Plog: Links, Articles, & Editorial by Perry Garvin

An Artist’s Retinue

The history of art shouldn’t take such an artist-focused perspective.

While it makes constructing a historical narrative easier (the “Great Man” theory of history), it overlooks the importance of the artist’s vast retinue of supporters that made his/her achievements even possible.

For nearly every “important” artist there has been the supportive gallerist (Daniel Kahnweiler, Virginia Dwan, Betty Parsons, Leo Castelli), the adoring critic (Clement Greenberg, Kahnweiler (again, wily devil!)), and the wealthy patron (Stein, Saatchi, Broad). Most importantly there has been the marketplace of ideas and money that deemed the artist’s work valuable – culturally and financially (granted it’s a small marketplace made up mostly of wealthy aethetes and intellectuals but it’s a market nonetheless).

Certainly art history does not completely overlook these factors but it does devalue their importance compared to artists’ biographies, output, and ideas.

I would propose a history of art that focuses less on the artists but on the gallerists, critics, patrons, and markets that enabled the rise of “important artists.”  A history of art that attempted to explain WHY the marketplace of ideas was READY to value certain artists at certain times.

While we’re on this subject look at this article about the role artist’s wives play in their husband’s success.  If you want a case study in devotion look to Barnett Newman’s wife who worked TWO JOBS for decades to support her husband while he painted, cavorted about town, and … that’s right … didn’t work.  He left a legacy, sure.  Her?  Nothing.