING IN FRANCE, THE UNITED STATES, AND JAPAN By Yuko Mito This thesis examines the influence of the development of art dealing systems on artists and their artistic styles, with a focus on three countries: France, the United States, and Japan. While considering the effects of various social and cultural changes, such as revolutions and the rise of individualism, the evolution of art dealing systems from medieval times to today's international art market is scrutinized. The primary focus is on the first art dealers who began modern practices of art dealership in each country: Paul Durand- Ruel, Alfred Stieglitz, and Takamura Kotaro. The principle data have been collected from secondary sources written in English, French, and Japanese and through interviews with major dealers of modern art in both Japan and the United States. This study reveals that the new art patronage in an international network heightened artists' social status from craftsmen and opened art to the general public. Copyright by YUKO MITO 1993 This thesis is dedicated to my parents who have taught me to love and appreciate art and its capability to bridge cultures and time. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge several of the people who have aided in the production of this work. Dr. Phylis Floyd, Dr. Sadayoshi Omoto, and Dr. Eldon N. Vanliere have provided constructive criticism and support throughout the development of this thesis and its defense. Further, I appreciate the assistant of Mr. Kazuhiko Satani of the Satani Gallery in Tokyo, Japan and Mr. Michael Ortoleva of the Leo Castelli Gallery in New York City, the United States for commentary and discussion of contemporary modern art. I also thank the Nichido Gallery in Tokyo for allowing me to borrow a valuable reference source. Last, but not least, I would like to express my gratitude to Mr. Shinichi Segi, the author of the main source for this thesis, for encouraging me in study. II. III. IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures Introduction France: Tradition and New Artistic Movements -- Birth of Modern Art Dealing The United States: National Independence and Cultural Evolution -- Modern Art Dealing for American Artists Japan: Tradition and the Newly Imported Western Art -- Late Successor of Modern Art Dealing Conclusion Figures Bibliography iv 26 49 7O 77 83 Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. LIST OF FIGURES Jean Antoine Watteau, Gersaint's Shopsign, 1720-1, p. 77. Auguste Renoir, Portrait of Paul Durand-Ruel, 1910, p. 78. Charles Willson Peale, The Artist in His Museum, 1822, p. 79. Eduard Steichen, Alfred Stieglitz at 291, 1933, p. 80. Anonymous, Gaki Zoshi (detail), the late twelfth century, p. 81. Hiroshi Hamatani, Takamura Kotaro at His Studio, circa 1950, p. 82. I. Introduction The art market has grown rapidly since the late nineteenth to early twentieth centuries, and is now operated within an international network of the modern art dealing system. Art galleries are plentiful and highly varied in orientation.1 Many galleries started their businesses to deal with an increasing number of artists and to response to an expanding demand of the art-buying public. On the other hand, many individuals also desired to become artists because there seemed to be more opportunities to become successful thanks to the established art market. Today the works of many famous and successful artists are available throughout the world. These artists create a variety of new artistic styles, one after another, and today's art public is relatively accepting of most of these styles and is appreciative of them. In this situation, artists enjoy much more freedom to experiment and to realize their own creativity, more so than in earlier periods of art. Before the modern era, artists relied mainly on commissions, and therefore, they had little freedom to create what they really wanted: they were treated in a similar way to craftsmen. As seen in this difference between the modern period and earlier periods in art, changes in the art dealing system have directly influenced artists, and accordingly, have been decisively influential on artistic styles or choice of subjects. Therefore, a study of the development of the dealing system is extremely important and 1 John Russell Taylor and Brian Brooke, The Art Dealers (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1969), p. 171. In 1969, there were about 300 private galleries in Paris, about 150 in London, and about 400 in New York. 1 2 useful in learning efficient ways to support artists and art and how to realize that patronage of art. The main purpose of this thesis is to study the influence of art dealing practices on artists and their works. By scrutinizing the evolution of today's international network of art markets, favorable influences of the modern dealing system are discussed. Therefore, the thesis explores the broad subject of the art dealing system since the medieval period, and more specifically, the art dealing system of the modern era beginning in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It is primarily focused upon painting as this is the dominant form of art during this period. Three of the most prominent countries in the international network, France, the United States, and Japan, are highlighted. Paris has been considered an artistic capital since the early nineteenth century; New York succeeded in the twentieth century and has been enjoying the title today; and Tokyo has the biggest art market in Asia, which is also one of the largest in the world. While considering the social and cultural changes affecting the modern art dealing system, the focus is on the first art dealer who began the modern dealing practices in each country. Paul Durand- Ruel invented a new system of art dealership in Paris in the late nineteenth century; Alfred Stieglitz adopted the system first in America in 1907; and Takamura Kotaro2 was the first in Japan to open a modern style art gallery in 1910. These dealers pioneered modern art practices in their countries, and today their practices 2 Following the Japanese custom, Japanese names are given in this thesis with the surnames followed by the given names. 3 have become common almost all over the world. Through this international network of art dealership, artists enjoy their creative activities, and their art is also available to everyone in the world. 11. France: Tradition and New Artistic Movements -- Birth of the Modern Art Dealing In Europe during the Medieval and Renaissance periods, painting was regarded as being of the same level as other crafts like furniture making. There was a very structured hierarchical relationship between patrons and artists. During that time painters were viewed more as craftsmen in the social order. That basic relationship lasted until the nineteenth century, the beginning of the modern era, at which time it was replaced by a new relationship between artist and buyer. From the thirteenth century to the eighteenth century, there had been primarily two kinds of painters: those with strong patrons and those without. The former were called court painters, such as Jan van Eyck ( 1390-1441) and Diego Rodriguez de Silva y Velazquez (1599-1660) and the latter were usually guild painters, such as Rembrandt Hamensz. van Rijn (1606-69) and Frans Hals (circa 1580- 1666). A third type of painter also appeared: guild painters who had strong patrons. Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) in Florence and Albrecht Diirer (1471-1528) in Nuremberg are examples of this kind of artist.3 At the end of the thirteenth century, guilds of painters, such as that of St. Luc, started to be organized in major cities. The earliest one found in written records is St. Luc in Venice, which was founded in 1290, and one in Florence followed in 1339.4 During the Medieval period when someone aspired to be a painter, the person apprenticed 3 Hijikata Teiichi, Gaka to Gasho to Kaishuka (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten Co., 1963), p. 50. 4 Ibid., p. 16. 5 to a master-painter. Every guild regulated the length of apprenticeship and the number of apprentices per master-artist. Apprentices had to learn basic skills from their masters usually studying from four to six years, and master-painters had to accept at least one or two apprentices. After finishing their apprenticeship, artists finally acquired the freedom to travel as itinerant craftsmen to further develop their skills. Many people went to Italy to study the most advanced painting skills of the Italian masters whom they respected, and also, to directly see the classical art there. The itinerant craftsmen worked with their new masters usually for about five years and chose cities in which they wanted to become members of the local painter's guilds. Not until the artist was admitted into that guild did he become a master-painter with the privileges of such a position.5 From the fourteenth century to the early eighteenth century only guild painters had the right to run a workshop, or an atelier (studio) in which to sell their paintings, and this right had belonged legally only to guild painters.6 On the other hand, painters could not display their works anywhere other than in their shops or in street markets. Between the thirteenth and the eighteenth centuries, master-painters were also the dealers of their own works as well. Albrecht Diirer (1471-1528) was not only a court painter but also a guild painter of Nuremberg. Jane Campbell Hutchison's biography of Diirer tells us that even his pictures were sold at the street markets 5 Ibid., pp. 2-3. 5 Cynthia A. White and Harrison C. White, Canvases and Careers: Institutional Change in the French Painting World (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1965), p. 8. 6 and were usually handled by members of the artist's family, his wife or mother. It was the custom in Nuremberg that women of that social class sold pictures by their husbands or sons at street markets.7 On the other hand, some painters who were fortunate enough to find powerful patrons like kings, feudal lords, and in the late- Renaissance, wealthy families, did not need to become members of the guild.8 Jan van Eyck (1390—1441) was a typical court painter in Flanders. W. H. James Weale details in his biography of the painter: In or before 1422 John van Eyck became attached to the household of John of Babaria as painter and "varlet de chambre.". . . John van Eyck was employed in the decoration of the palace from the 24th of October, 1422, until the 1 1th of September, 1424; his pay was at the rate of eight lions a day, while his assistants received two lions a day each. . . Philip III, Duke of Burgundy. . . took him into his service as painter and "varlet de chambre" on the 19th of May, conferring on him all the honours, privileges, rights, profits, and emoluments attached to the office; and further, to ensure the prior command of his services as court painter, he granted him a yearly salary of 1001. parisis, payable in two moieties at Christmas and Midsummer, . . .9 Court painters like van Eyck were given many privileges: economic wealth and the freedom from the restrictions of the guilds. In Paris these two types of painters existed until the eighteenth century. Since guild painters did not like the idea that court painters enjoyed the freedom from their restrictions and feeling that these artists decreased the value of their studio-rights, 7 Jane Campbell Hutchison, Albrecht Diirer: A Biography (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), D. 83. 3 Hijikata, pp. 50, 253. 9 W. H. James Weale, The Van Eycks and Their Art (London: John Lane the Bodley Head Ltd., 1912), pp. 8-9. 7 tensions often flared up between these two different types of painters. In order to resolve those troubles, the Royal Academy was founded in Paris in February of 1648 under the reign of Louis XIV.” The founders of the Royal Academy were prominent artists of the mid-seventeenth century, such as the painter Charles Lebrun (1619-90) and the sculptor Jacques Sarrazin (1588-1660).11 The Academy was designed to follow the system of St. Luc in Rome, and it had two sections, one for painting and one for sculpture. Aspiring artists had to submit works to a committee and to pass an examination in order to receive life membership. It was both an art educational institution as well as an institution for accomplished painters and sculptors to exhibit and to sell their works. In 1667, the French government supported the first public exhibition of Royal Academy members. Several exhibitions followed, such as the government sponsored show at the Salon Carré of the Louvre Palace. Thereafter exhibitions were held mainly at the salon so that these exhibitions later became known as Le Salon. After 1737, the Salon became a formal event in the French art world, held either annually or biannuallyJ? During the seventeenth century, the European art market was developing other systems for sales and exhibitions as well. Even before the first government exhibition in Paris in 1667, the guild of St. Luc in Holland started an exhibition system in 1640,13 and the 10 Ikegami Chuji, "17-19 Seiki no Furansu Kaiga," in Furansu Kaiga no Seika: Ru Saran no Kyosho-tachi (Tokyo: Nihon Keizai Shinbunsha, 1989), p. 19. 11 lbid., pp. 19-20. 12 Bruno Foucart, "Les Salons et 1' Innovation Picturale au XIXé Siecle" Fransu Kaiga no Seika: Ru Saran no Kyosho—tachi, p.16. Hijikata,pp.79—8O.m 13 Hijikata, p. 83. 8 guild of St. Luc in Paris also Operated its own exhibition system until the mid-eighteenth century.14 Many painters came to enjoy a higher social status and increased sales because of their acceptance into these exhibitions of the Salon or St. Luc. It was also during the seventeenth century that the earliest art dealers appeared in the history of art. Merchants like Gersaint are generally agreed to have sold paintings as well as "everything from sea shells to Oriental bric-a-brac, in addition to . . . jewelry." Gersaint's gallery, "The Great Monarch," was on the ground floor of his house on the Pont Notre-Dame in Paris, and Jan Antoine Watteau (1684-172 1) precisely depicted its interior in his painting, Gersaint's Shopsign (Figure 1) in 1720.15 The regulation of the guild of St. Luc, however, prohibited dealers such as Gersaint from selling pictures done by contemporary guild painters.16 Furthermore, as the usual pictures were of a large size, from floor-to-ceiling, they were too expensive to be sold except to a few collectors. As the result, dealers of the eighteenth century often supplemented their sales of paintings with antiques.17 The French Revolution of 1789 changed the structure and form of art education and exhibiting organizations as it did the society. The Royal Academy of 150 or so members was suppressed. It returned in a new form, however, as L'Academie des Beaux-Arts in Napoleon's Institut de France and has lasted under this banner up to 14 White and White, p. 1 1. 15 Pierre Schneider, The World of Watteau 1684-1 721 (New York: Time Incorporated, 1968), pp. 101-102. 16 White and White, p. 10. 17 Segi Shinichi, Seiki no Daigasho-tachi (Tokyo: Shinshin-do Shuppan sha, 1987), p. 10. . 9 the present day.18 In 1791 the National Council abolished the exclusive privileges given to Academy members to show their works at the Salon. Thus, in 1798, the annual exhibition system, which had previously been restricted to Academy members only, was opened to all artists. Individualism, brought forth by the revolution, reflected on this new educational and exhibiting system which offered more opportunities for individual painters, increasingly of the middle or merchant class, to learn artistic skills and to display their works. Since space for the exhibitions was limited, however, the government still had to control the number of works being displayed. A judging committee was formed to examine all the submitted works, and every artist had to obey its decision whether or not their paintings would be accepted for the exhibition. At the same time, the committee selected the most outstanding works for awards or for purchase by the government. This became the fundamental system of the Salon in the modern era.19 By the mid-eighteenth century, the guild of St. Luc in Paris was unable to compete with its rival, the Royal Academy. Additionally, the demise of royalty and the aristocracy after the revolution meant the loss of a regular income for court painters although artists still painted commissions for wealthy patrons. So by the nineteenth century, the Salon became the dominant institution for painters in Paris, since it was the only public forum available for artists to exhibit their products»?0 The painters eventually had no other means by which to sell their works save by commission or by finding 18 White and White, p. 16. 19 Ikegami, p. 21. 20 White and White, p. 1 1. 