{"id":699,"date":"2015-05-26T01:14:00","date_gmt":"2015-05-26T01:14:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.candelalearning.com\/masteryart1x6xmaster\/?post_type=chapter&p=699"},"modified":"2015-06-28T01:30:43","modified_gmt":"2015-06-28T01:30:43","slug":"reading-academy-to-avant-garde","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/mcc-artappreciation\/chapter\/reading-academy-to-avant-garde\/","title":{"raw":"Reading: Defining Art from the Academy to Avant-Garde","rendered":"Reading: Defining Art from the Academy to Avant-Garde"},"content":{"raw":"

Academy to Avant-Garde<\/h2>\r\nWe now consider the key developments in the definition of art between\u00a0c.1600 and\u00a0c.1850.\r\n

From Function to Autonomy<\/h3>\r\nThe most important idea for this purpose is the concept of art itself, which came to be defined in the way that we still broadly understand it today during\u00a0the course of the centuries explored here.\r\n\r\nThis concept rests on a distinction between art, on the one hand, and craft, on the other. It assumes that a work of art is to be appreciated and valued for its own sake, whereas other types of artifacts serve a functional purpose. A significant step in this direction was made by a group of painters and sculptors who in 1563 set up an Accademia del Disegno (Academy of Design) in Florence in order to distinguish themselves from craftsmen organized in guilds. Their central claim was that the arts they practiced were \u2018liberal\u2019 or intellectual rather than \u2018mechanical\u2019 or practical. After 1600, academies of art were founded in cities throughout Europe, including Paris (1648) and London (1768). Most offered training in architecture as well as in painting and sculpture. A decisive shift took place in the mid eighteenth century, when the three \u2018arts of design\u2019 began to be classified along with poetry and music in a new category of \u2018fine arts\u2019 (a translation of the French term, \u2018beaux-arts\u2019). Other arts, such as landscape gardening, were sometimes included in this category. Architecture was occasionally excluded on the grounds that it was useful as well as beautiful, but the fine arts were usually defined in terms broad enough to encompass it. One writer, for example, described them as \u2018the offspring of genius; they have nature for model, taste for master, pleasure for\u00a0aim\u2019 (Jacques Lacombe,\u00a0Dictionnaire Portatif des Beaux-Arts, 1753 (1st edn 1752), p. 40, as translated in Shiner, 2001, p. 88).\r\n

From the Sacred to the Courtly<\/h4>\r\nTo chart what these conceptual shifts meant in practice, we can borrow the categories elaborated by the cultural theorist Peter B\u00fcrger (1984, pp. 47\u20138), who outlines a long-term shift away from the functions that art traditionally served. Such functions continued to play an important role after 1600, especially in the seventeenth century, when academies were rare outside Italy and many artists still belonged to guilds. As in the medieval period, the primary function was religious (or, in B\u00fcrger\u2019s terminology, \u2018sacral\u2019). The so-called Counter Reformation gave a great boost to Roman Catholic patronage of the arts, as the church sought to renew itself in the aftermath of the Protestant Reformation. It was in this context that the word \u2018propaganda\u2019 originated; it can be traced back to 1622 when Pope Gregory XV (reigned 1621\u201323) founded the Congregazio de Propaganda Fide (Congregation for the Propagation of Faith) in Rome. The commitment to spreading the faith that this organization embodied helped to shape art not just in Europe but in every part of the world reached by the Catholic Missions, notably Asia and the Americas, throughout the period explored here. The churches that rejected the authority of Rome also played a role in supporting \u2018sacral art\u2019, primarily architecture since their use of other art forms was limited by Protestant strictures against \u2018Popish\u2019 idolatry (see for example Levy, 2004; Bailey, 1999; Haynes, 2006). Even in Catholic countries, however, the religious uses of art slowly declined relative to secular ones. The seventeenth century is the last in western art history in which a major canonical figure like the Italian painter Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (1571\u20131610) might still be a primarily religious artist.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_1088\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"475\"]\"Michelangelo<\/a> Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio,\u00a0The Death of the Virgin, 1601\u201303, oil on canvas, 369 \u00d7 245\u00a0cm. Mus\u00e9e du Louvre, Paris. Photo: Web Gallery of Art, CC BY-SA. Work is in the public domain[\/caption]\r\n

B\u00fcrger\u2019s Functions of Art: the Courtly<\/h4>\r\nBy 1600, it was \u2018courtly art\u2019 (B\u00fcrger\u2019s second category) that increasingly prevailed in much of Europe. \u2018Courtly art\u2019 can be defined as consisting primarily of art actually produced at a royal or princely court, but also extending beyond it to include works of art that more generally promote the leisured lifestyle of an aristocratic elite. As in the Renaissance, artists served the needs of rulers by surrounding them with an aura of splendor and glory. In this context, art was integrated into the courtly or aristocratic way of life, as part of a culture of spectacle, which functioned to distinguish the nobles who frequented the court from other social classes and to legitimate the ruler\u2019s power in the eyes of the world (see for example, Elias, 1983; Adamson, 1999; Blanning, 2002). The consolidation of power in the hands of a fairly small number of European monarchs meant that their need for ideological justification was all the greater and so too were the resources they had at their disposal for the purpose. Exemplary in this respect is the French king Louis\u00a0XIV (ruled 1643\u20131715), who harnessed the arts to the service of his own autocratic rule in the most conspicuous manner imaginable. From 1661 onwards, he employed the architects Louis Le Vau (1612\/13\u20131670) and Jules Hardouin-Mansart (1648\u20131708), the painter Charles Le Brun (1619\u201390) and the landscape gardener Andr\u00e9 Le N\u00f4tre (1613\u20131700), among many others, to create the vast and lavish palace of Versailles, not far from Paris. Every aspect of its design glorified the king, not least by celebrating the military exploits that made France the dominant power in Europe during his reign.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_1089\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"475\"]\"The<\/a> The Salon de la Guerre (War room), Ch\u00e2teau de Versailles, designed by Jules Hardouin-Mansart, showing plaster relief by Antoine Coysevox of Louis\u00a0XIV trampling over his enemies, 1678\u201386.\u00a0Photo: Jebulon. CCO[\/caption]\r\n

B\u00fcrger\u2019s Functions of Art: Bourgeois Art<\/h4>\r\nBy 1800, however, the predominant category was what B\u00fcrger calls \u2018bourgeois art\u2019. His use of this term reflects his reliance on a broadly Marxist conceptual framework, which views artistic developments as being driven ultimately by social and economic change (B\u00fcrger, 1984, p. 47; Hemingway and Vaughan, 1998). Such art is bourgeois in so far as it owed its existence to the growing importance of trade and industry in Europe since the late medieval period, which gave rise to an increasingly large and influential wealthy middle class. Exemplary in this respect is seventeenth-century Dutch painting, the distinctive features and sheer profusion of which were both made possible by a large population of relatively affluent city-dwellers. In other countries, the commercialization of society and the urban development that went with it tended to take place more slowly. Britain, however, rapidly caught up with the Netherlands; by 1680, London was being transformed into a modern city characterized by novel uses of space as well as by new building types. Here too, artists produced images that were affordable and appealing to a middle-class audience; notable in this respect was William Hogarth (1697\u20131764), who began his career working in the comparatively cheap medium of engraving. Even his famous set of paintings\u00a0Marriage A-la-Mode, which satirizes the manners and morals of fashionable society, was primarily intended as a model for prints to be made after them. Hogarth\u2019s work, like that of many other artists of the period, embodies a sense of didactic purpose, in accordance with the prevailing view that art should aim both to \u2018instruct and delight\u2019.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_790\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"623\"]\"William<\/a> William Hogarth, Marriage A-la-Mode: 2, The T\u00eate \u00e0 T\u00eate,\u00a0circa 1743. Work is in the public domain.[\/caption]\r\n\r\nWhat fundamentally distinguishes \u2018bourgeois art\u2019 from previous categories, however, is its lack of any actual function. Its defining feature, according to B\u00fcrger, is its autonomy, which he defines as \u2018art\u2019s independence from society\u2019 (B\u00fcrger, 1984, p. 35). As we have seen, a conception of \u2018fine art\u2019 as a category apart from everyday needs was formalized in the mid eighteenth century. What this meant in practice is best demonstrated by the case of easel painting, which had become the dominant pictorial form by 1600. Unlike an altarpiece or a fresco, this kind of picture has no fixed place; instead, its frame serves to separate it from its surroundings, allowing it to be hung in almost any setting. Its value lies not in any use as such, but in the ease with which it can be bought and sold (or what Marxists call its \u2018exchange value\u2019). In taking the form of a commodity, easel-painting accords with the commercial priorities of bourgeois society, even though what appears within the frame may be far removed from these priorities. Art\u2019s previous functions did not simply vanish, however, not least because the nobility and its values retained considerable power and prestige.\r\n\r\nUltimately more important than such residual courtly functions, however, is the distinctly paradoxical way that art in bourgeois society at once preserves and transforms art\u2019s sacral functions. Autonomous art does not promote Christian beliefs and practices, as religious art traditionally did, but rather is treated by art lovers as itself the source of a special kind of experience, a rarefied or even spiritual pleasure. This type of pleasure is now called \u2018aesthetic\u2019, a word that was coined in 1735, by Alexander Baumgarten, though it was only towards the end of the eighteenth century that writers began to talk about their experience of art in such high-flown quasi-religious terms (for examples, see Shiner, 2001, pp. 135\u20136). What this boils down to is that art increasingly functioned during this period as a cult in its own right, sometimes referred to as the artwork\u2019s aura, one in which the artist of genius replaces God the creator as the source of meaning and value. This exalted conception of art consolidated the separation between the artist and the craftsman, which had motivated the foundation of the Florentine Academy some two centuries earlier.\r\n

