Market Structure and Innovation: The Case of Modern Art

By Galenson, David W. | Notre Dame Law Review, September 2011 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Market Structure and Innovation: The Case of Modern Art


Galenson, David W., Notre Dame Law Review


INTRODUCTION

From the Renaissance through the mid-nineteenth century, nearly all artists faced markets for their work that were dominated by powerful institutions or individuals. The rise of a competitive market for advanced art in the late nineteenth century freed artists from the constraint of having to satisfy patrons. This gave artists an unprecedented freedom to innovate, and a succession of young conceptual artists responded not only by creating radical new forms of art, but also by engaging in novel forms of behavior. A change in market structure, from monopsony to competition, thus explains why the advanced art of the past century has been completely different from that of all earlier times.

I. THE REVOLUTION IN MODERN ART

[T]he only thing that counts for Modern Art is that a work shall be NEW ....

Harold Rosenberg (1)

In the introduction to his excellent history of modern art, George Heard Hamilton observed that:

   In the half-century between 1886, the date of the last
   Impressionist exhibition, and the beginning of the Second World
   War, a change took place in the theory and practice of art which
   was as radical and momentous as any that had occurred in human
   history. It was based on the belief that works of art need not
   imitate or represent natural objects and events. (2)

Later Hamilton remarked that the most radical element of this change was Cubism, which "embodied for the first time in Western art the principle that a work of art ... need not be restricted to the phenomenal appearance of the object for which it stands." (3) He noted that one painting, Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon of 1907, "has been recognized as a watershed between the old pictorial world and the new." (4)

In view of the importance of the change Hamilton described, we might assume that art scholars would have devoted extensive study to its timing: why did this radical transformation begin in the 1880s, and reach its peak in 1907? Surprisingly, however, few art scholars have even raised this question. One who has is the philosopher and critic Arthur Danto, who described this change as a series of "subtractions ... making it possible for something to be art which resembled as little as one pleased the great art of the past." (5) Yet Danto pleaded ignorance concerning the causes of the timing of this shift: "Why the history of erasures began to take place in ... the late nineteenth century I have no clear idea, any more than I have a clear idea of why, in the early fourteenth century, the Vasarian conquest of visual appearances should have begun." (6) Remarkably, Danto thus contended that an event that occurred barely 100 years ago was as incomprehensible as one that had occurred fully five centuries earlier. The claim is startling, for we have dramatically more information about the art world of Paris in 1900 than about that of Florence in 1400. And in fact Danto's conclusion is mistaken, for what we know about the development of modern art is sufficient to explain the timing of the transformation of modern art quite precisely.

The failure of Danto and other art scholars to explain why a revolution occurred in modern art at the turn of the twentieth century stems not from a lack of evidence, but rather from their inability to analyze existing evidence with two basic tools of social science, economic theory and systematic generalization. With elementary application of these tools, this Article will explain the twentieth-century revolution in modern art, and examine its consequences. The interest of the analysis goes beyond its contribution to art history, for this constitutes a case study of the relationship between market structure and the rate of innovation. Kirk Varnedoe recently observed that in art, "[e]arly modern society created--and we have inherited--that paradoxical thing: a tradition of radical innovation." (7) The early history of modern art offers a laboratory in which we can study how conspicuous radical innovation came to be established as a central value for an important intellectual activity.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Market Structure and Innovation: The Case of Modern Art
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?