10 buyers on their own through the public Salon. Accordingly, it was very important for painters to gain acceptance from the Salon and to be allowed to exhibit their works there. This generally meant that they needed to follow the style of the academic school, which was dominant at the Salon at that time, in order to gain acceptance into the exhibitions. Since the development of new painting styles would seldom be accepted by the judging committee, painters had a hard time creating original styles or exploring new subject matter. In this context, artistic taste was generally centered in and dictated by such academic institutions. In the mid-nineteenth century, many artists struggled to have their new painting styles accepted by the conservative Salon. Gustave Courbet (1819-77), the prominent Realist artist, was an outsider of the academic art world, which put much value on Romantic styles like that of Eugene Delacroix (1798-1863). In 1844, his paintings were first accepted by the Salon.21 After the International Exhibitions originated in London in 1850, another was held in Paris in 1855. It was the first international event which included a large section devoted to the arts. Many artists from throughout Europe submitted their works to the exhibition and Courbet chose fourteen paintings in his new realistic style, including his important work, the Pain ter's Studio. Many of his works, however, were refused by the jury of the exhibition, whose tastes were as conservative as that of the Salon. Courbet defiantly mounted his own one-person exhibition close to the official building of the 21 Imaizumi Atsuo and Yamada Chisaburo, Seiyo Bijutsu jiten (Tokyo: Tokyo-do Shuppan, 1954), p. 209. 1 1 International Exhibition to show his works directly to the public.22 Though this exhibition attracted few people, it was important as a watershed in the history of art: for the first time an individual exhibited a range of his works directly to the public, and it provided the basis for the modern practice of mounting one-person exhibitions. During the nineteenth century, new technological developments in art materials were also having an impact on the art market and the growth in the number of artists: "lithography, ready-made paint in thin tubes, new colors and new types of brushes for the manipulation of the thicker paint, and prepared canvases."23 These changes together with the prevalence of small-sized canvases caused an increase in the number of paintings and a subsequent decrease in the prices asked for these paintings.24 Further, the French economic expansion after the French Revolution increased the size of the middle class who had more luxury time to visit art exhibitions and to buy paintings, and they became the major customers of the modern art market, just as the number of middle class individuals seeking a career in art increased. Then, art dealers like Jean-Marie Fortune Durand-Rue] appeared in the 18203 and Old Man Tanguy followed in the 18705.25 They sold art supplies to painters in Paris, but ended up exhibiting and selling works left by their customers as a pledge. 27- Segi, Seiki no Daigasho-tachi, p. 11. John Rewald, The History of Impressionism (New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 1961), pp. 13-17. Kamon Yasuo, Shinban lrasuto Seiyo Bijutsu-shi (Tokyo: Shikaku Dezain Kenkyu-sho, 1991), p. 87. 23 White and White, p. 159. 24 Ibid., p. 10. 25 Rewald, p. 301. 12 Tanguy's portrait done by Vincent van Gogh is famous as an example of his collection.26 The case of Edouard Manet (1832-83), a painter who appeared between the periods of Realism and Impressionism in nineteenth- century French art is an interesting and illustrative one of the need for association with the Salon. He was a progressive artist who painted during a transition between two artistic schools, which valued different and often opposing characteristics, and so he was an outsider of sorts to both schools. Although trained by Thomas Couture (1815-79), a member of the Academy, he developed an artistic style that was considered too rough and the subjects of his works too vulgar for the people who were used to the paintings of the traditional Salon. After his two paintings, L'Acteur Tragique and Le Fifre were refused by the Salon of 1866, in imitation of Courbet, he held a one-person exhibition of his own works in 1867 in the Place de l'AIma to coincide with the International Exhibition of that year.27 However, he continued to make efforts to win recognition from the Salon as did earlier painters, and finally by the 18705, he succeeded in receiving positive recognition from the general public as well as from the Salon.28 The Impressionist-painters who followed Manet were the next controversial outsiders of the late-nineteenth-century French art scene. When judged by the academic standard of the time, the Impressionists' painting-styles were considered too radical and 26 Segi, Seiki no Daigasho-tachi, p. 1 l. 27 George Heard Hamilton, Manet and His Critics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1954), p. 104. 28 Imaizumi and Yamada, p. 5 96. 1 3 hardly acceptable for the Salon '5 selection criteria. Differing from Manet, however, when they were not admitted to the Salon, these artists sought places other than the Salon to exhibit their works. They held their first group exhibition by themselves in 1874 in the studio of their comrade, the photographer Nadar (1820-1910), and they continued this form of exhibition until the eighth and last Impressionist exhibition of 1886.29 Paul Durand-Ruel (1831-1922; Figure 2) was the art dealer who supported the Impressionists from the beginning. He loaned his gallery for their second group exhibition, and later held their one-person shows, which acted as an avenue for sales outside of the Salon. Paul Durand-Rue] is generally considered the first true dealer of modern art, and the model for all who have come after him, as John Russell Taylor and Brian Brooke document in their book, The Art Dealers. 30 Durand-Ruel invented his own art dealing system and broke the tradition of art dealing since the Medieval period. This system has become a model of modern art-dealing for those who followed. The roots of Paul Durand-Ruel's business were primarily in the stationary supply shop founded in 1803 by his grandfather Jean Durand-Rue] at #174 rue Saint Jacques in Paris. In the 1820's, J ean- Marie Fortune Durand-Rue], son of Jean and father of Paul, extended the business to include artists' materials and, ultimately, works of art. When artists were unable to pay him for the supplies they had purchased, he would accept their paintings in exchange for later 29 Segi, Seiki no Daigasho-tachi, p. 13. Rewald, p. 522. 30 Taylor and Brooke, pp. 33-34. 1 4 payment, and thereby personally accumulated a large collection of the artists' works of his time. In 1840 he moved his shop to a larger building where he began a professional picture dealing practice.31 As a result of his acute artistic judgement and acute business instincts, Jean-Marie specialized in the more advanced artists of his time: Delacroix, Constable, and later the Barbizon school of landscape painters. In their book, The Art Dealers, Joshua Russell Taylor and Brian Brooke analyze the reasons for his success as follows: "It was Durand-Ruel pere who first saw the possibilities of the new bourgeois buying public in relation to new art. . . having made their money in business, they were ready to see even their art buying at least partly in terms of speculation.”2 During the 1850s and 18605, the painters whom Jean-Marie Durand-Rue] represented began to gain stature and recognition in the French art community,33 and his business developed so steadily that he expanded and moved his shop several times. By the time of his death, in 1865, Jean-Marie had successfully established branches of his gallery in other countries, including England, Germany, and the Low Countries. He started this international business probably under the influence of the International Exhibitions held since 1850.34 This can be regarded as the beginning of the global business system of the modern art dealer and is fairly typical of contemporary art practice. 31 Segi, Seiki no Daigasho-tachi, p. 1 1. 32 Taylor and Brooke, p. 34. 33 Segi, Seiki no Daigasho—tachi, p. 11. White and White, p. 99. 34 Taylor and Brooke, p. 34. 15 Jean-Marie's gallery was succeeded by his son Paul Durand- Ruel, who is best known for his role as the dealer of the Impressionists. In 1870, Paul fled to London with his collection to escape the invading Prussian army, and there he met Claude Monet (1840—1926) and Camille Pissarro (1831-1903), who were also in exile in London. This was the first time Durand-Ruel met the painters who later came to be known as the Impressionists. While in London he opened a temporary gallery and sold the paintings of these exiled artists. Returning to Paris the next year, after the Commune had run its course and the military scourge of France ended, Durand-Rue] continued to buy their works and began to buy those of other Impressionist-painters like Auguste Renoir (1841- 1919), Alfred Sisley (1839-99), and the older and the more established artists, Edouard Manet and Edgar Degas (1834-1917).35 These Impressionist painters held their first group exhibition in 1874, and in 1876, in spite of a poor public response to the first one, they held a second group exhibition in Durand-Ruel's gallery. The painters again received negative criticism and there were few sales. The failure of this exhibition caused serious economic hardship to the previously successful Durand-Ruel gallery. As a businessman, Durand-Rue] had little choice but to give up these expensive group exhibitions in his French gallery.3‘5 Thus Paul Durand-Rue] invented his own art dealing system in order to alleviate this financial trouble. As Segi Shinichi defines it in his book, Seiki no Daigasho-tachi, Durand-Ruel's art dealing system 35 Taylor and Brooke, p. 36. Segi, Seiki no Daigasho-tachi, pp. 1 1-12. 35 Segi, Seiki no Daigasho-tachi, p. 13. . 16 can be characterized as a combination of the following: a global business network, one-person exhibitions, additional financial support for artists, and publications.37 Following the example set by his father, Paul Durand-Rue] expanded his business outside France and introduced his artists, mainly the Impressionists, to the United States and Germany to increase sales. Next, he offered his artists the opportunity to exhibit their works by holding one-person shows in France without having any biased judging system, unlike the Salon. He again followed his father's policy of targeting the newly developed middle class for sales. He also guaranteed his painters a minimum income with a fairly steady system of advances, which the Academic system had not been able or willing to do. Additionally, from the early stage of his career, he kept supporting his artists and their works, and helped the public appreciate the value of the paintings of his artists through his publications. Since he had begun to hold one-person exhibitions, he started to use publications to advertise his artists' shows in his gallery. Through this art dealing system, Paul Durand-Ruel created new roles for the "modern art dealer" as a patron of the modern artists of France and indeed Europe and as an educator of the public and collector of modern art. Durand-Ruel published his views in an article in the Revue Internationale de l'Art et de la C uriosité, of December, 1869: "a true picture dealer should also be an enlightened patron; that he should, if necessary, sacrifice his immediate interest to his artistic convictions, and prefer to oppose, rather than support 37 Ibid., p. 13. 17 the interests of the speculators."39 He realized this policy in practice and this ideal clearly reflects the actual operation of his business. First, Durand-Ruel began to hold group exhibitions outside France. He realized that many French patrons of the arts were still strongly influenced by the taste of the Salon, and that it was not easy for them to accept the new style of his painters. Therefore, he made his decision to seek business in other countries. In 1883, he held Impressionist exhibitions in Berlin, Germany and in Rotterdam, Holland, and abroad, in America in Boston and New York.39 In 1885, he received an invitation from the American Art Association to mount a large exhibition in America. The exhibition was held at the National Academy of Design in New York in 1886, and it marked the first successful show of Impressionists in terms of sales.“ Thus, he expanded the global network of the gallery, which had been begun by his father. In addition to these group shows, Durand-Rue] also used his gallery for one-person exhibitions of Impressionist or avant-garde paintings. It is certain that he learned the concept of exhibitions for a single artist from earlier examples in Paris, such as the one-person shows of Courbet and Manet. In 1879, an exhibition room for one- person shows of modern art, called La Vie Moderne, was opened by Georges Charpentier, and it may have been the model of Durand- Ruel's individual exhibitions. La Vie Moderne was a weekly magazine for art, literature, and social life, which was founded shortly before the opening of the gallery by Charpentier, Renoir's 38 Rewald, p. 272. 39 lbid., p. 604. 40 Segi, Seiki no Daigasho-tachi, p. 19. 18 patron. The magazine published the advertisement: " . . . our exhibitions will merely transfer momentarily the artist's studio to the boulevard, to a hall where it will be open to everyone. . ."41 The main purpose of these exhibitions was to show art works directly to the public to help educate them on the development of an artist's style. Durand-Ruel followed this form of individual exhibitions, emphasizing an additional purpose to offer to artists a place to display and sell works outside the Salon. In 1883, Durand-Rue] organized a series of individual exhibitions in his gallery, beginning with a show of Eugene Boudin, followed by Monet in March, Renoir in April, Pissaro in May, and a major exhibition of seventy paintings by Sisley in June. None of these shows were highly successful, but Durand-Ruel continued these exhibitions with James M. Whistler in 1888 and another of Sisley in 1889.42 Finally in 1891, he met With success when he held a one- person show for Monet that included a series of fifteen oil paintings of the well-known Ha ystacks.43 After a show of Mary Cassatt in the same year, he organized another series of individual exhibitions in 1892. The large and successful exhibition of Renoir helped to establish Renoir's reputation, and Monet's retrospective show resulted in the enthusiastic acceptance of his art by both critics and the public. Other shows in this year were of Pissarro, and of Degas' works in pastels. In 1893, Durand-Ruel mounted one-person exhibitions for Mary Cassatt and Paul Gauguin, the first and last show 41 Notice in La Vie Moderne quoted in Rewald, p. 430. 42 Segi, Seiki no Daigasho-tachi, p. 14. 43 Rewald, pp. 561-562. 19 for Gauguin in his gallery."-4 These individual exhibitions provided Durand-Ruel's artists with more freedom to create their own artistic styles through both intellectual and financial support. At the same time, the exhibitions played an important role in educating the public to modern art. Another factor that distinguished Durand-Ruel from other dealers was that he often acquired paintings even though no prospective buyer was in sight. When possible, he was willing to make substantial advances to the painters, which could be paid off in the form of new works. In return, although this seems to have been a gentlemen's agreement rather than a contract, he expected sole rights to sell their works.45 One of Durand-Ruel's letters to Pissarro illustrates his policy of support and representation which he held with his artists. In 1870 when they met for the first time in London, Pissarro left one of his paintings with the Durand-Ruel gallery, and received the following I'lOtEI My dear sir: you brought a charming picture and I regret not having been in the gallery to pay you my respects in person. Tell me, please, the price you want and be kind enough to send me others when you are able to. I must sell a lot of your work here.46 It is impressive that Durand-Ruel, the owner of an established gallery, wrote such a polite letter to a young and then unknown painter like Pissarro. 44 Segi, Seiki no Daigasho-tachi, p. 15. 45 White and White, p. 126. 46 Rewald, p. 254. White and White, p. 125. 20 He purchased a number of paintings, generally paying 300 francs for the Monets and 200 for the Pissarros. These prices were about twice what the artists had previously received for their works. After Durand-Rue] returned to Paris, he continued to buy the other Impressionists' works for much higher prices than usual as well. His payment for Renoir's and Sisley's works ranged from 200 to 300 francs, and for Degas' 800-3000 francs. When he visited Manet's studio one day, he bought twenty-three pictures for 35,000 francs, at an average price of 1500 francs each.47 By guaranteeing his artists a steady income with these advances, Durand-Rue] let them concentrate on developing their own art and pursuing their individual personal styles. Additionally, Durand-Ruel supported the painters in his art publications. In 1869, he founded the journal Revue Internationale de l'Art et de la Curiosité in which he explained the works of the "modern artists," particularly those artists he represented.48 According to John Rewald, the review of the Salon of 1870 in this journal stressed the importance of Pissarro, Degas, Manet, and even of Monet, whose work, which had been submitted to the Salon, had been rejected.49 The model of Charpentier's advertisements in La Vie Moderne, inspired Durand-Ruel to put in his magazine explanatory articles and advertisements for the exhibitions of his artists. Through these publications, Durand-Rue] gave his artists intellectual support with praise and recognition for their works. Also, he tried to 47 White and White, p. 126. These twenty-three paintings were sold for well over 800,000 francs mostly to American collectors and museums. 