From Patronage to the Public Sphere<\/h3>\r\nAmong the various approaches that have been applied to the study of art produced between\u00a0c.1600 and\u00a0c.1850, the dominant one in recent decades has been a concern to locate art in its historical context. Art historians who employ this kind of approach take account both of the institutional and commercial conditions in which works of art were produced and consumed and of the broader cultural, social, economic and political conditions of the period. Such an approach (known as the social history of art) represents a reaction against an older model of art history, which relied ultimately on a vague notion of the\u00a0zeitgeist\u00a0(or \u2018spirit of the age\u2019) as a means of explaining artistic developments. This older model of art history was closely associated with a focus on style, each style being assumed to reflect the spirit of a different age (W\u00f6lfflin, 1950, pp. 9\u201311, 233\u20134). It is now recognized that artistic practice within a period is invariably more diverse and complex than a style-based art history admits. Furthermore, rather than simply \u2018reflecting\u2019 or \u2018expressing\u2019 wider social forces, works of art are primarily shaped by the structures and values of the art world, but also connected to society at large in myriad subtle (and sometimes not so subtle)\u00a0ways (Clark, 1982, pp. 9\u201320).\r\n

Patronage<\/h4>\r\nIn exploring artistic developments in the centuries with which we are concerned here, the first structure or institution to consider is that of patronage. As in the Renaissance, many artists worked for patrons, who commissioned them to execute works of art in accordance with their requirements. Patronage played an important role throughout the period, most obviously in the case of large-scale projects for a specific location that could not be undertaken without a commission. Exemplary in this respect is the work that the sculptor (and architect) Gian Lorenzo Bernini (1598\u20131680) carried out at St Peter\u2019s Basilica in Rome for a succession of popes from the 1620s onwards. Landscape gardening is another case in point. Artists also executed on commission for a patron works that, though not actually immoveable, involved too much risk to be executed \u2018on spec\u2019, in the hope that someone would come along and buy them after they were completed, either because they were large and expensive or because they did not make for easy viewing. Both considerations applied in the case of David\u2019s\u00a0The Oath of the Horatii, a huge picture of a tragic subject painted in an uncompromising style, which was commissioned by the French state. An artist greatly in demand such as the sculptor Antonio Canova (1757\u20131822) would also tend to work on commission; in his case, the grandest patrons from across Europe sometimes waited for years to receive a statue by the master, even though he maintained (as both Bernini and Rubens also did) a large workshop to assist him in his labors.\r\n\r\nFinally, portraiture was a genre that, with rare exceptions, such as the portrait of Omai by Sir Joshua Reynolds (1723\u201392), required a patron to commission an artist to take a\u00a0likeness.\r\n

From Patronage to the Open Market<\/h4>\r\nNevertheless, the period after 1600 saw a shift away from patronage towards the open market. This shift accompanied the gradual decline of \u2018sacral\u2019 and \u2018courtly\u2019 art, both of which were normally executed on commission. Consider the case of Caravaggio\u2019s\u00a0Death of the Virgin, an altarpiece commissioned for the church of Santa Maria della Scala in Rome in 1601. In the event, the resolutely human terms in which the painter depicted the subject and the unidealised treatment of the figures scandalized the monks responsible for the church. The painting was therefore put up for sale, exciting intense interest among artists, dealers and collectors; it was snapped up (at a high price) by the Duke of Mantua, on the advice of Rubens, who was then employed as the duke\u2019s court painter (Langdon, 1998, pp. 246\u201351, 317\u201318). Thus a functional religious artifact was transformed into a secular artwork, acclaimed as a masterpiece by a famous artist and sold to a princely collector, for whom the possession of such a work was a matter of personal prestige. The comparable transformation of courtly art in response to the market can be illustrated by reference to another picture immediately displaced from the location for which it was painted. In 1721, the Flemish-born artist Antoine Watteau (1684\u20131721) painted a large canvas as a shop sign for his friend, the Parisian art dealer Edme Gersaint. It shows the kind of elegant figures that the artist typically painted, but here, rather than engaging in aristocratic leisure and dalliance in a park-like setting, they are scrutinizing items for sale in an art dealer\u2019s shop; a portrait of Louis\u00a0XIV is being packed away into a case, as if to mark the passing of the era of grand courtly art. Rapidly sold to a wealthy (though not aristocratic) collector, Gersaint\u2019s Shop Sign\u00a0exemplifies the way that Watteau repackaged courtly ideals for the market to reach a wider audience. The painting also shows how art collecting became a refined pastime for the social elite, in which art dealers played a crucial\u00a0role (McClellan, 1996).\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_1090\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"907\"]\"Antoine<\/a> Antoine Watteau,\u00a0Gersaint\u2019s Shop Sign, 1720\u201321, oil on canvas, 151 \u00d7 306 cm. Schloss Charlottenburg, Berlin. Work is in the public domain.[\/caption]\r\n\r\nAs these two examples demonstrate, more market-oriented structures and practices emerged in countries such as Italy and France from the end of the Renaissance onwards (see Haskell, 1980; Pomian, 1990; Posner, 1993; North and Ormrod, 1998). However, the tendency towards commercialization is even more striking elsewhere: for example, in the growth of large-scale speculative building in late seventeenth-century London. As already noted, the emergence of \u2018bourgeois art\u2019 (as distinct from architecture) is best exemplified by the Netherlands, where most artists produced small easel paintings for sale. This model of artistic practice went hand in hand with the rise of art dealers and other features of the modern art world, such as public auctions and sale catalogues (see Montias, 1982; North, 1997; Montias, 2002). In important respects, the Dutch case remains idiosyncratic, but nevertheless the genres of painting that dominated in this context \u2013 that is, portraiture, landscape, scenes of everyday life and still life \u2013 soon became the most popular and successful elsewhere in Europe too. It was not just subject matter that counted, however; increasing emphasis was also placed on the distinctive brushwork of the individual artist and on the skills of connoisseurship that both dealers and collectors needed in order to recognize and appreciate the \u2018hand\u2019 of each \u2018master\u2019 and, of course, to distinguish genuine works from misattributed ones and outright forgeries. Exemplary in this respect is the work of Rembrandt; it was thanks above all to his exceptionally broad and hence highly distinctive handling of paint that he came to be generally regarded as the greatest of all post-Renaissance artists by the mid nineteenth century. As a result of these developments, painting increasingly tended to overshadow other art forms, especially tapestry, which lost its previous high status with the decline of courtly art.\r\n

Habermas and the Public Sphere<\/h4>\r\nThe emergence of a recognizably modern art world between 1600 and 1850 formed part of the development of the \u2018public sphere\u2019, as it has been defined by the philosopher J\u00fcrgen Habermas. Habermas argues that the late seventeenth century onwards saw a shift away from \u2018representational culture\u2019, which embodied and displayed the power of the ruler and nobility, as courtly art traditionally did. It was replaced by a new urban culture, the \u2018bourgeois public sphere\u2019, which was brought into existence by private individuals, that is, middle-class people like merchants and lawyers, who came together to exchange news and ideas, giving rise to new cultural institutions, such as newspapers, clubs, lending libraries and public theatres (Habermas, 1989 [1962]; Blanning, 2002). A pioneering role in this respect was played by London as a consequence of the limited power of the monarch, which meant that the court dominated culture much less than it did in France at the same time. Public interest in art grew rapidly during the eighteenth century, aided by an expanding print culture, which allowed the circulation of high-art images to an ever larger audience (see Pears, 1988; Clayton, 1997). In both London and Paris, large audiences also attended the exhibitions that began to be held during the middle decades of the century. The first public museums were established around the same time. Most were royal and princely collections opened up to the public, whether as a benevolent gesture on the ruler\u2019s part or, in the case of the Louvre, by the French Revolutionary government in 1793 (McClellan, 1994; Sheehan, 2000; Prior, 2002). However, it was a charitable bequest from an art dealer that led to the creation of the first public art museum in Britain; housed in a building designed for the purpose by the architect Sir John Soane (1753\u20131837), Dulwich College Picture Gallery opened to the public in 1817.\r\n

