In the fourth lecture of the Commerce and Culture podcast, Paul Cantor discusses the economics of painting. Art flourished due to free trade and the exchange of ideas, which led to its accessibility and affordability today.
The Economics of Painting
- Paintings were liberating for both the artist and the collector or patron
- It was a great commercial development
- If a lord wanted to move to a new castle he could now move with his paintings, unlike a fresco
- If a patron didn’t like a painting and felt stuck with it he could sell to someone else, compare to a fresco which can’t be as easily sold as a painting
- Paintings were portable
- A rise in trade and a free exchange of ideas increased wealth and disposable income
- The market created more options for painters with more patrons and chances of getting hired
Painting factories were created after an increase in demand for art
- Painting factories were in the artist’s studio
- The artist’s students were his apprentices and painted in his style
- The old masters like Leonardo, Rubens, Van Dyke, Rembrandt, and Salvador Dalí all had painting factories
- It created a brand and style like Rubenesque
- Increased the artist’s production significantly which explained how we have so many surviving works
- It was not humanly possible for an artist to churn out massive quantities of paintings without the help of his students
- These mass-produced works were created by the students
- Before paints and canvas become mass produced, students had to grind pigments and make the artist’s paints, and stretch canvases
Are painting factories dead?
- No, Thomas Kinkade is one example
- Disney animation studios, which I consider the pinnacle of commercialized art