43 Segi, Seiki no Daigasho-tachi, p. 14. 49 Rewald, p. 254. . 21 keep his artists in the public view, and moreover, he played the role of educator helping the public appreciate and understand the works he represented in his gallery. After surviving two periods of near bankruptcy, in 1877 and again in 1882, perhaps brought on by a slightly flawed business sense, the Durand-Ruel Gallery recovered its economic stability and by 1890 it had firmly established its reputation as the prominent gallery of the Impressionists.so Paul Durand-Ruel took a tremendous risk with his painters, as the bankruptcies illustrate. He invented a new art dealing system, and through this system, he finally realized the new roles of art dealer as patron of artists and as educator of the public and collectors. Through group or independent exhibitions, Durand-Ruel supported a form of art which these artists really wanted to create; through additional income from sales or advances, he supported their livelihood so that they could concentrate on their art; and through publications he supported them intellectually by giving them recognition and praise for their creations. Unlike feudal or royal patrons such as Philip III of Burgundy, Jan van Eyck's patron in the fifteenth century, however, Durand-Ruel was often in too precarious a financial position to pay all of his painters a steady living allowance. Instead, he enabled the painter to gain personal contact with collectors and to make some direct sales. Also, by holding group and one-person exhibitions, he offered his artists another source of income through sales to the general public including the growing middle class. 50 Segi, Seiki no Daigasho-tachi, p. 15. . 22 Differing from the earlier patronage system in which painters relied solely on commissions, he treated his painters as independent artists instead of as craftsmen-artisans. His patronage was also more advanced than that of the Academy and the Salon, in terms of individualism which had been newly developed since the French Revolution. He paid much more respect to his painters as individual artists by not forcing on them specific styles of art, but offering them more freedom to create and pursue their own styles. Furthermore, Durand-Rue] was an educator of the French public and collectors on appreciating modern art as well. Through one-person exhibitions and publications, he served as an intermediary in explaining their works to the public. Through his gallery, he was also able to personally influence the taste of his customers for new styles, which is what most academic institutions could not do. Instead of answering to the collector's taste and needs, he tried to shape and direct the collector's taste and desires. In short, Durand-Rue] embodied the characteristics of a modern art dealer: a new art patron who supports artists and their new artistic styles as well as a mentor who educates both the public and collectors. This could be realized through the new art dealing system which was invented by Paul Durand-Ruel. Opinions of Durand-Ruel's artists on this modern art dealing system can be found in the Diary of an Art Dealer, a journal of René Gimpel (1881-1945), who was a later art dealer in Paris. On April 23, 1916, Gimpel visited Renoir in his studio, and asked him the cost for one of his canvases. Renoir answered: "I can't sell cheaply because of the dealers: I don't want to hamper their business. I 23 have, for example, an old debt of gratitude to Durand-Rue], who alone helped me to eat when I was hungry."51 By then, after being accepted even by the Salon in 1877, Renoir had obtained a high reputation and became a successful artist. But still, he was loyal to his first dealer, Durand-Ruel. On November 28, 1918, Monet related to Gimpel that " . . . There's only one person to whom I owe something, and that's Durand—Rue], who was looked upon as mad and nearly attacked by the bailiffs on our account."52 Two years later, on October 8, 1920, Monet repeated his sentiments about Durand-Ruel, on behalf of the Impressionists, "Durand-Ruel was our guardian angel, but as his admiration for us brought him to the worst financial disasters, he was obliged to move to America."53 Monet was one of the most successful artists of Durand-Ruel's patronage, and once he became well-known in 1885, he moved from Durand-Ruel to rival galleries and held one-person shows there, such as at the George Petit gallery in 1885 and 1889.54 But as he mentioned to Gimpel later, he did not like Petit and eventually returned to Durand-Ruel's gallery in 1891.55 These statements of the artists prove that his art dealing system supported them well enough that they remained loyal to him even after they achieved financial success. 51 René Gimpel, Diary of an Art Dealer (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, Inc., 1966), p. 20. 52 Ibid., p. 75. 53 lbid., p. 152. 54 Segi, Seiki no Daigasho-tachi, p. 20. 55 Gimpel, p. 152. Monet confessed, ". . . I sought out Georges Petit. It wasn't easy to persuade him. His father had done us a lot of harm." 24 In other words, the success of Durand-Ruel's artists shows that his dealing system was helpful for his artists and appreciated by them. Additionally, their success was realized through sales from the public including the middle class, both in Europe and the United States, who were educated to understand modern art through his dealing system. Paul Durand-Ruel became a new art patron, and he served as an educator as well. After recognizing his accomplishments, several far-sighted young people in Paris hoped to model themselves as art dealers like Durand-Rue]. Among them, Ambroise Vollard (?-l939) was perhaps the most noteworthy dealer who followed the example of his mentor. In the 18903, Vollard acquired paintings by Cézanne and Gauguin, and came to represent a number of great artists of the late nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries. He held the first one-person shows of Henri Matisse in 1901 and of Pablo Picasso in 1904, and in 1906 he purchased all the works in the studio of Maurice de Vlaminck. In the end, he came to be known as the dealer of the Post-Impressionists, and he made an outstanding collection of his artists' works.55 Daniel-Henri Kahnweiler (1884-1979), best known as the dealer of the Cubists, Picasso, Georges Braque and Juan Gris, is considered the most prominent dealer of the next generation of art dealers to follow Vollard. In an interview with Francis Crémieux, Kahnweiler describes his admiration of Durand-Rue] and of Vollard, since these two were the only art dealers besides himself who had paid for paintings that did not have a guaranteed return.57 56 Segi, Seiki no Daigasho-tachi, pp. 49-5 1. 57 Daniel-Henri Kahnweiler, My Galleries and Painters (London: Thames and Hudson, Ltd., 1971), pp. 61, 116.. 25 According to the biography written by Pierre Assouline, "He [Kahnweiler] wanted to become a Durand-Ruel or a Vollard; that is, a precursor, someone who bought what he liked and then imposed his taste on the public. "58 Both Vollard and Kahnweiler modeled their art dealing practices on the modern system that had been invented by Durand- Ruel, and they became "modern art dealers." The new system became common in Europe and enabled art dealers to function as practical business people. Towards the end of the nineteenth century this resulted in the birth of the modern art market in Europe. 53 Pierre Assouline, An Artful Life: A Biography of D. H. Kahnweiler, 1884-1979 , trans. Charles Ruas (New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1990), p. 30. III. The United States: National Independence and Cultural Evolution - Modern Art Dealing for American Artists Significant differences distinguish the history of art dealing in Europe from that of America. Unlike Europe, no court painters existed in America, simply because of its origins and history. America did not have royalty or a dominant church to patronize its arts. Therefore, compared with Europe, patronage in this country has historically been private and small in scale, and rooted in its democratic heritage.59 The history of colonial American art began in the British colony of Jamestown, Virginia in 1607. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, in the newly settled continent, European immigrants were busy with the practical matters of housing, eating, and, in some cases, just surviving.‘50 This was well illustrated by the demise of most of J amestown's original colonists. Most residents could not afford the leisure time or expense of devoting themselves to the support of art. Originally, most of the early settlers in America were of the Protestant faith, which viewed images of Christ as idolatrous, while in Europe, art was indispensable to the Catholic Church, to depict holy stories or to decorate churches.61 Consequently, America had no need for specific forms of religious art. 59 Majorie Leslie Harth, Robert Hudson Tannahill (1893-1 969): Patron and Collector (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan, 1985), pp. vii-viii. 50 Ichida Koichi, New York Kaiga Ha tten-shi (Tokyo: Doyo Bijutsu-sha, 1990), pp. 14-15, 22. Joshua C. Taylor, The Fine Arts in America (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1979), p. 3. 61 Ichida, pp. 12-13. 26 27 Yet even in this new society and culture, some people managed to earn their living by painting. These early painters, who came mainly from England or Holland, did everything from painting pictures to painting houses and making signboards in order to support themselves. As itinerant craftsmen, they traveled widely and sought out work, sometimes receiving commissions making family portraits. Back in England, portraiture continued an aristocratic tradition of preserving likenesses of family members as a sign of class distinction. Therefore, many of the prominent immigrants wanted to have their portraits done to leave for their descendants.62 American portraits of the seventeenth century often lacked signatures, as is evidenced by Margaret Gibbs, an oil painting done in 1670. Technically this picture is rather primitive, showing that the painter did not have training in perspective, since the Renaissance had not yet reached the countryside of England from which most of the settlers came.63 The absence of a signature in these portraits indicates that such paintings were not regarded as objects for trading, and signifies the artisan's perception that his painting was a form of craftsmenship, rather than creativity. However skillfully they could create the portraits, the painters were treated as and perceived themselves to be craftsmen, as in earlier periods of European art.64 62 James Thomas Flexner, A Short History of American Painting, trans. Morimoto Kiyomi (Tokyo: Arachi Publishing Co., 1955), p. 18. 63 Ibid., p. 18. 64 Ichida, p. 22. 28 During the eighteenth century, American painters usually took orders directly from their customers, and as portraiture was still the only type of art in demand, they were required to make exactly what the customers asked.65 These portrait paintings belonged mainly to two different styles of art, a European-based academic style and a more native untrained folk style. This "academic" style does not mean that there was an academy in the new continent. American academic painters were artists who followed the dominant styles of English painting primarily. Some were English-born painters who immigrated to the continent, and others were colonists who traveled to England to study art. John Smibert (1688-1751) is a good example of an American academic painter. He immigrated from England to America in 1728. After he realized that the new continent lacked professional painters with academic skills, he decided to move to the new land and to try to establish a career there. Besides his works, he actively introduced to America the advanced skills and systems of European art. He held the first exhibition in America of his own works and acted as a teacher to other American paintersfi6 Folk painters were those who lacked training, and they were commonly referred to as "limners." These primitive artists traveled from village to village taking orders for paintings, mainly portraits, just like the earlier anonymous painters of the seventeenth century. Academic painters had began to sign their works, while the limners who perceived themselves primarily as craftsmen did not. Some 55 Ibid., p. 36. 66 Ibid., pp. 47-55. 29 limners, who had wealthy patrons, have been identified with the patrons' family names, such as The De Peyster Limner, who painted De Peyster Boy with Deer (circa. 1720-30). It is said that this artist acquired a print after Sir Godfrey Kneller, who was one of the most popular painters in London, and this De Peyster Boy is one of several copies that the limner made in oil after that print.67 As seen in the difference between the two types of painters, the gap between the rich and poor grew during the eighteenth century, as the young American society prospered and developed its domestic industries. PeOple who could not make enough money to go Europe had nothing to do but develop their skills on their own as did The De Peyster Limner. This young American society still lacked an established relationship between master-painter and pupil, to say nothing of a developed art academy.68 Although many people continued to look to England as a cultural center during and after the American Revolution (1776), once the Republic was established, a new motivation for both the public and the artist occurred. Joshua C. Taylor points out that "As consciousness grew of the entity called the United States of America, . . . They had an obligation to prove the virtues of their experimental democratic society under the scrutiny of the entire western world and to uphold the national honor achieved in the war of independence"69 through artistic work. Consequently, artists began to do portraits of prominent American men, which became a major 57 Flexner, p. 19. 68 Ichida, pp. 36-62. 69 Taylor, p. 29. 30 source of commissions for painters, replacing the previously dominant family portraits. Gilbert Stuart (1755-1828) is famous for his portraits of George Washington. He had three separate sittings with Washington and a long of series of replicas based upon the originals.70 The portraits of American founding fathers, its military heroes and statesmen helped to dignify and to keep on historical record the accomplishments of the Revolution and of the initial government of the republic. In 1782, Charles Willson Peale (1741-1827), one of the major American painters of the time, opened his own gallery, and an art museum in 1786 in Philadelphia (Figure 3). After three years of military service under General Washington, Peale painted many battle scenes of the war of Independence and portraits of generals. He opened the gallery and museum to show these paintings widely to the American public.71 The function of his gallery, however, differed from that of other modern ones in Europe since his purpose was not to support other painters but to show to the public his own paintings. It was not unlike the later one-person exhibitions of Gustave Courbet and Edouard Manet in France. Following the Revolution, the Neo-Classical style became popular with Americans because the Classical style of the Roman Republic seemed appropriate to their Democratic political goals versus those of Royalist Europe at that time. Furthermore, American painters tried to elevate their skills to the same level as those of European artists by adopting the artistic style which was prominent 70 Ibid., p. 34. 71 Ichida, pp. 81-84. 31 in France during the late eighteenth century. Americans, therefore, imported the current fashion of European art. Accordingly, a considerable number of art works gathered at port towns in the United States, such as Boston and New York, along with other commodities in fashion. Wealthy people and artists were attracted to those towns to directly see the latest European fashions, and the towns developed into the domestic cultural centers of the United States. There the intelligentsia started to introduce the exported commodities including art works to the public.72 Thus, more creative art works dealing with subjects besides portraits and historical themes became accessible to the general public even in the United States. Gradually a need for quality art was instilled within the American public. The independent-government, however, was not financially established enough to support the artists of their own country. Rarely in the early nineteenth century did the government commission artists to make historical paintings. John Trumbull (1756-1843), one of the major portrait and historical painters of this time, hoped that the government would commission him to execute his paintings on a monumental scale as great public images, but no one in Congress was willing to take the responsibility of spending public money for paintings until 18 17. Some thirty-five years after Trumbull began work on his important project, he completed four panels depicting common themes of the American Revolution, such as 72 Ibid., pp. 79-80. 