The Art Museum and the Painting of Current Events<\/h4>\r\nWith the establishment of the art museum, the autonomy of art gained its defining institution. In a museum, a work of art could be viewed purely for its own sake, without reference to its traditional functions. Nevertheless, as indicated above, art\u2019s autonomy was far from complete. From around 1800 onwards, for example, the public sphere also opened up the possibility that artists might try to bridge the gap dividing art from society by independently producing works that engaged with current events, as the French painter Th\u00e9odore G\u00e9ricault (1791\u20131824) did in his vast picture,\u00a0The Raft of the Medusa. This and comparable works by other French artists, notably\u00a0Liberty Leading the People\u00a0by Eug\u00e8ne Delacroix (1798\u20131863), which was painted just after the July Revolution of 1830, are often seen as having inaugurated a new tradition of politically committed modern or \u2018avant-garde\u2019 art, which came to the fore towards the end of the nineteenth century. However, it was during this period that the French military term \u2018avant garde\u2019 (meaning a section of an army that goes ahead of the rest) came to be applied to works of art. It was first used in this sense in a text published in 1825 under the name of the Utopian Socialist Henri de Saint-Simon, who argued that artists could help to transform society by spreading \u2018new ideas among men\u2019 (Harrison et al., 1998, p. 40). Although he does not seem to have had any specific type of art in mind, his emphasis on its role as a means of communication makes it plausible to apply the term to works such as\u00a0The Raft of the Medusa\u00a0and\u00a0Liberty Leading the People, which convey a political message on a large scale and to striking\u00a0effect.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_476\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"577\"]\"Eug\u00e8ne<\/a> Eug\u00e8ne Delacroix, Liberty Leading the People, 1830, oil on canvas, 260 \u00d7 325 cm. Mus\u00e9e du Louvre, Paris. Work is in the public domain.[\/caption]\r\n\r\nFor present purposes, however, what is important about these two paintings is the way that they depended on the institutions of the public sphere. Rather than being commissioned by a patron, each was intended first and foremost for display at the official art exhibition in Paris known as the Salon. Both, moreover, were bought by the state for the Luxembourg museum, which was founded in 1818 to house modern French art (though, in G\u00e9ricault\u2019s case, not until several years later). Indeed Delacroix may have painted his picture in the hope or even the expectation that this would happen, since two of the artist\u2019s works had already entered the museum. It should also be noted that such ambitious and challenging works were very much the exception, even in France and much more so in other countries where the state did not support living artists in the same way. Most of them earned a living by catering to the demands of the market, typically by specializing in a particular genre, such as portraiture. In this respect, the first half of the nineteenth century is continuous with the previous two centuries, during which high-status works by celebrated artists also constituted only a small part of the broad field of visual culture. Rather than tracing a single narrative of art\u2019s development from the establishment of the academies to the beginnings of the avant-garde, it is important to be aware of its diversity and complexity throughout western Europe during this\u00a0period.\r\n

Works Cited<\/h2>\r\n

Adamson, J.S.A. (1999)\u00a0The Princely Courts of Europe: Ritual, Politics and Culture under the Ancien R\u00e9gime 1500\u20131750, London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson.<\/p>\r\n

Alberti, L.B. (1966 [1435])\u00a0On Painting\u00a0(trans. J.R.\u00a0Spencer), New Haven, CT and London, Yale\u00a0University Press.<\/p>\r\n

Arciszweska, B. and McKellar, E. (2004)\u00a0Articulating British Classicism: New Approaches to Eighteenth-Century Architecture, Aldershot and Burlington, VT, Ashgate.<\/p>\r\n

Bailey, C. (1987) \u2018Conventions of the eighteenth-century cabinet de tableaux: Blondel d\u2019Azincourt\u2019s La premi\u00e8re id\u00e9e de la curiosit\u00e9\u2019,\u00a0Art Bulletin, vol.\u00a069, no.\u00a03, pp.\u00a0431\u201347.<\/p>\r\n

Bailey, C. (2002)\u00a0Patriotic Taste: Collecting Modern Art in Pre-Revolutionary Paris, New Haven, CT and London, Yale University Press.<\/p>\r\n

Bailey, G.A. (1999)\u00a0Art on the Jesuit Missions in Asia and Latin America, 1542\u20131773, Toronto and London, University of Toronto Press.<\/p>\r\n

Barr, A.H. (1974 [1936])\u00a0Cubism and Abstract Art, New York, Museum of Modern Art (exhibition catalogue).<\/p>\r\n

Baudelaire, C. (1981 [1859]) \u2018On photography\u2019 in Newhall, B. (ed.)\u00a0Photography: Essays and Images, New York, Secker & Warburg, pp.\u00a0112\u201313.<\/p>\r\n

Baxandall, M. (1971)\u00a0Giotto and the Orators: Humanist Observers of Painting in Italy and the Discovery of Pictorial Composition 1350\u20131450, Oxford, Clarendon Press.<\/p>\r\n

Baxandall, M. (1972)\u00a0Painting and Experience in Fifteenth-Century Italy, Oxford, Clarendon Press.<\/p>\r\n

Baxandall, M. (1980)\u00a0The Limewood Sculptors of Renaissance Germany, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press.<\/p>\r\n

Belting, H. (1994)\u00a0Likeness and Presence: A History of the Image before the Era of Art, Chicago, IL and London, University of Chicago Press.<\/p>\r\n

Benjamin, W. (1983)\u00a0Charles Baudelaire: A Lyric Poet in the Era of High Capitalism, London, Verso.<\/p>\r\n

Bergdoll, B. (2000)\u00a0European Architecture 1750\u20131890, Oxford, Oxford University Press.<\/p>\r\n

Bermingham, A. (2000)\u00a0Learning to Draw: Studies in the Cultural History of a Polite and Useful Art, New Haven, CT and London, Yale University Press.<\/p>\r\n

Blanning, T.C.W. (2002)\u00a0The Culture of Power and the Power of Culture: Old Regime Europe 1660\u20131789, Oxford, Oxford University Press.<\/p>\r\n

B\u00fcrger, P. (1984)\u00a0Theory of the Avant-Garde, Manchester, Manchester University Press; Minneapolis, MN, University of Minnesota Press.<\/p>\r\n

Clark, T.J. (1982)\u00a0Image of the People. Gustave Courbet and the 1848 Revolution, London, Thames & Hudson.<\/p>\r\n

Clark, T.J. (1984)\u00a0The Painting of Modern Life: Paris in the Art of Manet and his Followers, London, Thames & Hudson.<\/p>\r\n

Clayton, T. (1997)\u00a0The English Print, 1688\u20131802, London and New Haven, CT, Yale University Press.<\/p>\r\n

Connell, S.M. (1976)\u00a0The Employment of Sculptors and Stonemasons in Venice in the Fifteenth Century\u00a0(doctoral thesis), Warburg Institute, University of London.<\/p>\r\n

Craske, M. (1997)\u00a0Art in Europe 1700\u20131830: A History of the Visual Arts in an Era of Unprecedented Urban Economic Growth, Oxford, Oxford University Press.<\/p>\r\n

Crown, P. (1990) \u2018British Rococo as social and political style\u2019,\u00a0Eighteenth-Century Studies, vol.\u00a023, no.\u00a03, pp.\u00a0269\u201382.<\/p>\r\n

Duchamp, M. (1975)\u00a0The Essential Writings of Marcel Duchamp\u00a0(ed. M.\u00a0Sanouillet and E.\u00a0Peterson), London, Thames & Hudson.<\/p>\r\n

Edwards, S. (ed.) (1999)\u00a0Art and its Histories: A Reader, New Haven, CT and London, Yale University Press.<\/p>\r\n

Elias, N. (1983)\u00a0The Court Society\u00a0(trans. E. Jephcott), Oxford, Blackwell.<\/p>\r\n

Gilbert, C. (1985) \u2018A statement of the aesthetic attitude around 1230\u2019,\u00a0Hebrew University Studies in Literature and the Arts, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 125\u201352.<\/p>\r\n

Gordon, D. (2003)\u00a0The Fifteenth-Century Italian Paintings, National Gallery Catalogues, London, Yale University Press.<\/p>\r\n

Greenberg, C. (1961)\u00a0Art and Culture: Critical Essays, Boston, MA, Beacon Press.<\/p>\r\n

Greenberg, C. (1986 [1939]) \u2018Avant-garde and kitsch\u2019 in O\u2019Brian, J. (ed.)\u00a0Clement Greenberg: The Collected Essays and Criticism, vol.\u00a01:\u00a0Perceptions and Judgements, 1939\u20131944, Chicago, IL, Chicago University Press, pp.\u00a05\u201322.<\/p>\r\n

Greenberg, C. (1993 [1960]) \u2018Modernist painting\u2019 in O\u2019Brian, J. (ed.)\u00a0Clement Greenberg:\u00a0The Collected Essays and Criticism, vol.\u00a04:\u00a0Modernism with a Vengeance, 1957\u20131969, Chicago, IL, Chicago University Press, pp.\u00a085\u2013100.<\/p>\r\n

Habermas, J. (1989 [1962])\u00a0The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.<\/p>\r\n

Hardie, P. (1993) \u2018Ut Pictura Poesis? Horace and the visual arts\u2019 in\u00a0Horace 2000: A Celebration for the Bi-millennium, London, Duckworth, pp.\u00a0120\u201339.<\/p>\r\n

Harris, A.S. (2008)\u00a0Seventeenth-Century Art and Architecture\u00a0(2nd edn), London, Laurence King.<\/p>\r\n

Harrison, C., Wood, P. and Gaiger, J. (eds) (1998)\u00a0Art in Theory 1815\u20131900: An Anthology of Changing Ideas, Oxford, Blackwell.<\/p>\r\n

Harvey, D. (2003)\u00a0Paris: Capital of Modernity, London and New York, Routledge.<\/p>\r\n

Haskell, F. (1980) Patrons and Painters: A Study in the Relations between Italian Art and Society in the Age of the Baroque, New Haven and London, Yale University Press.<\/p>\r\n

Haskell, F. and Penny, N. (1981)\u00a0Taste and the Antique: The Lure of Classical Sculpture 1500\u20131900, New Haven, CT and London, Yale University Press.<\/p>\r\n

Hauser, A. (1962 [1951])\u00a0The Social History of Art. Vol.\u00a02:\u00a0Renaissance, Mannerism, Baroque; Vol. 3.\u00a0Rococo, Classicism and Romanticism\u00a0(2nd edn), London, Routledge.<\/p>\r\n

Haynes, C. (2006)\u00a0Pictures and Popery: Art and Religion in England, 1660\u20131760, Aldershot, Ashgate.<\/p>\r\n

Hemingway, A. and Vaughan, W. (eds) (1998)\u00a0Art in Bourgeois Society 1790\u20131850, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.<\/p>\r\n