32 the Declaration of Independence, in the rotunda of the United States Capitol, Washington D.C.73 About the same time in France in 1792, Jacques Louis David, the most prominent painter of Neo-Classicism said, in an address to the Assembly in France, that "it was the duty of the painters to kindle in the hearts of their countrymen a love of their country, by depicting acts of heroism and civic virtue and to galvanize the souls of the people."74 But, the contemporary painters in the United States had little financial support to make such a contribution. The artistic scene in America still lagged behind that of Europe in terms of monies appropriated for the arts or public commissions. During the nineteenth century, American social leaders began to see art as a moral force in the community and they accepted the responsibility for establishing art organizations which the American government had been unable to do. The major exhibiting institutions were the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts and the National Academy of Design in New York. The Pennsylvania Academy was founded in 1805 by a group of community leaders in Philadelphia and the National Academy was formed in 1825 by leading artists, and both institutions have continued in operation to the present.75 Among the founders of the National Academy there were painters of the Hudson River School, such as Thomas Cole (1801-1848) and Asher Durand (1796-1886).76 Cole was an English painter who moved to the United States and created landscape paintings of the 73 Taylor, p, 33. 74 Ibid., p. 33. 75 Ibid., pp. 43-45. 76 Eliot Clark, History of the National Academy of Design 1825-1 953 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1954), p. 243. 33 great natural scenes of America. His style was followed by many painters, like Durand, who came to be known as the Hudson River School, and landscape became one of the major subjects of an academic style of painting in the United States. These academies functioned similar to the Paris Academy and the Salon : teaching art skills, holding exhibitions, trading pictures at the exhibitions, and providing exposure for artists so they might obtain commissions.77 Though the American academies were not governmental institutions, they served well to centralize artistic taste and helped to change the American art scenes like earlier organizations had done in Paris. The American art business became more systematic and developed. American painters finally gained more opportunities to learn artistic skills and places in which to exhibit their works in their own country. As a result, they were provided with chances to display works created without direct commissions and to achieve fame and high social status as individual artists. At the same time, these exhibitions enabled the American public to appreciate contemporary art and they helped to generate a greater demand for works of art. By the late nineteenth century, the public's ability to appreciate art increased as the economy stabilized and people had more leisure time to devote to cultural activities. Just as in France, a middle class grew to be a major component of the American art market, and more people out of the class came to seek a career in art. The establishment of the American Art-Union exemplifies the American public's increasing tendency to buy art works in the 77 Ichida, p. 94. 34 middle nineteenth century. This organization was founded in New York in 1839 as the Apollo Association and in 1844 became the American Art-Union. All subscribers received an engraving as a reward for their membership and had a chance to win by lottery one of the paintings which were selected by the well-known jury of the society. The Art-Union helped to encourage a wider public for American art until 1852, when it was declared an illegal lottery under the laws of New York and was forced to close down.78 In spite of democratic principles, remnants of aristocratic cultural traditions remained in the United States. Some wealthy families were so successful in their businesses that they formed financial cliques, such as the Rockefellers of the oil business and the Morgans of the banking business]9 They regarded art as the symbol of their authority and social prestige just as the powerful leaders in Renaissance Italy had done. They competed against one another to collect art works until they became the strongest patrons of art anywhere in the United States of the late nineteenth century.80 This American "royalty," however, was limited and did not set up a dominant patron-client system, although they were strong supporters of the arts. The New York art market, like the country, began to grow rapidly and in many directions during the nineteenth century. There the art market had developed to become the basic groundwork of today's system: pictures were dealt with as objects for trading. The Goupil Gallery in Paris put a representative named Michel Knoedler 73 Taylor, pp. 80-81. Flexner, p. 88. 79 Ichikawa, pp. 124-126. 80 Ichikawa, pp. 147-148. Taylor, pp. 144-145. 35 in New York in 1846.81 In 1886, Paul Durand-Ruel opened a New York branch of his gallery and started the exhibition of the Impressionists in the United States. Before Durand-Ruel's exhibition, the Impressionist style had been first introduced to America by young American painters who had studied in Paris and Mary Cassatt (1844-1926) was the most influential among these painters on the course of Impressionism in American art history. For, owing to her introduction, her wealthy family and friends became the most important collectors of Impressionist painting in the world. Joshua C. Taylor describes the situation of the time in The Fine Arts in America: By the time Durand—Rue] brought an exhibition of more than three hundred paintings to New York in 1886 billed as Works in Oil and Pastel by the Impressionists of Paris, the public reaction was such that he believed he had finally discovered a sympathetic market. For a time the works had even been shown in the galleries of the National Academy.82 It is also possible that the American public and the National Academy valued Impressionism since its subjects were mainly the favorite American themes of landscape or "democratic" genre scenes. Thus Impressionism became one of the major painting-styles in American academies of that time in part because of the high value placed on European art and it continued to be a prominent style as it further developed and matured in an American way.83 The National Academy of Design became the most prominent artistic organization in America by the end of the nineteenth century. 81 The Art Dealers, ed. Laura de Coppet and Alan Jones (New York: Clarkson N. Potter, Inc., 1984), p. 16. 32 Taylor, p. 134. 83 Segi, Seiki no Daigasho-tachi, p. 20. , 36 Financially successful shows dominated over those of the New York art market because they determined the trends followed by most of the commercial galleries in the United States. In this way, the National Academy enjoyed almost exclusive control over public exhibitions and sales of art. However, "much of the academic art produced in the United States was saccharine, sentimental, uninspired, and often thoroughly dull," writes William 1. Homer.84 The art scene in France, which Americans had tried to emulate, was itself changing during this period. But the National Academy kept adhering to the old methods of teaching learned from France mainly because of a lack of effort to improve its own system. The National Academy, therefore, seldom put any value on the new artistic currents and with the exception of Impressionism did not accept avant—garde European artistic styles in a wholesale manner. Following the rigid system of the Salon, the National Academy of Design continued a centralized autocratic judging system for its exhibitions during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It preferred to accept only works which were made according to its own conservative taste, including portraits or Hudson-River-style landscapes, with the exception of Impressionism pictures. For example, the traveling scholarship for students offered by the National Academy was awarded to artists like Maurice Sterne (1878- 1957) in 1905 and Leon Kroll (1884-1974) in 1909.35 According to Joshua C. Taylor, "their compositions had been freed by the new visions stemming from Cézanne, and their paintings as a whole were 34 William Innes Homer, Alfred Stieglitz and the American Avant-Garde (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1977), p. 82. 85 Clark, p. 148. 37 voluptuous without overstepping the bounds of a persistent American modesty. "85 American painters of the early twentieth century, like their French counterparts, had to follow an academic style of painting because the National Academy of Design was influential on all other academies and these academies were the best places for the painters to sell their works or to get direct orders from perspective customers.87 It was not until the early twentieth century that Alfred Stieglitz ( 1864-1946; Figure 4), known mainly as a leading American photographer, began supporting painters whose art was not conservative enough to be accepted by the academies. He was the first art dealer in the United States to offer a place outside the academies for the contemporary artists to exhibit and to sell their works directly to the public. In the United States, after the first gallery of Charles Willson Peale was founded in 1782, commercial art dealers had begun to multiply from the 18405 on. But, "most of them, like Goupil, . . . handled only foreign works" as Joshua C. Taylor explained.88 None of the earlier dealers supported contemporary American artists. Considering the differences between those examples and the "modern art dealing" which Durand-Rue] had started in Paris, Stieglitz clearly deserves the title as the first modern art dealer in the United States. Alfred Stieglitz followed the art dealing system which Durand- Ruel had started in Paris: a global business network, one-person 35 Taylor, p. 183. 87 Ichida, pp. 166-171. 83 Taylor, p. 141. 38 exhibitions, additional financial support, and publications. Stieglitz also played the two important roles of a modern art dealer, one as a patron of modern American artists and one as an educator of the American public and collectors. He financially supported his artists through sales from exhibitions, another source of income from the growing middle class customers, and occasionally through additional direct funds as well. He intellectually supported his artists by mounting group or one- person exhibitions and issuing publications. His patronage liberated American artists from the restrictions of earlier periods in which they had relied solely on commissions or had to follow academic styles. Further, through one-person exhibitions and publications he enlightened the American public and collectors on avant-garde art. Accordingly, Stieglitz played an important role as the first successor in the United States of the modern art dealing system first established by Durand-Rue] in Paris. The global network market that Stieglitz operated differed from that of Durand-Rue]. During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, young American artists, including Stieglitz himself, still considered Europe as the cultural center. Many artists continued to go to Europe to study the avant-garde art there. While Stieglitz studied photography in Europe in the 18805, he also learned the current fashions of painting and the modern art dealing system as well.89 Even after his return to the United States in 1890, there were neither individuals nor institutions to introduce the European avant-garde art to the American public and artists. Academies and 89 Homer, p. 12. 39 galleries predominantly handled only traditional American subjects and styles of painting or that of Impressionism. Accordingly, Stieglitz held exhibitions of European artists for the American public, and more than that, of American avant-garde artists. In this sense, Stieglitz was an educator for artists as well as the public and collectors. In 1909 Stieglitz wrote his sister, Selma Schubart, that he did not value traditional, non-progressive artistic styles even though these were broadly accepted by the American public: "I hate tradition for tradition's sake; . . . I never knew I had the ability to hate in me but I find that as I grow older a hatred not against individuals but against customs, traditions, superstitions, etc., is growing fast and strong. . ."90 Extrapolating from this, he must have disliked the American art system bred by the conservative National Academy of Design. In his book, Alfred Stieglitz Talking, Herbert J. Seligman wrote, "Stieglitz was speaking of Vollard, the French art dealer who had 'established' Cézanne, saying that Vollard was a genius, whereas there were no dealers in America."91 Stieglitz tried to become the first art dealer in America to establish American artists and progressive artistic styles. Before starting his modern art dealing, however, Alfred Stieglitz devoted himself to the acceptance of photography, convinced that it was no less of an art form than painting. In 1898, the first International Salon of Artistic Photography was held at the 90 Ibid., p. 67. From Stieglitz's letter to Selma Schubart, Oct. 4, 1909. 91 Herbert J. Seligman, Alfred Stieglitz Talking: Notes on Some of His Conversations, 1 925-1 931, with a Forward (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966), p. 115 This comment was made on December 12, 1926. 40 Philadelphia Academy of the Fine Arts, and Stieglitz presided as an influential member of the jury.92 In 1902, Stieglitz founded the Photo-Secession, a loose organization of art photographers, and in 1903 the new group began to publish a journal, entitled Camera Work. In November of 1905, Stieglitz bought a studio at 291 Fifth Avenue in New York from Edward Steichen (1879-1972), a younger photographer, and there he opened the Little Galleries of Photo- Secession which exhibited works by the Photo-Secession members. Soon after its opening, the gallery became known to the art world simply as the "291."93 After 1907, Stieglitz started to represent other fine arts in addition to photography. At first, he began an international business by holding periodic exhibitions of contemporary European artists who were not yet established in Europe, such as the Cubists or Fauves. He introduced European contemporary art to the American public and tried to educate them about current artistic styles in other European countries. Before his advent, the American public had no ready opportunity to learn about progressive modern art. For the academies, the leading institutions of art in the country, set much value on traditional American styles of painting and subjects, such as portraits or landscapes, or paintings of the established styles of European art. The one exception was the Impressionist style, highly valued by the academies owing to its introduction by Mary Cassatt and Durand-Rue] and its popular success. After Durand-Rue], 92 Taylor, p. 160. 93 Taylor, pp. 160-161. Segi. Seiki no Daigasho-tachi, pp. 170-171. 41 Stieglitz was the first American dealer to bring European avant- garde art to the United States. In 1906, Edward Steichen returned to Paris, where he had studied before, to concentrate on creating his own photography. There he also helped Stieglitz's gallery by offering information on the contemporary art scene of Paris. He visited Rodin, whom he both knew and admired, and in January 1908, an exhibition of fifty-eight drawings by the sculptor was realized at the 291 gallery in New York. It was the first exhibition of Rodin in the United States, and it caused a considerable stir. It was also the first of many exhibitions of European artists whom Stieglitz introduced to this country.94 The second major show was the exhibition of Henri Matisse in April of the same year. It was also the first show of Matisse's work in the United States, and the first time Matisse exhibited his work outside of France. At that time the United States was far behind European countries in the public's understanding of modern art. Many visitors were shocked by the exhibition of Rodin, who already had been recognized as a master of sculpture in Europe.95 It is no wonder that controversy occurred among the New York art public, because Matisse was the leader of Fauvism, then the most radical artistic movement even in France. From that time on, Stieglitz, in collaboration with Steichen, continued holding exhibitions of European artists. They introduced the following artists to America: from 1909 to 1910, thirty lithographs by Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec; in 1910, drawings and 94 Mahonri Sharp Young, Early American Modems: Painters of the Stieglitz Group (New York: Watson-Guptill Publications, 1974), p. 9. 95 Segi, Seiki no Daigasho-tachi, p. 172 42 photographs of paintings by Henri Matisse; forty-one drawings and watercolors by Auguste Rodin; lithographs by Edouard Manet, Paul Cézanne, Pierre Auguste Renoir, T oulouse-Lautrec; paintings and drawings by Rodin; four or five oil paintings and two ink drawings by Henri Rousseau; in 191 1, twenty watercolors by Cezanne; eighty- three drawings and watercolors by Pablo Picasso; in 1912, twelve drawings and twelve sculptures by Henri Matisse; in 1913, sixteen studies of New York by Francis Picabia; in 1914, eight sculptures by Constantine Brancusi; in 1914-1915, charcoal drawings and oil paintings by Georges Braque and Picasso; in 1915, three large non- objective oil paintings by Picabia. These artists were mainly of the Post-Impressionist and the Cubist schools. Many of these shows, such as those of Toulouse-Lautrec, Cézanne, Rousseau, Picabia, Brancusi, and Braque, were the first exhibitions of these artists in the United States, or the first one-person shows in America (such as those of Cézanne, Picabia, and Picasso) or for some, the first one- person shows anywhere (such as the show of Brancusi). Stieglitz's exhibitions of these artists were the first held outside of their own countries.96 Thus, Stieglitz brought modern art to America and there he enlightened an initially grudging art public. In the early twentieth century, American artists had only limited access to the latest styles of European art, like the artists whom Stieglitz introduced, at the educational art institutions, including the National Academy of Design. Therefore, most young American artists had to study avant-garde art in Europe and 96 Sue Davidson Lowe, Stieglitz: A Memoir/ Biography (New York. Farrar Straus Giroux, 1983), pp. 431- 432. Segi, Seiki no Daigasho-tachi, p. 173. Homer, pp. 296-298. Young, p. 9. 43 returned to the United States to create their own art with European roots. Stieglitz supported several of those artists who were pursuing the new avant-garde styles. Through his gallery he further offered these artists the opportunity to study the latest European painting and sculpture even in America. His gallery also became a place where artists who were inspired by European art could display their own works. In 1909 Stieglitz held exhibitions of young American artists like Alfred Maurer (1868-1932) and John Marin (1870-1953), both of whom Steichen came to know in Paris. Marsden Hartley (1877- 1943) made his debut at the 291 in the same year. In a 1910 group exhibition, entitled "Young American Painters," Stieglitz featured other artists, including Arthur G. Dove (1880-1946) and Max Weber (1881-1961), who were sent by way of Steichen from Paris. In 1912 Abraham Walkowitz (1878-1965) had a show and he suggested that Stieglitz mount an exhibition of children's art, the first of its kind anywhere. In 1917 Georgia O'Keeffe's (1887- 1986) show at the 291 was the last before Stieglitz closed the gallery because of the advent of the First World War.97 According to the modern art dealing practices established by Durand-Rue], Stieglitz held a number of one-person shows of these American painters from 1910 to 1913. At the beginning, his business was not immediately successful because most of the public was not yet interested in avant-garde art.98 These exhibitions were significant, however, because Stieglitz was the first to offer American 97 Young, p. 9. 93 Lowe, pp. 430-432. Homer, pp. 296-297. 44 artists the opportunity to display their own art outside of the academies. After the New York Armory Show in 1913, which widely introduced avant-garde art to the American public, the public finally began to be interested in these new forms of art. As the number of visitors to one-person exhibitions increased, sales from the middle- class buyers became larger.99 Thus, one-person exhibitions in the United States came to function as a component of the modern art dealing system. Sponsor-dealers achieved the ability to give financial and intellectual support to their artists, and as a result, more freedom to pursue their individual artistic interests. The public was also able to learn more about contemporary art by visiting these one-person shows. Stieglitz, like the precedent-setting Durand-Ruel, sometimes gave direct financial support to his artists. He put up money for Hartley to go abroad in 1912 to see a great number of paintings and famous painters in Europe.100 He guaranteed Marin an income until his paintings began to sell and offered him one-person exhibitions almost every year.101 William Homer, in his book, Alfred Stieglitz, introduces an episode about this type of financial support: "The artist's father had suggested to Stieglitz that Marin support himself by producing salable work in the mornings and paint pictures to suit himself in the rest of his time; Stieglitz, in reply, said this would be artistic prostitution."102 Marin was glad to let Stieglitz deal with the financial and business aspects of his career in return for his artistic 99 Segi, Seiki no Daigasho-tachi, p. 176. 100 Young, p. 17. 101 Homer, p. 88. 102 Ibid., p.99. 45 freedom. Through this support, Stieglitz wanted Marin to concentrate on developing his own creations. The other roles distinguishing the modern art dealer, intellectual support and the advancement of artists and the enlightenment of the public through publications, were also done by Stieglitz. Originally, most of the coverage in Camera Work was photographic. But five years after its first issue, it started in 1908 to carry articles on contemporary fine arts and criticism, which helped to increase the public's involvement and knowledge of contemporary art. In later issues, Stieglitz included articles about avant-garde European and American painting and sculpture. Through explanatory articles in "the most advanced American periodical devoted to art," he also tried to reinforce the message of the shows of his gallery.‘°3 After the war, in 1925, Stieglitz reopened at the Intimate Gallery with his "Group of Five": Marin, Hartley, Dove, O'Keeffe, and a new member Charles Demuth (1883-1935). He closed the gallery in 1929, but in 1930 he started the new, and his last, gallery called An American Place. He continuously exhibited his artists until his death in 1946.104 These five artists are now hailed as America's earliest modern painters. Marin established a stable reputation for his watercolor landscapes, and for this he enjoyed some measure of fame. Unlike Marin, Dove never became popular during his life. But he may be considered an inventor and father of abstract art even before Kandinsky, and Stieglitz maintained his support of the artist 103 Ibid., p. 66. 104 Lowe, p. xviii. 46 to help the public understand Dove's art.1°s O'Keeffe, who married Stieglitz in 1924, was influenced by Dove, and she re-invented abstract art in her own style.106 Mahonri Sharp Young describes an episode that illustrates how Arthur Dove appreciated Stieglitz's support: "When Dove was asked what Stieglitz meant to him as an artist, he answered: 'Everything.‘ . He didn't think he could have existed as a painter without the battle Stieglitz fought day by day for twenty-five years."107 For Marsden Hartley, the 291 was "the small room which is the biggest in the world out of galleries of this sort."108 John Marin wrote in a letter to Egmont Arens, managing editor of an art magazine, Creative Arts, . The doors have been swung wide open to me by my friend, Alfred Stieglitz, . . . Alfred Stieglitz still persists in the Swung Door. . . Then there's O'Keeffe, Dove, and Hartley."1°9 Such statements by his artists demonstrate that this art dealing system, invented by Durand-Ruel and followed by Stieglitz, was helpful for American artists as well. Also, the success of Stieglitz's artists indicates that he succeeded in teaching the American public and collectors about avant-garde art. Stieglitz can be said to be the first modern art dealer in the United States and he introduced the practices of modern art dealership to the country. 105 Taylor, pp. 162-163. Young, pp. 18-19. 1061chida, pp. 176-180. 107 Young, p. 18. 108 Ichida, p. 175. [translation mine] 109 John Marin, The Selected Writings of John Marin ed. with an Introduction Drothy Norman (New York: Pellegrini & Cudahy, 1949), p. 121. This letter' is dated August 26,1928. 47 After the New York Armory Show of 1913, the state of American art dealing changed considerably. Many European artists, such as Marcel Duchamp (1887-1968) decided to stay in America, particularly in New York, to escape the vagaries of the First World War. The New York art market was expanding as well as the number of art dealers there. According to Betty Parsons (1900-1982), there were about fifteen galleries in New York in 1946 when she started her gallery.11° An artist in her own right, Parsons opened her gallery to represent some of the artists of the Abstract Expressionist movement such as Jackson Pollock (1912-56), Mark Rothko (1903— 70), and Clyfford Still (1904-1980). She believed that a good eye was a talent given by nature, and only people who possessed it could help artists from being lost. "There was that amazing man in Paris, Vollard, two or three others in Paris, and there are two or three alive in the world today. But if it weren't for that eye, if there weren't those people, the artist would be lost."111 Based on her belief, she dared to support American avant-garde artists, after the model of the earlier dealers in France and of Stieglitz in America. In later years Leo Castelli (born 1907) was one of Parson's favorite art dealers who knew how to take care of his artists and knew how to promote them,112 and he is still one of the most prominent modern art dealers in New York and internationally. He has supported painters of other Abstract Expressionist or Pop Art movements, and among his artists, there are many successful ones 110 Betty Parsons, in The Art Dealers ed. Laura de Coppet and Alan Jones (New York: Clarkson N. Potter, Inc., 1984), p. 23. 111 Ibid., p. 21. 112 Ibid., p. 29. 48 such as Jasper Johns (born 1930), Robert Rauschenberg (born 1925), Andy Warhol(1930-87), and Roy Lichtenstein(bom 1923). In 1957, when he had his first show in his gallery, Castelli explained his goals: "I wanted to indicate that the American artists were just as important as the European artists, perhaps more so."113 At the time of this first show, American collectors and dealers continued to place a high value on European art. Castelli finally broke this tradition through his gallery which he operates in the new art dealing system. In other words, his work as a modern art dealer provided American artists with enough freedom that they could continue to pursue their own styles, original "American" styles of avant-garde art. The success of his artists was brought through his effort as an educator to help the American public and collectors understand and appreciate the "American" styles. Owing to modern art dealers like Castelli, the New York art market developed so steadily that the city is generally considered the center of the international art market today. 113 Leo Castelli, in The Art Dealers, p. 87. IV. Japan: Tradition and the Newly Imported Western Art -- Late Successor of Modern Art Dealing The Japanese nation has a long and established history, and consequently, so does its art and culture. From the medieval to the modern period, Japanese painters were in a social position similar to that of European painters: they were regarded n0t as independent creators but as craftsmen. A structured hierarchical relationship between patron and artist also existed in Japanese society. Throughout its history, Japan has had many forms of authority, including royalty, aristocracy, and theocracy. Because these various groups often patronized artists, there were primarily two kinds of painters in Japan, as in Europe: painters with strong patrons and those without. Since its earliest introduction from China in the fifth century, the major religion of the Japanese people has been Buddhism, which is markedly different from Christianity of the West. In Japan, painting was developed mainly in Buddhist art works whose icons originated in China. Toward the middle of the Heian period (794- 1 185) a differentiation was made between two kinds of pictures according to their themes: traditional Chinese themes and native Japanese themes, the latter being called Yamato-e, meaning "Japanese Pictures." In the following Kamakura period (1 185-1333), Chinese ink painting was introduced to Japan along with a new school of Buddhism, Zen. During the Muromachi period (1337-1573) Zen ink painting flourished with the support of the military aristocracy. Yamato-e also continued and came to be defined as a tradition of 49 50 decorative style, employing flat areas of color, contour lines, and the use of gold and silver.114 Many of the outstanding artists in ink painting were Zen priests, some of whom had come from China or had received training there, such as Kao (?-1345) or Sesshu (1420-1506). The artists, who had distinctive individual styles, usually signed their works, which were most often made for aristocratic residences. Though most of the early Yamato—e artists are anonymous, some were associated with the aristocracy and signed their works, too. The Tosa school, which was a family of official painters for the Imperial Court from the early fifteenth century to the mid-nineteenth century, are known as prominent early Yamato-e painters.115 Because of the strong patronage of the aristocracy, their works, unlike most of their peers, are well documented and several paintings by these artists, such as those of Tosa Mitsunobu (?-1523), have been preserved to the present day. In the late fifteenth century, the Kano family, another major family of painters, formed an artistic style that fused the Chinese ink style and Yamato-e styles, as seen in works by Kano Eitoku (1543- 90) or Kano Tanyu (1602-74). Throughout the Edo period (1615- 1867) Kano artists were the official painters of the shogunate and had a great influence on the popular arts and painting. The Yamato- e tradition continued until the collapse of their patrons, the shogunate, and it came to be identified with a new name, the Nihon- 1 14 Miyagawa Torao, Modern Japanese Pain ting: An Art in Transition trans. lmai Toshizo (Tokyo: Kodansha lntemational Ltd, 1967), p. 13. 115 Machida Koichi, Gaisetsu Nihon Bijutsu-shi (Tokyo. Kikkawa Kobun- sha, 1965), p. 149. 51 ga (J apanese-style painting) after the birth of modern times with the Meiji Restoration of 1868.116 Painters who did not have strong patrons had to literally sell their pictures on the streets in addition to taking on commissions. After the end of the Kamakura period, in the early fourteenth century, the development of coinage resulted in the advent of a new merchant-citizen class. These merchants developed to be an antecedent of a modern middle class, and painters often targeted the sale of their pictures to people of this class. These painters were called machi-eshi, "city painters," and some traveled around for jobs, while others owned shops, selling their works through them.117 Until the modern period the history of the dealers and painters in Japan is similar to that of Europe. In both areas painters who had strong patrons, like kings or feudal aristocracies, were in similar positions. In addition to painting, artists also oversaw every kind of court decoration from that of the interior and exterior of the buildings to the color selections of the clothing worn by the royal family and officials. Furthermore, in Japan, as in Europe, there were other painters who responded to the demands of the citizen class by selling their works in their shops or while traveling. Master-painters ran their shops and there was a hierarchical master-apprentice relationship, but there was no organization of urban painters like the guild of St. Luc in Europe. The machi-eshi, in any case, usually sold their works through the street markets, in addition to taking orders for specific works. This method is depicted in the Gaki Zoshi 116 Miyagawa, Modern Japanese Painting, pp. 13-14. 117 Ichida, p. 62. 52 (Hungry Ghost Scroll; Figure 5) of the end of the twelfth century which illustrates a scene of the street market in which pictures are displayed and available for sale.118 The Meiji Restoration of 1868 sounded the defeat of the feudal shogunate system and the restoration of the emperor as the head of state. The end of feudalism paralleled the demise of the old patronage system of court painters who had served the shogunate and his family or feudal lords. After the Restoration painters had few powerful patrons, and they had to earn money by themselves. In addition to taking orders, they earned their living by selling their pictures at the Shoga-kai, "Calligraphy-Picture show." This was the earliest form of public exhibition in Japan and had been popular since the 18205. The Shoga-kai was held at banquet halls with other theater performances, and function of these visitors had to buy admission tickets and dinner. Therefore, the exhibitions or displays were mainly for sales, just like street markets, rather than enlightening the public on current artistic styles.