Hills, H. (ed.) (2011)\u00a0Rethinking the Baroque, Farnham, Ashgate.<\/p>\r\n

Honour, H. (1968)\u00a0Neo-classicism, Harmondsworth, Penguin.<\/p>\r\n

Honour, H. (1979)\u00a0Romanticism, Harmondsworth, Penguin.<\/p>\r\n

Hyde, M. (2006)\u00a0Making up the Rococo: Fran\u00e7ois Boucher and his Critics, Los Angeles, CA and London, Getty Research Institute.<\/p>\r\n

Irwin, D. (1997)\u00a0Neoclassicism, London, Phaidon.<\/p>\r\n

Langdon, H. (1998)\u00a0Caravaggio: A Life, London, Chatto & Windus.<\/p>\r\n

Lee, R. (1967)\u00a0Ut Pictura Poesis: The Humanistic Theory of Painting, New York, W.W. Norton.<\/p>\r\n

Levy, E. (2004)\u00a0Propaganda and the Jesuit Baroque, Berkeley, CA and London, University of California Press.<\/p>\r\n

Lichtenstein, J. (2008)\u00a0The Blind Spot: An Essay on the Relations between Painting and Sculpture in the Modern Age, Los Angeles, CA, Getty Research Institute.<\/p>\r\n

Lymberopoulou, A., Bracewell-Homer, P. and Robinson, J. (eds) (2012)\u00a0Art & Visual Culture: A Reader, London, Tate Publishing in association with The Open University.<\/p>\r\n

McClellan, A. (1994)\u00a0Inventing the Louvre: Art, Politics, and the Origins of the Modern Museum in Eighteenth-Century Paris, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.<\/p>\r\n

McClellan, A. (1996) \u2018Watteau\u2019s dealer: Gersaint and the marketing of art in eighteenth-century Paris\u2019,\u00a0Art Bulletin, vol.\u00a078, no.\u00a03, pp.\u00a0439\u201353.<\/p>\r\n

Montias, J.M. (1982)\u00a0Artists and Artisans in Delft: A Socio-economic Study of the Seventeenth Century, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.<\/p>\r\n

Montias, J.M. (2002)\u00a0Art at Auction in 17th Century Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press.<\/p>\r\n

Nash, S. (2007)\u00a0\u2018No Equal in Any Land\u2019: Andr\u00e9 Beauneveu \u2013 Artist to the Courts of France and Flanders, London, Paul Holberton Publishing.<\/p>\r\n

Nesbit, M. (1992)\u00a0Atget\u2019s Seven Albums, New Haven, CT and London, Yale University Press.<\/p>\r\n

Nesbit, M. (2000)\u00a0Their Common Sense, London, Black Dog.<\/p>\r\n

North, M. (1997)\u00a0Art and Commerce in the Dutch Golden Age, New Haven, CT and London, Yale University Press.<\/p>\r\n

North, M. and Ormrod, D. (1998)\u00a0Art Markets in Europe, 1400\u20131800, Aldershot, Ashgate.<\/p>\r\n

Nuttall, G. (2012)\u00a0Lucchese Patronage and Purveying during the Regime of Paolo Guinigi, 1400\u20131430: Dino Rapondi, Lorenzo Trenta and Paolo Guinigi, unpublished PhD Thesis, Courtauld Institute of Art, University of London.<\/p>\r\n

O\u2019Brian, J. (ed.) (1986\u201395)\u00a0Clement Greenberg:\u00a0The Collected Essays and Criticism, 4\u00a0vols, Chicago, IL, Chicago University Press.<\/p>\r\n

Paviot, J. (1990) \u2018La vie de Jan van Eyck selon les documents \u00e9crits\u2019,\u00a0Revue des arch\u00e9ologues et historiens d\u2019art de Louvain, vol. 23, pp. 83\u201393.<\/p>\r\n

Pears, I. (1988)\u00a0The Discovery of Painting: The Growth of Interest in the Arts in England 1680\u20131768, New Haven, CT and London, Yale University Press.<\/p>\r\n

Plon, E. (1887)\u00a0Les Ma\u00eetres italiens au service de la maison d\u2019Autriche: Leone Leoni sculpteur de Charles-Quint et Pompeo Leoni, sculpteur de Philippe II, , Paris, Librairie Plon.<\/p>\r\n

Pollock, G. (1988)\u00a0Vision and Difference: Femininity, Feminism and the Histories of Art, London and New York, Routledge.<\/p>\r\n

Pomian, K. (1990)\u00a0Collectors and Curiosities: Paris and Venice, 1500\u20131800, Cambridge, Polity Press.<\/p>\r\n

Posner, D. (1993) \u2018Concerning the \u201cmechanical\u201d parts of painting and the artistic culture of seventeenth-century France\u2019,\u00a0Art Bulletin, vol.\u00a075, no.\u00a04, pp.\u00a0583\u201398.<\/p>\r\n

Porter, D. (2010)\u00a0The Chinese Taste in Eighteenth-Century England, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.<\/p>\r\n

Potts, A. (2000)\u00a0The Sculptural Imagination: Figurative, Modernist, Minimalist, New Haven, CT and London, Yale University Press.<\/p>\r\n

Prendergast, C. (1992)\u00a0Paris and the Nineteenth Century, Oxford, Blackwell.<\/p>\r\n

Prior, N. (2002)\u00a0Museums and Modernity : Art Galleries and the Making of Modern Culture, Oxford, Berg.<\/p>\r\n

Richardson C.M., Woods, K.W. and Franklin, M.W. (eds) (2007)\u00a0Renaissance Art Reconsidered: An Anthology of Primary Sources, Oxford, Blackwell.<\/p>\r\n

Rosenberg, H. (1970 [1940]) \u2018The fall of Paris\u2019 in\u00a0The Tradition of the New, London, Paladin, pp. 185\u201394.<\/p>\r\n

Roy, A. and Gordon, D. (2001) \u2018The Battle of San Romano\u2019,\u00a0National Gallery Technical Bulletin, vol. 22, pp. 4\u201317.<\/p>\r\n

Sandler, I. (1970)\u00a0The Triumph of American Painting, Westport, CT, Praeger.<\/p>\r\n

Schapiro, M. (1977) \u2018On the aesthetic attitude in Romanesque art\u2019 in\u00a0Romanesque Art: Selected Papers, London, Chatto & Windus, pp. 1\u201327.<\/p>\r\n

Schapiro, M. (1978 [1937]) \u2018Nature of abstract art\u2019 in\u00a0Modern Art: 19th and 20th Centuries. Selected Papers, New York, George Braziller, pp.\u00a0185\u2013211.<\/p>\r\n

Scott, K. (1995)\u00a0The Rococo Interior: Decoration and Social Spaces in Early Eighteenth-Century Paris, New Haven, CT and London, Yale University Press.<\/p>\r\n

Sheehan, J.J. (2000)\u00a0Museums in the German Art World from the End of the Old Regime to the Rise of Modernism, Oxford, Oxford University Press.<\/p>\r\n

Sheriff, M. (1990)\u00a0Fragonard: Art and Eroticism, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press.<\/p>\r\n

Shiner, L. (2001)\u00a0The Invention of Art: A Cultural History, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press.<\/p>\r\n

Simmel, G. (1997 [1903]) \u2018The metropolis and mental life\u2019 in Frisby, D.P. and Featherstone, M. (eds)\u00a0Simmel on Culture: Selected Writings, New York, Sage, pp.\u00a0174\u201385. Extract reprinted in Lymberopoulou, A., Bracewell-Homer, P. and Robinson, J. (eds)\u00a0Art and Visual Culture: A Reader, London, Tate Publishing in association with The Open University, pp. 267\u20139.<\/p>\r\n

Snodin, M. (ed.) (1984)\u00a0Rococo: Art and Design in Hogarth\u2019s England, London, V&A (exhibition catalogue).<\/p>\r\n

Snodin, M. and Llewellyn, N. (eds) (2009)\u00a0Baroque, 1620\u20131800: Style in the Age of Magnificence, London, V&A (exhibition catalogue).<\/p>\r\n

Stechow, W. (1989 [1966])\u00a0Northern Renaissance Art 1400\u20131600: Sources and Documents, Evanston, IL, Northwestern University Press.<\/p>\r\n

Suger, Abbot (1979)\u00a0On the Abbey Church of Saint-Denis and its Art Treasures\u00a0(eds E. Panofsky and G. Panofsky-Soergel), Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.<\/p>\r\n

Tomlinson, J.A. (1994)\u00a0Francisco Goya y Lucientes, 1746\u20131828, London, Phaidon.<\/p>\r\n

Trotsky, L. (1962 [1928\/1906])\u00a0The Permanent Revolution; Results and Prospects, London, New Park.<\/p>\r\n

Vasari, G. (1996) [1568]\u00a0Lives of the Painters, Sculptors and Architects, 2 vols (trans. G. du C. de Vere; ed.\u00a0D.\u00a0Ekserdijian), London, Everyman.<\/p>\r\n

Warnke, M. (1993)\u00a0The Court Artist: On the Ancestry of the Modern Artist\u00a0(trans. D. McLintock), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press (first published in German in 1985).<\/p>\r\n

Wolff, J. (1985) \u2018The invisible flaneuse: women and the literature of modernity\u2019,\u00a0Theory, Culture and Society, vol.\u00a02, no.\u00a03, pp.\u00a037\u201346.<\/p>\r\n

W\u00f6lfflin, H. (1950)\u00a0Principles of Art History: The Problem of the Development of Style in Later Art, New York, Dover.<\/p>\r\n

Wolters, W. (1967) \u2018Ein Hauptwerk der neiderl\u00e4ndischen Skulptur in Venedig\u2019,\u00a0Mitteillung des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz, vol. 13, nos\u00a01\u20132, pp. 185\u20139.<\/p>\r\n

Wolters, W. (1976)\u00a0La scultura Veneziana gotica 1300\u20131460, 2 vols, Venice, Alfieri.<\/p>","rendered":"

Academy to Avant-Garde<\/h2>\n

We now consider the key developments in the definition of art between\u00a0c.1600 and\u00a0c.1850.<\/p>\n

From Function to Autonomy<\/h3>\n

The most important idea for this purpose is the concept of art itself, which came to be defined in the way that we still broadly understand it today during\u00a0the course of the centuries explored here.<\/p>\n

This concept rests on a distinction between art, on the one hand, and craft, on the other. It assumes that a work of art is to be appreciated and valued for its own sake, whereas other types of artifacts serve a functional purpose. A significant step in this direction was made by a group of painters and sculptors who in 1563 set up an Accademia del Disegno (Academy of Design) in Florence in order to distinguish themselves from craftsmen organized in guilds. Their central claim was that the arts they practiced were \u2018liberal\u2019 or intellectual rather than \u2018mechanical\u2019 or practical. After 1600, academies of art were founded in cities throughout Europe, including Paris (1648) and London (1768). Most offered training in architecture as well as in painting and sculpture. A decisive shift took place in the mid eighteenth century, when the three \u2018arts of design\u2019 began to be classified along with poetry and music in a new category of \u2018fine arts\u2019 (a translation of the French term, \u2018beaux-arts\u2019). Other arts, such as landscape gardening, were sometimes included in this category. Architecture was occasionally excluded on the grounds that it was useful as well as beautiful, but the fine arts were usually defined in terms broad enough to encompass it. One writer, for example, described them as \u2018the offspring of genius; they have nature for model, taste for master, pleasure for\u00a0aim\u2019 (Jacques Lacombe,\u00a0Dictionnaire Portatif des Beaux-Arts, 1753 (1st edn 1752), p. 40, as translated in Shiner, 2001, p. 88).<\/p>\n

From the Sacred to the Courtly<\/h4>\n

To chart what these conceptual shifts meant in practice, we can borrow the categories elaborated by the cultural theorist Peter B\u00fcrger (1984, pp. 47\u20138), who outlines a long-term shift away from the functions that art traditionally served. Such functions continued to play an important role after 1600, especially in the seventeenth century, when academies were rare outside Italy and many artists still belonged to guilds. As in the medieval period, the primary function was religious (or, in B\u00fcrger\u2019s terminology, \u2018sacral\u2019). The so-called Counter Reformation gave a great boost to Roman Catholic patronage of the arts, as the church sought to renew itself in the aftermath of the Protestant Reformation. It was in this context that the word \u2018propaganda\u2019 originated; it can be traced back to 1622 when Pope Gregory XV (reigned 1621\u201323) founded the Congregazio de Propaganda Fide (Congregation for the Propagation of Faith) in Rome. The commitment to spreading the faith that this organization embodied helped to shape art not just in Europe but in every part of the world reached by the Catholic Missions, notably Asia and the Americas, throughout the period explored here. The churches that rejected the authority of Rome also played a role in supporting \u2018sacral art\u2019, primarily architecture since their use of other art forms was limited by Protestant strictures against \u2018Popish\u2019 idolatry (see for example Levy, 2004; Bailey, 1999; Haynes, 2006). Even in Catholic countries, however, the religious uses of art slowly declined relative to secular ones. The seventeenth century is the last in western art history in which a major canonical figure like the Italian painter Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (1571\u20131610) might still be a primarily religious artist.<\/p>\n

\"Michelangelo<\/a><\/p>\n

Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio,\u00a0The Death of the Virgin, 1601\u201303, oil on canvas, 369 \u00d7 245\u00a0cm. Mus\u00e9e du Louvre, Paris. Photo: Web Gallery of Art, CC BY-SA. Work is in the public domain<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

B\u00fcrger\u2019s Functions of Art: the Courtly<\/h4>\n

By 1600, it was \u2018courtly art\u2019 (B\u00fcrger\u2019s second category) that increasingly prevailed in much of Europe. \u2018Courtly art\u2019 can be defined as consisting primarily of art actually produced at a royal or princely court, but also extending beyond it to include works of art that more generally promote the leisured lifestyle of an aristocratic elite. As in the Renaissance, artists served the needs of rulers by surrounding them with an aura of splendor and glory. In this context, art was integrated into the courtly or aristocratic way of life, as part of a culture of spectacle, which functioned to distinguish the nobles who frequented the court from other social classes and to legitimate the ruler\u2019s power in the eyes of the world (see for example, Elias, 1983; Adamson, 1999; Blanning, 2002). The consolidation of power in the hands of a fairly small number of European monarchs meant that their need for ideological justification was all the greater and so too were the resources they had at their disposal for the purpose. Exemplary in this respect is the French king Louis\u00a0XIV (ruled 1643\u20131715), who harnessed the arts to the service of his own autocratic rule in the most conspicuous manner imaginable. From 1661 onwards, he employed the architects Louis Le Vau (1612\/13\u20131670) and Jules Hardouin-Mansart (1648\u20131708), the painter Charles Le Brun (1619\u201390) and the landscape gardener Andr\u00e9 Le N\u00f4tre (1613\u20131700), among many others, to create the vast and lavish palace of Versailles, not far from Paris. Every aspect of its design glorified the king, not least by celebrating the military exploits that made France the dominant power in Europe during his reign.<\/p>\n

\"The<\/a><\/p>\n

The Salon de la Guerre (War room), Ch\u00e2teau de Versailles, designed by Jules Hardouin-Mansart, showing plaster relief by Antoine Coysevox of Louis\u00a0XIV trampling over his enemies, 1678\u201386.\u00a0Photo: Jebulon. CCO<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

B\u00fcrger\u2019s Functions of Art: Bourgeois Art<\/h4>\n

By 1800, however, the predominant category was what B\u00fcrger calls \u2018bourgeois art\u2019. His use of this term reflects his reliance on a broadly Marxist conceptual framework, which views artistic developments as being driven ultimately by social and economic change (B\u00fcrger, 1984, p. 47; Hemingway and Vaughan, 1998). Such art is bourgeois in so far as it owed its existence to the growing importance of trade and industry in Europe since the late medieval period, which gave rise to an increasingly large and influential wealthy middle class. Exemplary in this respect is seventeenth-century Dutch painting, the distinctive features and sheer profusion of which were both made possible by a large population of relatively affluent city-dwellers. In other countries, the commercialization of society and the urban development that went with it tended to take place more slowly. Britain, however, rapidly caught up with the Netherlands; by 1680, London was being transformed into a modern city characterized by novel uses of space as well as by new building types. Here too, artists produced images that were affordable and appealing to a middle-class audience; notable in this respect was William Hogarth (1697\u20131764), who began his career working in the comparatively cheap medium of engraving. Even his famous set of paintings\u00a0Marriage A-la-Mode, which satirizes the manners and morals of fashionable society, was primarily intended as a model for prints to be made after them. Hogarth\u2019s work, like that of many other artists of the period, embodies a sense of didactic purpose, in accordance with the prevailing view that art should aim both to \u2018instruct and delight\u2019.<\/p>\n

\"William<\/a><\/p>\n

William Hogarth, Marriage A-la-Mode: 2, The T\u00eate \u00e0 T\u00eate,\u00a0circa 1743. Work is in the public domain.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

What fundamentally distinguishes \u2018bourgeois art\u2019 from previous categories, however, is its lack of any actual function. Its defining feature, according to B\u00fcrger, is its autonomy, which he defines as \u2018art\u2019s independence from society\u2019 (B\u00fcrger, 1984, p. 35). As we have seen, a conception of \u2018fine art\u2019 as a category apart from everyday needs was formalized in the mid eighteenth century. What this meant in practice is best demonstrated by the case of easel painting, which had become the dominant pictorial form by 1600. Unlike an altarpiece or a fresco, this kind of picture has no fixed place; instead, its frame serves to separate it from its surroundings, allowing it to be hung in almost any setting. Its value lies not in any use as such, but in the ease with which it can be bought and sold (or what Marxists call its \u2018exchange value\u2019). In taking the form of a commodity, easel-painting accords with the commercial priorities of bourgeois society, even though what appears within the frame may be far removed from these priorities. Art\u2019s previous functions did not simply vanish, however, not least because the nobility and its values retained considerable power and prestige.<\/p>\n

Ultimately more important than such residual courtly functions, however, is the distinctly paradoxical way that art in bourgeois society at once preserves and transforms art\u2019s sacral functions. Autonomous art does not promote Christian beliefs and practices, as religious art traditionally did, but rather is treated by art lovers as itself the source of a special kind of experience, a rarefied or even spiritual pleasure. This type of pleasure is now called \u2018aesthetic\u2019, a word that was coined in 1735, by Alexander Baumgarten, though it was only towards the end of the eighteenth century that writers began to talk about their experience of art in such high-flown quasi-religious terms (for examples, see Shiner, 2001, pp. 135\u20136). What this boils down to is that art increasingly functioned during this period as a cult in its own right, sometimes referred to as the artwork\u2019s aura, one in which the artist of genius replaces God the creator as the source of meaning and value. This exalted conception of art consolidated the separation between the artist and the craftsman, which had motivated the foundation of the Florentine Academy some two centuries earlier.<\/p>\n