“9 In 1850, the first International Exhibition was held in London and similar shows followed in other major cities in Europe. The participation of the Japanese government in the International Exhibitions of 1867 and 1878 in Paris shows the beginning of its sponsorship of the Japanese fine arts.1?-° From 1877 onward, the Japanese government sponsored several exhibitions of domestic industry or agriculture, which also had sections devoted to painting. 118 Hijikata, p. 64. 119 Ibid., pp. 82-83. 120 Phylis Anne Floyd, Japonisme in Context: Documentation, Criticism, Aesthetic Reactions (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan, 1983), p. 1 16. 53 This was one example of the newly established government beginning to transplant European culture as the model of the nation's cultural modernization.121 Western-style painting was first introduced by the Portuguese to Japan along with Christianity during the Momoyama period (1 576- 1615), and later it came to be called Yoga (Western-style painting) to be differentiated frOm Nihon-ga (Japanese-style painting). In 1639, in order to limit the growing influence of Christianity, which threatened the feudal system of society, the Japanese government banned the religion and started to pursue a forced policy of isolationism. Therefore, it was not until 1720, when the government allowed books to be imported from Holland, that Western-style painting began to be fully studied by Japanese artists.122 After the Meiji Restoration, the government began to support Western-style painting as well as traditional Japanese painting. In 1876, eight years after the restoration, the government established a school of fine arts, called the Kobu Art School, on the premises of the National Technical College and offered courses in Western-style painting and sculpture. "The government's aim in adopting Occidental techniques in architecture, civil engineering, industrial arts, and in the fine arts was to enrich its national policy of 'national prosperity and military strength.‘ "123 In 1888, the government also founded the Tokyo Art Academy with courses in Japanese-style painting and sculpture, and in 1896 the school added a course in Western-style painting. This Academy went on to 121 Miyagawa, Modern Japanese Painting, p. 19. 122 Machida, p. 209. 123 Miyagawa, Modern Japanese Painting, p. 17. 54 become the most influential art educational organization in Japan of the time and the centralization of artistic taste similar to that of France was realized in J apan.124 There, Western-style painters in Japan who lacked an established master-apprentice relationship gained opportunities for a formal education in Western-style techniques. According to Harada Minoru, "it was not until after painters like [Kuroda Seiki] and [Asai Chu], who had studied abroad and been influenced by new currents in Western European art, returned home that the new movement really began to take shape“?5 Kuroda Seiki (1866-1924), who had studied under Raphael Collin in Paris, returned to Japan in 1893 and was appointed professor at the Tokyo Art Academy in 1896. In the same year, he founded a new art society, the Hakuba-kai (White Horse Society). Kuroda's style, the Plein-Air Style, learned from "the second-class painter"126 Collin, in effect became the Japanese "academic" style of Western painting.127 The first official government-sponsored exhibition devoted exclusively to art was the Bun ten (Ministry of Education Art Exhibition), held in 1907 under the auspices of the Ministry of Education. It was divided into three sections: J apanese-style painting, Western-style painting, and sculpture. These official exhibitions continue today as the Nitten.128 Individualism, which 124 Machida, p. 231. 125 Harada Minoru, Meiji Western Painting trans. Murakata Akiko (Tokyo: Shibundo, 1968) 125 Hijikata, p. 85. 127 Miyagawa Torao, Kindai Bijutsu to sono 5150 (Tokyo: Rironsha, 1966), p.40. Hijikata, p. 85. 128 Harada, pp. 1 14—1 15. These exhibitions were also known as the Teiten between 1919-1935. 55 arose in Japanese society after the Meiji Restoration, was reflected in this new exhibiting system: every Japanese painter could learn art and develop his/ her skills and then display his/her accomplishments directly to the public. Similar to the Salon of Paris, the Bunten exhibition system was the only officially sanctioned art exhibition and it became dominant in the early twentieth century as the primary place where works could be purchased by the government or painters could find customers.129 Furthermore, the Bunten was, on occasion, a form of governmental control over artists. During the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-5, nationalist sentiment grew and prevailed over all aspects of Japanese society, and after the war, the Japanese government forced the imperialist vision on the Japanese peOple. The government began its policy of controlling literature and art as well as religion.130 Miyagawa Torao describes the phenomenon "that continued to influence the entire art and intellectual activity of Japan until after the second world war, both in the direct expression of nationalism and in the reaction against it."131 Accordingly, the official exhibitions of the Bunten became extremely influential in the Japanese art world during this period. The Bunten was strongly linked to the Hakuba-kai style, which was synonymous with the academic style of the Tokyo Art Academy. The prominent painters of the Hakuba-kai , including Kuroda and Asai, were faculty members of the Tokyo Academy, and prominent members of the Bun ten' 5 selection jury. The traditions of 129 Ibid., pp. 114-117. 130 Miyagawa, Kindai Bijutsu to sono Shiso, pp. 47, 79. 131 Miyagawa, Modern Japanese Painting, p. 27. 56 the master-apprentice relationship of J apanese-style painting continued to affect the new exhibiting system for Western-style painting. The Bunten jury accepted only works which followed the academic style, but rejected young painters who were trying new and fresh styles of expression. According to Harada Minoru, when younger painters tried to establish a new division in the Bun ten for the new styles, Kuroda, one of the most powerful jurors, rejected their proposal saying: there were "no new schools in Yoga (Western- Style painting), for it [the Western-style section of the Bun ten] was all representative of the new style."132 Because of the influence of the Bunten, the academic style dominated all Western-style painters of the early twentieth century. In his book, Modern Japanese Pain ting, Miyagawa Torao clearly explained this situation: . . . it acted as a stimulus in defining style and exposing artists to a certain amount of challenge and criticism, and served to help wake public interest in the arts. However, the Bunten's existence also was a stagnating force, establishing academism as some kind of standard and hampering the emergence of fresh activities.133 As in France and America, painters in Japan had to follow the officially sanctioned academic style to be selected for these exhibitions. Furthermore, the modernization of Japanese culture was hampered by imperialism, another form of hierarchy, that limited the growth of individualism which had arisen after the Restoration. As in France and the United States, capitalism also arose in Japanese society after the Meiji Restoration and by the beginning of the twentieth century a variety of industries developed. Because the 132 Harada, p. 124. 133 Miyagawa, Modern Japanese Painting, p. 29. 57 Japanese government supported only a few powerful families in each industry, these families came to monopolize business in their industry, such as the Mitsui of the textile industry and the Sumitomo of the coal-mine industry.134 This monopolization promoted the gap between the growing bourgeoisie and proletariat; and the merchant class, which had developed from the Muromachi to Edo periods, diminished in power. The powerful families became extremely rich while others lost their business. The middle class thus did not become a dominant economic and cultural force again until after World War II. Unlike its counterparts in France and in the United States, it was not until then that the middle class in Japan became a major component of the art market.135 Takamura Kotaro (1883-1956; Figure 6), who was well-known in Japan as a poet, sculptor, and painter, founded the first "art gallery" of Japan in 1910. In this gallery he held one-person exhibitions of contemporary Western-style painters, which was unconventional in Japan in the early twentieth century. Before Takamura there had been no dealer in Japan who handled only paintings. It is said that there was a restaurant, the Yokaro, built in 1909, in which exhibitions of painting were regularly held.136 In the earliest record of exhibitions of jewelry and art works, dated 191 1, fifteen businesses are listed.137 None of these, however, were stores which handled only paintings. They mainly 134 Haga Koshiro, Kanyaku Nihon-shi (Tokyo: Bun-ei-do, 1976), pp. 213- 215. 135 Ibid., pp. 251-253. 136 Miyagawa, Modern Japanese Painting, p. 146. 137 Segi Shinichi, Shakai no naka no Bijutsu (Tokyo: Tokyo Shoseki, 1978), p. 145. . 58 sold other commodities, such as traditional clothing, clocks, and jewelry along with a few paintings.139 The Rokan-do was unique, since it was the first art gallery whose main purpose was to sell paintings by Japanese contemporary artists. Takamura's art dealing activity was not quite successful but it carved a path for modern art dealers in Japan to follow. Takamura Kotaro was born in 1883 in Tokyo to the well-known wood sculptor, Takamura Koun. He began to study wood carving with his father at an early age and entered the Tokyo Art Academy at the age of fifteen, where he studied Western-style sculpture. In 1906, soon after he began studying Western-style painting, he decided to go to America on the recommendation of one of his teachers. There he attended classes at the School of Fine Arts associated with the National Academy of Design, and the Art Students' League in New York. The following year he traveled to England and Paris, and then returned to Japan in 1909.139 Takamura, who was then twenty-seven years old, returned home a "Bohemian."14° Worrying about his son's livelihood, his father Koun planned to establish a bronze statue company for him. Takamura, however, was absorbed in the activity of the new artistic movement and hated the inartistic monotony of producing commercial bronze statues. Instead, Takamura suggested to his father that he open an art gallery. He obtained his father's consent, 138 Ibid., p. 145. 139 Tazawa Yutaka, Bibliographical Dictionary of Japanese Art (Tokyo: Kodansha International Ltd., 1981), p.472. 140 Segi, Seiki no Daigasho-tachi, p. 1 12. 59 and in April of 1910, he started his gallery, the Rokan-do at Kanda Awaji-machi, Tokyo.141 Through this gallery, Takamura Kotaro tried to become the first modern art dealer in Japan. However, he could realize only a part of his goal. In his gallery he held one-person exhibitions of young Japanese artists outside of the public exhibitions. Through his publications, he introduced to the Japanese public many avant-garde artists of Europe. In other words, through exhibitions he tried to offer more freedom of creativity to the artists and let the Japanese public learn about Japanese avant-garde art. His publications did help to enlighten the Japanese public and provided intellectual support and encouragement to young Japanese artists. He tried to play the roles of a modern art dealer as a patron of artists and a educator of the public, collectors, and aspiring artists. There were other aspects of the modern art dealership practice, however, that Takamura did not accomplish through his gallery. The global aspect of his business was done only through publications that introduced European artists to a Japanese audience. Accordingly, his publications were not exclusively about the artists in his gallery. He was unable to give his artists additional financial support, and above all, he was unable to keep the business in a state of solvency. The Rokan-do lasted for only one year after its opening in 1910. During the first and second decades of the twentieth century, Japan was far behind many other Western countries in terms of its acceptance, its practice, and its sale of modern art. Western-style paintings as well as public exhibitions of contemporary art had just 141 Ibid., p. 112. II 81 II it ta p1 pl 31'. Dr M QC. all 60 begun. Additionally, public exhibitions were still under the control of a traditional master-apprentice relationship which had been carefully developed for centuries for J apanese-style painters. Therefore, the juries of the exhibitions were cautious in accepting new styles by young painters. The art public of the time was neither ready nor capable of understanding Takamura's innovative ideas. The middle class, which could afford to buy art and from whose ranks aspiring artists came, was not large enough unlike France and America and the prevailing imperialistic political system also hampered the development of free artistic expression. Because of this situation, the period of Takamura's activity at the Rokan-do ended after no more than one year of operation. Takamura could not fully realize his goal of becoming a successful modern art dealer like Durand-Rue] or Stieglitz because of the major obstacles in the Japanese art world of the time: restrictive traditions existed in Japan as they had in France and a cultural lag in taste as seen in the United States also hampered the acceptance of progressive styles. Takamura did, however, show the Japanese public what modern art dealing could be by putting it into the shape of the Rokan-do. In several writings, Takamura criticized the Japanese art world and implied the necessity of a much freer system of art dealing practices. One of Takamura's articles "On Returning from France," which he wrote in 1910, reveals his criticism of the Japanese academic style of Western-style painting developed by Kuroda Seiki and the Hakuba-kai, while setting a high value on French 61 Impressionism.142 Around 1910, not only Takamura but many other young Japanese artists who had studied painting or sculpture in Europe returned to Japan. Those artists who had directly seen the new artistic movements in Europe began to criticize the Western- style painting in Japan of the time. Takamura wrote the article a year after his return. He noted that the pleasant artistic environment of Paris was much superior to the "inartistic " nature of Japanese society. He saw and was impressed by both the modern art produced in France and the practices being developed to sell these works to the public, and on his return he hoped to introduce both to Japan. In the same year, Takamura published his famous article entitled "Green Sun" in an avant-garde magazine, Subaru (Pleiades). I am in search of the absolute freedom of the artistic world. Accordingly I try to admit the limitless power in the artist's individuality. In whatever context, I wish to consider art as one individual human being. I want to evaluate works of art using the artist's individuality as the starting point. I want to study individuality as it is and do not wish to unnecessarily question the individuality. Even if two or three people paint a green sun, I will not say that it is wrong, because it is possible that the sun might also appear that way to me.”3 In this article he clearly declares the goals he sought for the new art world in Japan. After the model of the modern art dealers in France, Takamura tried to change the Japanese art dealing system through his gallery. Nevertheless, the displays in the Rokan-do were not radically different from conventional Japanese craft stores. For, in an attempt 142 Miyagawa, Kindai Bijutsu to sono Siso, p. 56. 143 Miyagawa, Modern Japanese Painting, p. 27. 62 to help his son's poor business ability, Koun placed other commodities, such as wooden bowls and furniture, for sale there. Takamura's main purpose, however, was to operate the gallery in the same way as the modern art galleries which he had seen during his travels in Europe. He wanted to utilize the gallery for independent exhibitions of Japanese avant-garde painters. Most of these painters studied the latest styles in Paris and challenged the official Japanese exhibitions, such as Saito Yori (1885-1959) and Masamune Tokusaburo (1883-1962), both of whom were leading painters of avant-garde art in Japan. Not all of Takamura's exhibitions were documented, but a sample of the one-person exhibitions held in 1910 include: sixteen works by Masamune Tokusaburo; twenty-one works by Yanagi Keisuke from July 13 to 25, and Saito Yori from September 17-29. The following year, Takamura held two exhibitions, twenty-eight works by Hamada Hoko and forty works by Masamune, both of which were held in February. The paintings seldom sold: one out of the sixteen works by Masamune; four out of the twenty-one works Yanagi exhibited; none by Saito; one out of the twenty-eight works by Hamada; and eleven works out of the forty works shown by Masamune found buyers. Further, the buyers were not the public but mainly the artists' or dealer's friends who were also artists or writers.144 Even though his gallery produced few sales, these one-person shows attracted public attention as an unprecedented way of exhibiting art and various types of people visited there, the most 144 Segi, Seiki no Daigasho-tachi, pp. 116-1 17. 63 frequent being young artists or college students, such as Sato Haruo. In his novel, Takamura Kotaro-20, Sato vividly describes the pleasures he took in visiting the gallery on the way from school during his college days. Soon, the Rokan-do was opened at Kanda. On the way from Mita to Hakusan, we intentionally took the different train for Hongo, changed trains at Ogawa-cho, and often stopped by the Rokan-do. We took pleasure in seeing the gallery and the owner [Takamura Kotaro]. But we found his younger brother who was the cooperative manager of the gallery more often and hardly saw our poet-art dealer.”5 The artist-dealer Takamura may have been interested more in trying to establish his ideal modern art gallery than in making it a practical business operation. In any case, his various activities as a poet, critic, and translator, in addition to that of being a painter-sculptor, kept him so busy that he was unable to devote his full attention to the business of running his gallery. One can only speculate on whether a greater involvement might have changed the fate of the gallery. There is no record left about whether or not Takamura gave direct financial support to the artists he represented. Considering the poor sales in the gallery and his less than enthusiastic attitude towards its business operations, it is quite possible that he had neither enough money nor interest in offering direct financial assistance to his artists. Furthermore, he was an artist first rather than a dealer, and his relationship to his artists was more that of a comrade and mentor than that of a dealer-patron. 145 Sato Haruo, Takamura Kotaro-20 (Tokyo: Gendaisha, 1956), p. 84. [translation mine] . 11 be 64 Yet like his counterparts in Europe and America, he published an avant-garde art magazine and through these publications, he enlightened the Japanese public and artists and helped to pave the way for the later acceptance of avant-garde styles. One of Takamura's greatest contributions to the history of modern art in Japan was his publishing activity on avant-garde art. In 1910, Takamura and a group of liberal, humanistic writers founded a literary journal called Shirakaba, "White Birch." It was considered an art magazine: for it contained translations of many famous writings on major European artists such as Paul Cézanne, Vincent van Gogh, Paul Gauguin, Henri Matisse, and Auguste Rodin and it introduced unusual works of European art in each issue. Further, Shirakaba sponsored exhibitions featuring reproductions of works by Impressionists and Post-Impressionist painters.145 In addition, Takamura published several influential essays of art criticism, such as those mentioned above, "On Returning from France" and "Green Sun." These articles helped to inspire many young artists as well as the general public in Japan. Thus, his publications considerably enlightened the Japanese public, including artists. Unlike the two earlier examples of Durand-Rue] and Stieglitz, however, Takamura's publications did not function to directly increase sales from his gallery nor to establish his business as a modern art dealer. In April of 191 1, Takamura decided to close the gallery because of its financial problems. The Rokan-do closed only one 146 Kawakita Michiaki, Modem Currents in Japanese Art, trans. Charles S. Terry (New York: John Weatherhill Inc., 1974), p. 95. 65 year after its opening. An unexpected successor appeared a month after the family started the closing process. The successor named Otsuki Takeo publicized an announcement to reopen the Rokan-do and stated that it would hold monthly exhibitions not only of paintings but of other items including traditional clothing.147 The role of the Rokan-do as an "art gallery" ceased with Takamura's withdrawal and it returned to a more traditional shop displaying antiques, jewelry, and art works. The short life of the Rokan-do as a modern art gallery was caused by the fact that its opening had been too premature for the evolving tastes of the Japanese public and that the policy of its operation had been more idealistic than practical. Takamura's greatest talent was more that of a writer than a dealer, and through his essays he helped to educate the Japanese public and artists to progressive Western styles. Takamura's founding of the first modern art gallery in Japan, however, was very significant because the gallery inspired his contemporaries to follow his road as a pioneer. Arishima Ikuo, a famous literary man, wrote in the June issue of Shirakaba, "the life of the Rokan-do was poorly short. However, this enterprise was significant and worthwhile being long remembered because it had a strong impact, teaching the Japanese art world through its innovative exhibition system of an individual artist's works."143 As Arishima states, the significance of the Rokan-do was greatly appreciated by Takamura's contemporaries, no matter how short the gallery actually lasted. His pioneering effort, together with 147 Segi, Seiki no Daigasho-tachi, pp. 1 18-1 19. ‘48 Ibid., pp. 122-123. [translation mine] 66 his literary activities, inspired his contemporaries and led them to more innovative movements towards the representation of modern artists and the sale of their works. Following Takamura's path, some of his artists devoted themselves to pursue new movements in the Japanese art world. For example, Saito Yori founded and was a central figure in the Fusain- kai (Charcoal Group), and Masamune Tokusaburo was a founding member of the Nika-kai (Second Group). These exhibiting organizations, founded in 1912 and in 1914 respectively, were alternatives to the academic Bunten. Their members sought individual freedom of artistic expression. The Fusain-kai was short lived and lasted only six months but the Nika-kai has continued until the present day.149 From 1912 on, following Takamura's resignation from the Rokan-do, commercial art galleries in Japan began to increase in number. Because of strong governmental controls on art, however, it was not until the 19305 that modern art dealers appeared in Japan. According to a record of 193 8, there were only four art galleries in Tokyo that devoted themselves exclusively to the sale of pictures. The Nichido Gallery, founded in 1931 by Hasegawa Jin (1897-1976), was one of these galleries. After his great efforts in collaboration with his wife, the gallery became successful,150 and as Thomas R. H. Havens writes, "the Nichido is usually considered the most aggressive and perhaps the most important of all the dealers."151 149 Harada, pp. 120-134. 15° Segi, Shakai no naka no Bijutsu, p. 149. 15‘ Thomas R. H. Havens, Artist and Patron in Postwar Japan: Dance, Music, Theater, and the Visual Arts, 1 955-1 980 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982), p. 125. Their high status is still the same today in 1993. 67 Hasegawa was a Japanese representative of Fujita Tsuguji (1886- 1968), a well-known Japanese painter of the School of Paris. He also represented other Japanese artists that struggled with the official exhibitions, such as Yasui Sotaro (1888-1955) and Umehara Ryuzaburo (1888-1986), both of whom are considered the greatest Japanese painters of that time, and who held their one-person or group exhibitions at his gallery.152 In his autobiography, Heso Jinsei (Navel Life153), Hasegawa explained that the reason he decided to become an art dealer was that there was no dealer of Western-style painting in Japan and he felt he had to become an art dealer to promote this valuable art.154 He describes in his autobiography the situation of Western-style painters of the early twentieth century : There was no dealer of Western-style painting, while there was a market for the J apanese-style painting operated by antique stores. Western-style painting could seldom be sold. . . Painters had no means besides that provided by their parents. The only way to earn money was to win a prize at the official exhibition, the Teiten, to become a juror of the exhibition, and to become a teacher at the Academy.155 Even until the 19305, Japan did not see an art dealer who would follow Takamura's lead. It was later dealers, such as Hasegawa and those who succeeded him, who finally realized in Japan the modern art dealing system first invented by Durand-Rue]. 152 Segi, Seiki no Daigasho-tachi, pp. 228-229. 153 The idea behind this title seems to be that the navel is usually seen as extraneous in an adult body, but it does at one point serve a critical function to the body. In other words, Hasegawa was at the right place at the right time to bring positive change to the Japanese art world. 54 Hasegawa Jin, Heso Jinsei: Garo Ichidai-ki (Tokyo: Yomiun’ Shinbun- sha, 1974), p. 49. ‘55 Ibid., pp. 89-90. [translation mine] 68 In contrast, Japanese-style painters of the early twentieth century had a much harder time obtaining the freedom to create their own styles than did Western-style painters. There had been several outstanding individuals who promoted J apanese-style art, like Ernest Fenollosa (1853-1908) and Okakura Tenshin (1862- 1913), who led a movement for the development of a new Japanese art style and who founded the Kanga-kai (Painting Appreciation Society) in 1884.156 Nevertheless, the strict restrictions of the traditional master-apprentice relationship still remained. These restrictions hampered the development of the modern art dealing system for J apanese-style painting for a long time. Some J apanese- style artists relinquished the struggle and turned into Western-style painters, while others continued their efforts to create new styles in the Nihon-ga tradition. Some of those who attempted to succeed as Western-style painters later returned to the Japanese-style to restart the struggle. Since the Meiji Restoration, a certain antagonism between these two groups developed and continues to exist. In 1910, a progressive J apanese-style painter of the time Hishida Shunso (1874-1911) published an article, entitled Gakai Mangen (Art World Silly Talk), in a leading magazine: I believe that oil painting which is called Western-style painting and J apanese-style painting which we are making will be regarded as the same thing in the future -- of course not in the very near future. The two will surely be considered as Japanese painting that Japanese painters created. If so, the 155 Machida, pp. 229-231. Harada, p. 36. Fenollosa, then a young American, who studied Philosophy at Harvard University and painting in Boston, was invited to lecture on political philosophy at Tokyo University in 1878. He studied Japanese painting under a Kano painter and decided to promote it with his own student Okakura Tenshin. 69 difference will remain only in materials which are used for each picture.157 It is likely that his prediction will come true since in the contemporary Japanese art world J apanese-style painters are being represented and sold in much the same manner as Takamura originated for his Western-style artists. In Japan, it was not until the early Showa period (192 5-1988) that art dealers appeared who realized their role as the new patrons of art, which had been established by Durand-Rue] in Paris and followed by Stieglitz in the United States. With time, and as a result of the pioneering efforts of Takamura and of later dealers like Hasegawa, Japan now competes with France and America in its global practices of modern art dealing. 157 Miyagawa, Kindai Bijutsu to sono Shiso, p. 66. [translation mine] Hishida published this article in the Jiji Shinpo (New Report on Current Events) in 1910. V. Conclusion The three countries of France, America, and Japan differ in the histories of painters and art dealing systems owing to their different Social and cultural histories. At the same time, however, there are several common parallels which can be drawn. In each country, painters were originally regarded as craftsmen. After revolutions or significant cultural changes in these countries, art institutions were founded and new exhibition styles pursued. In each country the new organizations for art education and exhibitions gradually became dominant and highly influential on painters. Early on painters were merely craftsmen or picture-makers that took orders and created what the commissioners wanted. This was true for both the guild painters and court painters in France, for the academic painters and limners in America, and for the court painters and machi-eshi (city painters) in Japan. In Europe and Japan, painters also made pictures without commissions, but these pictures were sold at street markets just like other crafts. Each country did experience its own revolution: the French Revolution in 1789, the American War of Independence in 1776, and the Meiji Restoration of Japan in 1868. All three revolutions resulted in major social and cultural changes. In France the hold of the monarchy ended and a democrat government was founded; in America the colonial period was over and self-government began; in Japan the feudal shogunate system was overturned and a parliamentary government was founded under the Imperialist banner. Each country fostered art in its unique form and entered 70 71 with it into the modern era. Individualism arose after the revolution and was developed under the new system of each country. Under the influence of this individualism, art educational institutions were founded, and public exhibitions followed: L'Academie des Beaux-Arts (1792) and the opening of Le Salon to non-members of the Academy (1791) in France; the institutions for both art education and exhibitions, such as the National Academy of Design (1825) in America; and the educational institutions such as the Tokyo Art Academy (1888) and the Bunten (1907) in Japan. These new educational systems offered Opportunities for a broader spectrum of society to learn artistic skills, and the exhibitions provided them with places to display their accomplishments. In other words, painters finally obtained the opportunity to display their own works directly to the public without any orders, with less restrictions, and giving expression to their own creativity and artistic voice. Furthermore, through these exhibitions painters gained the chance to achieve fame and a higher social status as distinctive individual artists. The growth in individualization, which occurred after the . revolutions, also meant that the painters lost the sources of their steady incomes, that is, the guild system in Europe or strong patrons like kings and aristocrats in Europe and Japan. Instead, academies and public exhibitions developed together in all three countries as a means of presenting artistic work to interested buyers. These exhibitions grew to be the only place in each country for artists to display their works, sell them to the public, and find perspective customers. Accordingly, the public exhibitions of the three countries 72 became very influential in the styles painters adopted, and to assure their livelihoods, it was important for the artists to be accepted into these exhibitions. Yet, because of their centralized and often conservative tastes, the selection committees generally accepted only works that followed the broadly accepted academic styles. Therefore, young painters in France, America, and Japan who were experimenting with their own styles of painting were not readily ' accepted into the exhibitions and had a very hard time even earning their living. The public exhibitions, however, played an important intellectual role in helping the general public to obtain a wide knowledge of the fine arts. Additionally, the development of capitalism in each country made its middle class wealthy enough to afford the luxury of visiting art exhibitions and buying paintings to decorate their homes. Industrialization and technology also caused changes in art materials, and consequently, in the prices paid for paintings. Owing to such changes in art materials, such as the mass production of paints and canvases, painters came to produce more works than ever before and aspiring artists from a range of social classes were able to compete and succeed as famous artists. This system increased the competition of the academic exhibitions, and many works ended up being refused by the juries. At the beginning of the modern period, in the late nineteenth or twentieth centuries, art dealers appeared to manage the increasing demand for and supply of paintings, as well as to begin to directly support poor young painters struggling to create their own new art styles. In the 18805 in Paris, the modern art dealing system 73 was invented by Paul Durand-Rue] and it became the model for many dealers who followed. The system consisted of four major components: a global business network, one-person exhibitions, direct financial support, and publications. Durand-Ruel expanded his business abroad and introduced his artists to other countries; he began the practice of holding one-person exhibitions in his galleries and offered painters a place to display their creative works outside of a biased judging system. He also provided his artists a minimum income through advances. Furthermore, he supported his artists and their works through publications which also helped the public understand the value of his painters. Later he used these publications to advertise exhibitions in his gallery. Durand-Ruel created important new roles for art dealers through this art dealing system: they became patrons of modern artists and educators of the public and collectors of modern art. As a patron, Durand-Rue] supported his artists financially and intellectually. In order to let the painters exercise their creativity, and develop their individual styles, he made new sources of income available to the painters through exhibitions, which produced direct sales and perspective buyers outside of the public exhibitions. In addition, he gave them additional financial support. By mounting the exhibitions of their works, and by praising their works in his publications, he supported what they created. As an educator, he also helped the public appreciate the works of the artists he represented through one-person exhibitions and through his publications, and influenced the taste of his customers and collectors through his galleries. 