From Patronage to the Public Sphere<\/h3>\n

Among the various approaches that have been applied to the study of art produced between\u00a0c.1600 and\u00a0c.1850, the dominant one in recent decades has been a concern to locate art in its historical context. Art historians who employ this kind of approach take account both of the institutional and commercial conditions in which works of art were produced and consumed and of the broader cultural, social, economic and political conditions of the period. Such an approach (known as the social history of art) represents a reaction against an older model of art history, which relied ultimately on a vague notion of the\u00a0zeitgeist\u00a0(or \u2018spirit of the age\u2019) as a means of explaining artistic developments. This older model of art history was closely associated with a focus on style, each style being assumed to reflect the spirit of a different age (W\u00f6lfflin, 1950, pp. 9\u201311, 233\u20134). It is now recognized that artistic practice within a period is invariably more diverse and complex than a style-based art history admits. Furthermore, rather than simply \u2018reflecting\u2019 or \u2018expressing\u2019 wider social forces, works of art are primarily shaped by the structures and values of the art world, but also connected to society at large in myriad subtle (and sometimes not so subtle)\u00a0ways (Clark, 1982, pp. 9\u201320).<\/p>\n

Patronage<\/h4>\n

In exploring artistic developments in the centuries with which we are concerned here, the first structure or institution to consider is that of patronage. As in the Renaissance, many artists worked for patrons, who commissioned them to execute works of art in accordance with their requirements. Patronage played an important role throughout the period, most obviously in the case of large-scale projects for a specific location that could not be undertaken without a commission. Exemplary in this respect is the work that the sculptor (and architect) Gian Lorenzo Bernini (1598\u20131680) carried out at St Peter\u2019s Basilica in Rome for a succession of popes from the 1620s onwards. Landscape gardening is another case in point. Artists also executed on commission for a patron works that, though not actually immoveable, involved too much risk to be executed \u2018on spec\u2019, in the hope that someone would come along and buy them after they were completed, either because they were large and expensive or because they did not make for easy viewing. Both considerations applied in the case of David\u2019s\u00a0The Oath of the Horatii, a huge picture of a tragic subject painted in an uncompromising style, which was commissioned by the French state. An artist greatly in demand such as the sculptor Antonio Canova (1757\u20131822) would also tend to work on commission; in his case, the grandest patrons from across Europe sometimes waited for years to receive a statue by the master, even though he maintained (as both Bernini and Rubens also did) a large workshop to assist him in his labors.<\/p>\n

Finally, portraiture was a genre that, with rare exceptions, such as the portrait of Omai by Sir Joshua Reynolds (1723\u201392), required a patron to commission an artist to take a\u00a0likeness.<\/p>\n

From Patronage to the Open Market<\/h4>\n

Nevertheless, the period after 1600 saw a shift away from patronage towards the open market. This shift accompanied the gradual decline of \u2018sacral\u2019 and \u2018courtly\u2019 art, both of which were normally executed on commission. Consider the case of Caravaggio\u2019s\u00a0Death of the Virgin, an altarpiece commissioned for the church of Santa Maria della Scala in Rome in 1601. In the event, the resolutely human terms in which the painter depicted the subject and the unidealised treatment of the figures scandalized the monks responsible for the church. The painting was therefore put up for sale, exciting intense interest among artists, dealers and collectors; it was snapped up (at a high price) by the Duke of Mantua, on the advice of Rubens, who was then employed as the duke\u2019s court painter (Langdon, 1998, pp. 246\u201351, 317\u201318). Thus a functional religious artifact was transformed into a secular artwork, acclaimed as a masterpiece by a famous artist and sold to a princely collector, for whom the possession of such a work was a matter of personal prestige. The comparable transformation of courtly art in response to the market can be illustrated by reference to another picture immediately displaced from the location for which it was painted. In 1721, the Flemish-born artist Antoine Watteau (1684\u20131721) painted a large canvas as a shop sign for his friend, the Parisian art dealer Edme Gersaint. It shows the kind of elegant figures that the artist typically painted, but here, rather than engaging in aristocratic leisure and dalliance in a park-like setting, they are scrutinizing items for sale in an art dealer\u2019s shop; a portrait of Louis\u00a0XIV is being packed away into a case, as if to mark the passing of the era of grand courtly art. Rapidly sold to a wealthy (though not aristocratic) collector, Gersaint\u2019s Shop Sign\u00a0exemplifies the way that Watteau repackaged courtly ideals for the market to reach a wider audience. The painting also shows how art collecting became a refined pastime for the social elite, in which art dealers played a crucial\u00a0role (McClellan, 1996).<\/p>\n

\"Antoine<\/a><\/p>\n

Antoine Watteau,\u00a0Gersaint\u2019s Shop Sign, 1720\u201321, oil on canvas, 151 \u00d7 306 cm. Schloss Charlottenburg, Berlin. Work is in the public domain.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

As these two examples demonstrate, more market-oriented structures and practices emerged in countries such as Italy and France from the end of the Renaissance onwards (see Haskell, 1980; Pomian, 1990; Posner, 1993; North and Ormrod, 1998). However, the tendency towards commercialization is even more striking elsewhere: for example, in the growth of large-scale speculative building in late seventeenth-century London. As already noted, the emergence of \u2018bourgeois art\u2019 (as distinct from architecture) is best exemplified by the Netherlands, where most artists produced small easel paintings for sale. This model of artistic practice went hand in hand with the rise of art dealers and other features of the modern art world, such as public auctions and sale catalogues (see Montias, 1982; North, 1997; Montias, 2002). In important respects, the Dutch case remains idiosyncratic, but nevertheless the genres of painting that dominated in this context \u2013 that is, portraiture, landscape, scenes of everyday life and still life \u2013 soon became the most popular and successful elsewhere in Europe too. It was not just subject matter that counted, however; increasing emphasis was also placed on the distinctive brushwork of the individual artist and on the skills of connoisseurship that both dealers and collectors needed in order to recognize and appreciate the \u2018hand\u2019 of each \u2018master\u2019 and, of course, to distinguish genuine works from misattributed ones and outright forgeries. Exemplary in this respect is the work of Rembrandt; it was thanks above all to his exceptionally broad and hence highly distinctive handling of paint that he came to be generally regarded as the greatest of all post-Renaissance artists by the mid nineteenth century. As a result of these developments, painting increasingly tended to overshadow other art forms, especially tapestry, which lost its previous high status with the decline of courtly art.<\/p>\n

Habermas and the Public Sphere<\/h4>\n

The emergence of a recognizably modern art world between 1600 and 1850 formed part of the development of the \u2018public sphere\u2019, as it has been defined by the philosopher J\u00fcrgen Habermas. Habermas argues that the late seventeenth century onwards saw a shift away from \u2018representational culture\u2019, which embodied and displayed the power of the ruler and nobility, as courtly art traditionally did. It was replaced by a new urban culture, the \u2018bourgeois public sphere\u2019, which was brought into existence by private individuals, that is, middle-class people like merchants and lawyers, who came together to exchange news and ideas, giving rise to new cultural institutions, such as newspapers, clubs, lending libraries and public theatres (Habermas, 1989 [1962]; Blanning, 2002). A pioneering role in this respect was played by London as a consequence of the limited power of the monarch, which meant that the court dominated culture much less than it did in France at the same time. Public interest in art grew rapidly during the eighteenth century, aided by an expanding print culture, which allowed the circulation of high-art images to an ever larger audience (see Pears, 1988; Clayton, 1997). In both London and Paris, large audiences also attended the exhibitions that began to be held during the middle decades of the century. The first public museums were established around the same time. Most were royal and princely collections opened up to the public, whether as a benevolent gesture on the ruler\u2019s part or, in the case of the Louvre, by the French Revolutionary government in 1793 (McClellan, 1994; Sheehan, 2000; Prior, 2002). However, it was a charitable bequest from an art dealer that led to the creation of the first public art museum in Britain; housed in a building designed for the purpose by the architect Sir John Soane (1753\u20131837), Dulwich College Picture Gallery opened to the public in 1817.<\/p>\n

The Art Museum and the Painting of Current Events<\/h4>\n

With the establishment of the art museum, the autonomy of art gained its defining institution. In a museum, a work of art could be viewed purely for its own sake, without reference to its traditional functions. Nevertheless, as indicated above, art\u2019s autonomy was far from complete. From around 1800 onwards, for example, the public sphere also opened up the possibility that artists might try to bridge the gap dividing art from society by independently producing works that engaged with current events, as the French painter Th\u00e9odore G\u00e9ricault (1791\u20131824) did in his vast picture,\u00a0The Raft of the Medusa. This and comparable works by other French artists, notably\u00a0Liberty Leading the People\u00a0by Eug\u00e8ne Delacroix (1798\u20131863), which was painted just after the July Revolution of 1830, are often seen as having inaugurated a new tradition of politically committed modern or \u2018avant-garde\u2019 art, which came to the fore towards the end of the nineteenth century. However, it was during this period that the French military term \u2018avant garde\u2019 (meaning a section of an army that goes ahead of the rest) came to be applied to works of art. It was first used in this sense in a text published in 1825 under the name of the Utopian Socialist Henri de Saint-Simon, who argued that artists could help to transform society by spreading \u2018new ideas among men\u2019 (Harrison et al., 1998, p. 40). Although he does not seem to have had any specific type of art in mind, his emphasis on its role as a means of communication makes it plausible to apply the term to works such as\u00a0The Raft of the Medusa\u00a0and\u00a0Liberty Leading the People, which convey a political message on a large scale and to striking\u00a0effect.<\/p>\n

\"Eug\u00e8ne<\/a><\/p>\n

Eug\u00e8ne Delacroix, Liberty Leading the People, 1830, oil on canvas, 260 \u00d7 325 cm. Mus\u00e9e du Louvre, Paris. Work is in the public domain.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

For present purposes, however, what is important about these two paintings is the way that they depended on the institutions of the public sphere. Rather than being commissioned by a patron, each was intended first and foremost for display at the official art exhibition in Paris known as the Salon. Both, moreover, were bought by the state for the Luxembourg museum, which was founded in 1818 to house modern French art (though, in G\u00e9ricault\u2019s case, not until several years later). Indeed Delacroix may have painted his picture in the hope or even the expectation that this would happen, since two of the artist\u2019s works had already entered the museum. It should also be noted that such ambitious and challenging works were very much the exception, even in France and much more so in other countries where the state did not support living artists in the same way. Most of them earned a living by catering to the demands of the market, typically by specializing in a particular genre, such as portraiture. In this respect, the first half of the nineteenth century is continuous with the previous two centuries, during which high-status works by celebrated artists also constituted only a small part of the broad field of visual culture. Rather than tracing a single narrative of art\u2019s development from the establishment of the academies to the beginnings of the avant-garde, it is important to be aware of its diversity and complexity throughout western Europe during this\u00a0period.<\/p>\n

Works Cited<\/h2>\n

Adamson, J.S.A. (1999)\u00a0The Princely Courts of Europe: Ritual, Politics and Culture under the Ancien R\u00e9gime 1500\u20131750, London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson.<\/p>\n

Alberti, L.B. (1966 [1435])\u00a0On Painting\u00a0(trans. J.R.\u00a0Spencer), New Haven, CT and London, Yale\u00a0University Press.<\/p>\n

Arciszweska, B. and McKellar, E. (2004)\u00a0Articulating British Classicism: New Approaches to Eighteenth-Century Architecture, Aldershot and Burlington, VT, Ashgate.<\/p>\n

Bailey, C. (1987) \u2018Conventions of the eighteenth-century cabinet de tableaux: Blondel d\u2019Azincourt\u2019s La premi\u00e8re id\u00e9e de la curiosit\u00e9\u2019,\u00a0Art Bulletin, vol.\u00a069, no.\u00a03, pp.\u00a0431\u201347.<\/p>\n

Bailey, C. (2002)\u00a0Patriotic Taste: Collecting Modern Art in Pre-Revolutionary Paris, New Haven, CT and London, Yale University Press.<\/p>\n

Bailey, G.A. (1999)\u00a0Art on the Jesuit Missions in Asia and Latin America, 1542\u20131773, Toronto and London, University of Toronto Press.<\/p>\n

Barr, A.H. (1974 [1936])\u00a0Cubism and Abstract Art, New York, Museum of Modern Art (exhibition catalogue).<\/p>\n

Baudelaire, C. (1981 [1859]) \u2018On photography\u2019 in Newhall, B. (ed.)\u00a0Photography: Essays and Images, New York, Secker & Warburg, pp.\u00a0112\u201313.<\/p>\n

Baxandall, M. (1971)\u00a0Giotto and the Orators: Humanist Observers of Painting in Italy and the Discovery of Pictorial Composition 1350\u20131450, Oxford, Clarendon Press.<\/p>\n

Baxandall, M. (1972)\u00a0Painting and Experience in Fifteenth-Century Italy, Oxford, Clarendon Press.<\/p>\n

Baxandall, M. (1980)\u00a0The Limewood Sculptors of Renaissance Germany, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press.<\/p>\n

Belting, H. (1994)\u00a0Likeness and Presence: A History of the Image before the Era of Art, Chicago, IL and London, University of Chicago Press.<\/p>\n

Benjamin, W. (1983)\u00a0Charles Baudelaire: A Lyric Poet in the Era of High Capitalism, London, Verso.<\/p>\n

Bergdoll, B. (2000)\u00a0European Architecture 1750\u20131890, Oxford, Oxford University Press.<\/p>\n

Bermingham, A. (2000)\u00a0Learning to Draw: Studies in the Cultural History of a Polite and Useful Art, New Haven, CT and London, Yale University Press.<\/p>\n

Blanning, T.C.W. (2002)\u00a0The Culture of Power and the Power of Culture: Old Regime Europe 1660\u20131789, Oxford, Oxford University Press.<\/p>\n

B\u00fcrger, P. (1984)\u00a0Theory of the Avant-Garde, Manchester, Manchester University Press; Minneapolis, MN, University of Minnesota Press.<\/p>\n

Clark, T.J. (1982)\u00a0Image of the People. Gustave Courbet and the 1848 Revolution, London, Thames & Hudson.<\/p>\n

Clark, T.J. (1984)\u00a0The Painting of Modern Life: Paris in the Art of Manet and his Followers, London, Thames & Hudson.<\/p>\n

Clayton, T. (1997)\u00a0The English Print, 1688\u20131802, London and New Haven, CT, Yale University Press.<\/p>\n

Connell, S.M. (1976)\u00a0The Employment of Sculptors and Stonemasons in Venice in the Fifteenth Century\u00a0(doctoral thesis), Warburg Institute, University of London.<\/p>\n

Craske, M. (1997)\u00a0Art in Europe 1700\u20131830: A History of the Visual Arts in an Era of Unprecedented Urban Economic Growth, Oxford, Oxford University Press.<\/p>\n

Crown, P. (1990) \u2018British Rococo as social and political style\u2019,\u00a0Eighteenth-Century Studies, vol.\u00a023, no.\u00a03, pp.\u00a0269\u201382.<\/p>\n

Duchamp, M. (1975)\u00a0The Essential Writings of Marcel Duchamp\u00a0(ed. M.\u00a0Sanouillet and E.\u00a0Peterson), London, Thames & Hudson.<\/p>\n

Edwards, S. (ed.) (1999)\u00a0Art and its Histories: A Reader, New Haven, CT and London, Yale University Press.<\/p>\n

Elias, N. (1983)\u00a0The Court Society\u00a0(trans. E. Jephcott), Oxford, Blackwell.<\/p>\n

Gilbert, C. (1985) \u2018A statement of the aesthetic attitude around 1230\u2019,\u00a0Hebrew University Studies in Literature and the Arts, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 125\u201352.<\/p>\n

Gordon, D. (2003)\u00a0The Fifteenth-Century Italian Paintings, National Gallery Catalogues, London, Yale University Press.<\/p>\n

Greenberg, C. (1961)\u00a0Art and Culture: Critical Essays, Boston, MA, Beacon Press.<\/p>\n

Greenberg, C. (1986 [1939]) \u2018Avant-garde and kitsch\u2019 in O\u2019Brian, J. (ed.)\u00a0Clement Greenberg: The Collected Essays and Criticism, vol.\u00a01:\u00a0Perceptions and Judgements, 1939\u20131944, Chicago, IL, Chicago University Press, pp.\u00a05\u201322.<\/p>\n

Greenberg, C. (1993 [1960]) \u2018Modernist painting\u2019 in O\u2019Brian, J. (ed.)\u00a0Clement Greenberg:\u00a0The Collected Essays and Criticism, vol.\u00a04:\u00a0Modernism with a Vengeance, 1957\u20131969, Chicago, IL, Chicago University Press, pp.\u00a085\u2013100.<\/p>\n

Habermas, J. (1989 [1962])\u00a0The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.<\/p>\n

Hardie, P. (1993) \u2018Ut Pictura Poesis? Horace and the visual arts\u2019 in\u00a0Horace 2000: A Celebration for the Bi-millennium, London, Duckworth, pp.\u00a0120\u201339.<\/p>\n

Harris, A.S. (2008)\u00a0Seventeenth-Century Art and Architecture\u00a0(2nd edn), London, Laurence King.<\/p>\n

Harrison, C., Wood, P. and Gaiger, J. (eds) (1998)\u00a0Art in Theory 1815\u20131900: An Anthology of Changing Ideas, Oxford, Blackwell.<\/p>\n

Harvey, D. (2003)\u00a0Paris: Capital of Modernity, London and New York, Routledge.<\/p>\n

Haskell, F. (1980) Patrons and Painters: A Study in the Relations between Italian Art and Society in the Age of the Baroque, New Haven and London, Yale University Press.<\/p>\n

Haskell, F. and Penny, N. (1981)\u00a0Taste and the Antique: The Lure of Classical Sculpture 1500\u20131900, New Haven, CT and London, Yale University Press.<\/p>\n

Hauser, A. (1962 [1951])\u00a0The Social History of Art. Vol.\u00a02:\u00a0Renaissance, Mannerism, Baroque; Vol. 3.\u00a0Rococo, Classicism and Romanticism\u00a0(2nd edn), London, Routledge.<\/p>\n

Haynes, C. (2006)\u00a0Pictures and Popery: Art and Religion in England, 1660\u20131760, Aldershot, Ashgate.<\/p>\n

Hemingway, A. and Vaughan, W. (eds) (1998)\u00a0Art in Bourgeois Society 1790\u20131850, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.<\/p>\n

Hills, H. (ed.) (2011)\u00a0Rethinking the Baroque, Farnham, Ashgate.<\/p>\n

Honour, H. (1968)\u00a0Neo-classicism, Harmondsworth, Penguin.<\/p>\n

Honour, H. (1979)\u00a0Romanticism, Harmondsworth, Penguin.<\/p>\n

Hyde, M. (2006)\u00a0Making up the Rococo: Fran\u00e7ois Boucher and his Critics, Los Angeles, CA and London, Getty Research Institute.<\/p>\n