74 The nineteenth century was also the time of the internationalization of business and culture. In 1850, the International Exhibition originated in London and the following exhibitions were held around the world in France, Italy, and America. This was the beginning of the official cross-cultural art business between the West and Japan. Since then, Japonisme became popular in the Western art scene. On the other hand, many young Japanese artists went to Paris to study Western-style painting and returned with their knowledge about modern art and modern art dealing in Paris. It was also in the nineteenth century that many European dealers opened overseas branches in America. It was quite innovative because this newly founded country had been regarded as being backward in terms of art and culture by both Europeans and by Americans themselves. In America, the Impressionists could and finally did achieve their greatest financial success. In the beginning of the twentieth century, the modern art dealing system was adopted both in America by Alfred Stieglitz in 1907 and in Japan by Takamura Kotaro in 1910. Hampered by long- standing traditions and a dominant imperialist system, the modern art business in Japan was actually realized by later art dealers following World War II. . This modern art dealing system has become the common form not only in these three countries, France, America, and Japan, but in almost every country as well. In The Art Dealer, Betty Parsons explained her perspective on the international art business: "From the very start, I had no intention of being an 'American' gallery; I wanted an international scope. I still don't believe in nationalism, in 75 the arts or anything else."158 This reflects the present situation that the art business is becoming more and more inter-cultural and international. There are so many art dealers and buyers all over the world that artists have more opportunities to become successful. In short, major social changes and the modern art dealing system enabled painters to enjoy more freedom of expression, and the freedom to pursue their creativity than ever in history. Modern art dealers have become new art patrons and have opened the art markets to everyone, not just traditional wealthy patrons. As a result of such changes in art dealership, painters need not rely solely on commissions as did their predecessors in France, America, and Japan. Nor do they need any longer to follow the dominant academic styles of painting. It was Paul Durand-Ruel who began the new art dealing system, and created the new type of art patronage and the educational role of art dealer in the French art world. His practices have been adopted by later dealers in other countries, such as the United States and Japan, as well as in France itself. Clearly, common situations and indeed inter-linkages between major countries have helped to shape the modern art dealing system which is now firmly established throughout the world. Along with the development of the system of the new international art market has come a large support network for artists, which has allowed for considerably more independence in choice of painting style and subject. Thanks to this system, many artists enjoy creating their own art, many dealers ‘53 Parsons, p. 24. 76 enjoy successful businesses, and a much broader range of the population can enjoy owning or appreciating art works today. FIGURES 77 .HéNS .cmwmuocm mLEwmhob 535w?» oESG< zoom .H ocswfi :2 , I, Q; I o 4 LutMTVT. 5 144.5111. 78 It. . . s. . .1 3. .51: mews. 15....133. . Figure 2. Auguste Renoir, Portrait of Paul Durand-Rue], 1910. 79 Figure 3. Charles Willson Peale, The Artist in His Museum, 1822. 80 Figure 4. Eduard Steichen, Alfred Stieglitz at 291, 1933. 81 Figure 5. Anonymous, Gaki Zoshi (detail), the late twelfth century. 82 iroshi Hamatani, Takamura Kotaro at His Studio, Figure 6. H 1950. Circa BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Anzelewsky, Fedja. Dt'irer and His Time: An Exhibition from the Collection of the Print Room, State Museum, Berlin, Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Washington: Smithsonian Press, 1967. Assouline, Pierre. An Artful Life: A Biography of D. H. Kahnweiler, 1884-1 979. Translated by Charles Ruas. New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1988. Boorstin, Daniel J. The Americans: The Democratic Experience. New York: Random House, 1973. Brettell, Richard R. French Salon Artists, 1800-1 900. Chicago: The Art Institute of Chicago, 1987. Burnham, Sophy. The Art Crowd. New York: David Mckay Company, Inc., 1973. Bruegel, Pieter. Pieter Bruegel the Elder. New York: H. N. Abrams, 1968. Camesasca, Ettore. The Complete Pain tings of Wattea u. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1968. Castelli, Leo. Jasper Johns, 35 Years. New York: Leo Castelli Gallery, 1993. Chagy, Gideon. The New Patrons of the Arts. New York: H. N. Abrams, 1973. Clark, Eliot. History of the National Academy of Design: 1 825-1 953. New York: Columbia University Press, 1954. 83 84 Cowdrey, Mary Bartlett. American Academy of Fine Arts and American Art-Union, 1 81 6-1 852: With a History of the American Academy. New York: New York Historical Society, 1953. Cummings, Thomas S. Historic Annals of the National Academy of Design. New York: Kennedy Galleries, Inc., 1969. De Coppet, Laura, and Alan Jones. The Art Dealers. New York: Clarkson N. Potter, Inc., 1984. Diderot, Denis. Salons. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975. Diamonstein, Barbaralee. Inside New York's Art World. New York: Rizzoli International Publications, Inc., 1979. Dresser, Christopher. Development of Ornamental Art in the International Exhibition. New York: Garland Pub., 1978. Famham, Emily. Charles Demuth: Behind a Laughing Mask. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1971. Flexner, James Thomas. A Short History of American Painting. Translated by Morimoto Kiyomi. Tokyo: Arachi Publishing Co., 1955. _____.__. The Pocket History of American Painting. New York: Pocket Books, 1957. Floyd, Phylis Anne. Japonisme in Context: Documentation, Criticism, Aesthetic Reactions. Ph.D. Dissertation. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan, 1983. Foucart, Bruno. "Les Salons et l'Innovation Picturale au XIXé Siécle," in Fransu Kaiga no Seika: Ru Saron no Kyosho-tachi (La Tradition et l'Innovation dans I 'Art Francais par les Pein tres des Salons). Tokyo: Nihon Keizai Shinbunsha, 1989. Fujii, Kazuo. Okushon Monogatari. Tokyo: Kodan-sha, 1991. Fukushima, Keiko. Uchi no Yadoroku. Tokyo: Chuo Koron-sha, 1991. 85 Gardner, Arron. Gardner's Guide to Antiques and Art Buying in New York City. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1969. Gee, Malcolm. Dealers, Critics, and Collectors of Modern Painting: Aspects of the Parisian Art Market between 1 91 0 and 1 930. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1981. Gimpel, René. Diary of an Art Dealer. Translated by Herbert Read. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, Inc., 1966. Harada, Minoru. Meiji Western Painting. Translated by Murakata Akiko. New York: John Weatherhill, Inc., 1974. Harth, Marjorie Leslie. Robert Hudson Tannahill (1893-1969): Patron and Collector. Ph.D. Dissertation. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan, 1985. Haskell, Francis. Past and Present in Art and Taste: Selected Essays. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985. Hasegawa, Jin. Heso Jinsei: Garo Ichidai-ki. Tokyo: Yomiuri Shinbun- sha,l974. Havens, Thomas R. H. Artist and Patron in Postwar Japan: Dance, Music, Theater, and the Visual Arts, 1955-1980. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982. Head, Percy Rendell. "Frans Hals of Haarlem," in Van Dyck. London: Sampson Low, Marston, Searle, & Rivington, Ltd, 1888 Heines, Robert E. The Inner Eye of Alfred Stieglitz. Washington DC: University Press of America, 1982. Hijikata, Teiichi. Gaka to Gasho to Kaish u-ka. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1963. Homer, William Innes. Alfred Stieglitz: And the American Avant- Garde. Boston: New York Graphic Society, 1977. . Alfred Stieglitz and the Photo-Secession. Boston: Little, Brown, 1983. 86 Hutchison, Jane Campbell. Albrecht Diirer: A Biography. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1990. Ichida, Koji. New York Kaiga Hatten-shi. Tokyo: Doyo Bijutsu-sha, 1990. Igarashi, Kunihei. Shin-Sokatsu Sekai-shi. Tokyo: Suken Shuppan, 1979. Ikegami, Chuji. "17-19 Seiki no Fransu Kaiga," in Fransu Kaiga no Seika: Ru Saran no Kyosho-tachi (La Tradition et 1 'Innovation dans I 'Art Francais par les Pein tres des Salons). Tokyo: Nihon Keizai Shinbunsha, 1989. Imaizumi, Atsuo and Yamada Chisaburo. Seiyo Bijutsu Jiten. Tokyo: Tokyo-do Shuppan, 1954. Johns, Elizabeth. American Genre Pain ting: The Politics of Everyday Life. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991. Johnson, Una E. Ambroise Vollard, Editeur: Prints, Books Bronzes. New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 1977. Kahnweiler, Daniel-Henry. My Galleries and Painters. Translated by Helen Weaver. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd., 1971 Kamon, Yasuo. Gaisetsu lrasuto Seiyo Bijutsu-shi. Tokyo: Sikaku Dezain Kenkyu-syo, 1991. Kawakita, Michiaki. Modern Currents in Japanese Art. Translated by Chales S. Terry. New York: John Weatherhill, Inc., 1974. Kurahashi, Shigefumi. Kaiga Shakai-gaku Sobyo. Kyoto: Koyo Syobo, 1991. Kyoto National Museum. Nihon Bijutsu-shi no Kyosho-tachi. Tokyo: Chikuma Shobo, 1982. La Farge, John. Great Masters. New York: McClure, Phillips and Company, 1903. 87 Lee, Cuthbert. Early American Portrait Painters: The Fourteen Principal Earliest Na tive-Bom Painters. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1929. Lowe, Sue Davidson. Stieglitz: A Memoir/ Biography. New York: Farrar Straus Giroux, 1983. Lynes, Russell. The Art-Makers of Nineteen th-Cen tury America. New York: Atheneum, 1970. . The Tastemakers. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1983. Machida, Koichi. Gaisetsu Nihon Bijutsu-shi. Tokyo: Kikkawa Kobun- sha,l965. Mander, Carel van. Dutch and Flemish Painters. Translation from the Schilderboeck. New York: Mcfarlane, Warde, Macfarlane, Inc., 1936. Marin, John. The Selected Writings of John Marin. Edited by Dorothy Norman. New York: Pellegrini & Cudahy, 1949. _______. Letters of John Marin. New York: American Place, 193 1. Matsuda, Nobuo. Bijutsu Wadai-shi. Tokyo: Yomiuri Shinbunsha, 1986. Miller, Lillian B. Pa trons and Patriotism: The Encouragement of the Fine Arts in the United States 1 790-1860. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1966. Miyagawa, Torao. Kindai Bijutsu to sono Shiso. Tokyo: Riron-sha, 1966. . Modern Japanese Pain ting: An Art in Transition. Translated by Toshizo Imai. Tokyo: Kodansha International Ltd., 1968. Morgan, Ann Lee, editor. Dear Stieglitz, Dear Dove. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 198 8. Murobushi, Tetsuro. Nijuichi-seiki Kigyo no Bijutsu Senryaku: CI kara CA he. Tokyo: Kodan-sha, 1990. 88 Naifeh, Steven W. Culture Making: Money, Success, and the New York Art World. Princeton: Princeton University, 1976. Parsons, Betty. Artist, Dealer, Collector. New York: H. N. Abrams, 1991. Reitlinger, Gerald. The Economics of Taste: The Rise and Fall of Picture Prices 1 760-1960. London: Barrie and Rockliff, 1961. . The Economics of Taste: The Art Market in the 1 9605. London: Barrie and Jenkins, 1970. Renoir, Auguste. Renoir: A Retrospective. Edited by Nicholas Wadley. New York: Park Lane, 1989. Rewald, John. The History of Impressionism. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1961. Rocquet, Claude-Henri. Bruegel or the Workshop of Dreams. Translated by Nora Scott. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1991. Sato, Haruo. Takamura Kotaro-20. Tokyo: Gendaisha, 1956 Schneider, Pierre. The World of Watteau 1684-1 721. New York: Time Incorporated, 1967. Sears, Clara Endicott. Some American Primitives: A Study of New England Faces and Folk Portraits. Port Washington: Kennikat Press, 1968. Sechel, Dietrich. Emakimono: The Art of the Japanese Pain ted Hand- scroll. New York: Pantheon Books, 1959. Segi, Shinichi. Seiki no Daigasho-tachi. Tokyo: Shinshin-do Publishing Co., 1987. . Shakai no naka no Bijutsu. Tokyo: Tokyo Shoseki Co., Ltd., 1978. _______. Gendai Bijutsu no Paionia. Tokyo: Bijutsu Koronsha, 1979. 89 Seligman, Germain. Merchants of Art: 1 880-1 960, Eighty Years of Professional Collecting. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1961. . Alfred Stieglitz Talking: Notes on Some of His Conversations, 1 925-1 931. New Haven: Yale University Library, 1966. Simonnot, Philippe. Kaiga Bijinesu no Karakuri. Translated by Kamata Koji . Tokyo: Daiyamondo-sha, 1992. Snay, Cheryl K. Renoir and The Charpentiers: The Symbiotic Nature of The Artist/Patron Relationship. MA Thesis. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1991. Snyder, James. Northern Renaissance Art: Painting, Sculpture, the Graphic Arts from 1350 to 15 75. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1985. Solomon, Deborah. Jackson Pollock: A Biography. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987. Stieglitz, Alfred. Alfred Stieglitz, Photographs and Writings. Washington: National Gallery of Art, 1983. Takahashi, Hideji. Seiyo Bijutsu-shi. Tokyo: Toppan Insatsu, 1990. Takai, Hideyuki. Art Market no Uragawa: Bijutsu-bin o Kashikoku Kau tameni. Tokyo: Mainichi Shinbun-sha, 1992. Takamura, Kotaro. Bo-gatsu Bo-nichi. Tokyo: Ryuseikaku, 1943. Tanaka, Hisao. Nihon Bijutsu no Enshutsu-sha: Pa toron no Keifu. Kyoto: Shinshin-do Publishing Co., 1981. Tani, Shinichi and Noma Seiroku. Nihon Bijutsu Jiten. Tokyo: Tokyo- do Shuppan, 1952. Taylor, John Russell, and Brian Brooke. The Art Dealers. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1969. Taylor, Joshua C. The Fine Arts in America. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1979. 90 Tazawa, Yutaka. Bibliographical Dictionary of Japanese Art. Tokyo: Kodansha International Ltd., 1 98 1 . Tuckerman, Henry T. Book of the Artists: American Artist Life, Comprising Biographical and Critical Sketches of American Artists. New York: James F. Carr, 1966. Umezu, Jiro. Emakimono Soko. Tokyo: Chuo Koron Bijutsu Shuppan, 1968. Vidal, Mary. Watteau's Painted Conversations: Art, Literature, and Talk in Seven teen th-and Eighteenth-Gen tury France. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992. Vollard, Ambroise. Recollections of a Picture Dealer. Translated by Violet M. Macdonald. Boston: Kuttke, Brown and Company, 1936. _______. Souvenirs d'un Marchand de Tableaux. Paris: A. Michel, 1948. Waller, Bret and Marjorie Harth Swain. Paris and the American Avant—Garde 1900-1 925. Detroit: The Detroit Institute of Art, 1980. (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Publications Office) Weale, James W. H. The Van Eycks and Their Art. London: John Lane the Bodley Head Ltd., 1912. Weir, John F. John Trumbull: A Brief Sketch of His Life to Which is Added a Catalogue of His Works. New York: Charles Scribher's Sons, 1901. White, Cynthia A., and Harrison C. White. Canvases and Careers: Institutional Change in the French Painting World. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1965. Wight, Frederic S. Arthur G. Dove. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1958. Wraight, Robert. The Art Game. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1965. 91 Yamaguchi Prefectural Museum of Art. Sengo Yoga to Fukushima Shigetaro: Syowa Bijutsu no Ichisokumen. Yamaguchi: Yamaguchi Kenritsu Bijutsu-Ran, 1991. Yasuda, Yojuro. Nihon no Bijutsu-shi. Tokyo: Shinchosha, 1968. Young, Mahonri Sharp. Early American Modems: Painters of the Stieglitz Group. New York: Watson-Guptill Publications, 1974. MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES illWill”"INN/"WIWWWHINIIHIHIVWWI 31293010262289