Irwin, D. (1997)\u00a0Neoclassicism, London, Phaidon.<\/p>\n

Langdon, H. (1998)\u00a0Caravaggio: A Life, London, Chatto & Windus.<\/p>\n

Lee, R. (1967)\u00a0Ut Pictura Poesis: The Humanistic Theory of Painting, New York, W.W. Norton.<\/p>\n

Levy, E. (2004)\u00a0Propaganda and the Jesuit Baroque, Berkeley, CA and London, University of California Press.<\/p>\n

Lichtenstein, J. (2008)\u00a0The Blind Spot: An Essay on the Relations between Painting and Sculpture in the Modern Age, Los Angeles, CA, Getty Research Institute.<\/p>\n

Lymberopoulou, A., Bracewell-Homer, P. and Robinson, J. (eds) (2012)\u00a0Art & Visual Culture: A Reader, London, Tate Publishing in association with The Open University.<\/p>\n

McClellan, A. (1994)\u00a0Inventing the Louvre: Art, Politics, and the Origins of the Modern Museum in Eighteenth-Century Paris, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.<\/p>\n

McClellan, A. (1996) \u2018Watteau\u2019s dealer: Gersaint and the marketing of art in eighteenth-century Paris\u2019,\u00a0Art Bulletin, vol.\u00a078, no.\u00a03, pp.\u00a0439\u201353.<\/p>\n

Montias, J.M. (1982)\u00a0Artists and Artisans in Delft: A Socio-economic Study of the Seventeenth Century, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.<\/p>\n

Montias, J.M. (2002)\u00a0Art at Auction in 17th Century Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press.<\/p>\n

Nash, S. (2007)\u00a0\u2018No Equal in Any Land\u2019: Andr\u00e9 Beauneveu \u2013 Artist to the Courts of France and Flanders, London, Paul Holberton Publishing.<\/p>\n

Nesbit, M. (1992)\u00a0Atget\u2019s Seven Albums, New Haven, CT and London, Yale University Press.<\/p>\n

Nesbit, M. (2000)\u00a0Their Common Sense, London, Black Dog.<\/p>\n

North, M. (1997)\u00a0Art and Commerce in the Dutch Golden Age, New Haven, CT and London, Yale University Press.<\/p>\n

North, M. and Ormrod, D. (1998)\u00a0Art Markets in Europe, 1400\u20131800, Aldershot, Ashgate.<\/p>\n

Nuttall, G. (2012)\u00a0Lucchese Patronage and Purveying during the Regime of Paolo Guinigi, 1400\u20131430: Dino Rapondi, Lorenzo Trenta and Paolo Guinigi, unpublished PhD Thesis, Courtauld Institute of Art, University of London.<\/p>\n

O\u2019Brian, J. (ed.) (1986\u201395)\u00a0Clement Greenberg:\u00a0The Collected Essays and Criticism, 4\u00a0vols, Chicago, IL, Chicago University Press.<\/p>\n

Paviot, J. (1990) \u2018La vie de Jan van Eyck selon les documents \u00e9crits\u2019,\u00a0Revue des arch\u00e9ologues et historiens d\u2019art de Louvain, vol. 23, pp. 83\u201393.<\/p>\n

Pears, I. (1988)\u00a0The Discovery of Painting: The Growth of Interest in the Arts in England 1680\u20131768, New Haven, CT and London, Yale University Press.<\/p>\n

Plon, E. (1887)\u00a0Les Ma\u00eetres italiens au service de la maison d\u2019Autriche: Leone Leoni sculpteur de Charles-Quint et Pompeo Leoni, sculpteur de Philippe II, , Paris, Librairie Plon.<\/p>\n

Pollock, G. (1988)\u00a0Vision and Difference: Femininity, Feminism and the Histories of Art, London and New York, Routledge.<\/p>\n

Pomian, K. (1990)\u00a0Collectors and Curiosities: Paris and Venice, 1500\u20131800, Cambridge, Polity Press.<\/p>\n

Posner, D. (1993) \u2018Concerning the \u201cmechanical\u201d parts of painting and the artistic culture of seventeenth-century France\u2019,\u00a0Art Bulletin, vol.\u00a075, no.\u00a04, pp.\u00a0583\u201398.<\/p>\n

Porter, D. (2010)\u00a0The Chinese Taste in Eighteenth-Century England, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.<\/p>\n

Potts, A. (2000)\u00a0The Sculptural Imagination: Figurative, Modernist, Minimalist, New Haven, CT and London, Yale University Press.<\/p>\n

Prendergast, C. (1992)\u00a0Paris and the Nineteenth Century, Oxford, Blackwell.<\/p>\n

Prior, N. (2002)\u00a0Museums and Modernity : Art Galleries and the Making of Modern Culture, Oxford, Berg.<\/p>\n

Richardson C.M., Woods, K.W. and Franklin, M.W. (eds) (2007)\u00a0Renaissance Art Reconsidered: An Anthology of Primary Sources, Oxford, Blackwell.<\/p>\n

Rosenberg, H. (1970 [1940]) \u2018The fall of Paris\u2019 in\u00a0The Tradition of the New, London, Paladin, pp. 185\u201394.<\/p>\n

Roy, A. and Gordon, D. (2001) \u2018The Battle of San Romano\u2019,\u00a0National Gallery Technical Bulletin, vol. 22, pp. 4\u201317.<\/p>\n

Sandler, I. (1970)\u00a0The Triumph of American Painting, Westport, CT, Praeger.<\/p>\n

Schapiro, M. (1977) \u2018On the aesthetic attitude in Romanesque art\u2019 in\u00a0Romanesque Art: Selected Papers, London, Chatto & Windus, pp. 1\u201327.<\/p>\n

Schapiro, M. (1978 [1937]) \u2018Nature of abstract art\u2019 in\u00a0Modern Art: 19th and 20th Centuries. Selected Papers, New York, George Braziller, pp.\u00a0185\u2013211.<\/p>\n

Scott, K. (1995)\u00a0The Rococo Interior: Decoration and Social Spaces in Early Eighteenth-Century Paris, New Haven, CT and London, Yale University Press.<\/p>\n

Sheehan, J.J. (2000)\u00a0Museums in the German Art World from the End of the Old Regime to the Rise of Modernism, Oxford, Oxford University Press.<\/p>\n

Sheriff, M. (1990)\u00a0Fragonard: Art and Eroticism, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press.<\/p>\n

Shiner, L. (2001)\u00a0The Invention of Art: A Cultural History, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press.<\/p>\n

Simmel, G. (1997 [1903]) \u2018The metropolis and mental life\u2019 in Frisby, D.P. and Featherstone, M. (eds)\u00a0Simmel on Culture: Selected Writings, New York, Sage, pp.\u00a0174\u201385. Extract reprinted in Lymberopoulou, A., Bracewell-Homer, P. and Robinson, J. (eds)\u00a0Art and Visual Culture: A Reader, London, Tate Publishing in association with The Open University, pp. 267\u20139.<\/p>\n

Snodin, M. (ed.) (1984)\u00a0Rococo: Art and Design in Hogarth\u2019s England, London, V&A (exhibition catalogue).<\/p>\n

Snodin, M. and Llewellyn, N. (eds) (2009)\u00a0Baroque, 1620\u20131800: Style in the Age of Magnificence, London, V&A (exhibition catalogue).<\/p>\n

Stechow, W. (1989 [1966])\u00a0Northern Renaissance Art 1400\u20131600: Sources and Documents, Evanston, IL, Northwestern University Press.<\/p>\n

Suger, Abbot (1979)\u00a0On the Abbey Church of Saint-Denis and its Art Treasures\u00a0(eds E. Panofsky and G. Panofsky-Soergel), Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.<\/p>\n

Tomlinson, J.A. (1994)\u00a0Francisco Goya y Lucientes, 1746\u20131828, London, Phaidon.<\/p>\n

Trotsky, L. (1962 [1928\/1906])\u00a0The Permanent Revolution; Results and Prospects, London, New Park.<\/p>\n

Vasari, G. (1996) [1568]\u00a0Lives of the Painters, Sculptors and Architects, 2 vols (trans. G. du C. de Vere; ed.\u00a0D.\u00a0Ekserdijian), London, Everyman.<\/p>\n

Warnke, M. (1993)\u00a0The Court Artist: On the Ancestry of the Modern Artist\u00a0(trans. D. McLintock), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press (first published in German in 1985).<\/p>\n

Wolff, J. (1985) \u2018The invisible flaneuse: women and the literature of modernity\u2019,\u00a0Theory, Culture and Society, vol.\u00a02, no.\u00a03, pp.\u00a037\u201346.<\/p>\n

W\u00f6lfflin, H. (1950)\u00a0Principles of Art History: The Problem of the Development of Style in Later Art, New York, Dover.<\/p>\n

Wolters, W. (1967) \u2018Ein Hauptwerk der neiderl\u00e4ndischen Skulptur in Venedig\u2019,\u00a0Mitteillung des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz, vol. 13, nos\u00a01\u20132, pp. 185\u20139.<\/p>\n

Wolters, W. (1976)\u00a0La scultura Veneziana gotica 1300\u20131460, 2 vols, Venice, Alfieri.<\/p>\n\n\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t

Candela Citations<\/h3>\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
CC licensed content, Original<\/div>