DOI Artikel:
Prahl, Roman: [Rezension von: Ján Bakoš, Artwork through the Market. The Past and the Present]
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.51713#0154
haps universally compréhensible, it oversimplifies the
historical discourse taking place — in political theory
as well — between conservatives, libérais and Marx-
ists. From the older modern discourse on the art mar-
ket, Bakoš pays particular attention to Karl Marx,
and in the later Marxism-Leninism he draws atten-
tion to its power-based and political idéologisation.
He chiefly emphasises the symbiosis of Marxism with
artistic Modernism during the 1920s and 1930s,
which was based on the rejection of Contemporary
capitalism as well as on models of future societies.
Bakoš agréés with authors according to whom this
symbiosis of artistic Modernism and Marxism had
a lasting and devaluing impact on reflections concern-
ing significance of the market for art. Bakos’s survey
therefore generally overlooks the older modern dis-
course, especially its starting points in the 19th Cen-
tury. At that time, the contradiction of the market
and art was a stereotype linked with traditional
idealism, and opposition to this stereotype was broadly
inclined towards the left rather than the right.
In Bakos’s opinion, the révision of Marxist view-
points is connected with a turn away from the Mod-
ernist perception of the relationship between art and
the market towards its Postmodernist interprétation.
The shift towards an acknowledgement of the role of
the market for art is seen to have occurred in the 1970s
thanks to Ernst Gombrich and several of his students
who provided art history with a basis for the present-
day understanding of the relationship between art and
the market.2 While the Marxist-leaning Modernists
led by criticism of a class-based bourgeois society to-
tally rejected the existing market context in favour of
a futurological or utopian model, in Gombrich’s opin-
ion the development of art should dépend on the al-
ternating thinking of its public in a similar way to
fashion, albeit in a loose analogy of art to fashion.
The most space in Bakos’s survey of the relation-
ship between art and the market is devoted to revi-
2 In his essay, “The Logic of Vanity Fair” (1974), Ernst Gom-
brich polemicised both with “Modernism", in other words the
ideology of art as “self-expression" and with “historicism" in the
sense of a historically necessary “spirit oftime”. Using as their
starting points a deeper understanding of the connections
between art and business, Gombrich’s leading students (Mi-
chael Baxandall on the Italian and German Renaissance and
Světlana Alpers on Rembrandt) contributed to revising the
traditional approach.
sions of Modernist ideology during the final third of
the 20th Century. This concerns above all the relativ-
ising of the demand for artistic originality. Height-
ened by a general modern individualism, this demand
is now mainly interpreted as part (either in terms of
business or, more loosely, “marketing”) of the strat-
égy of artists in the era of artistic Modernism.
At this point Bakoš notes numerous viewpoints
representing the complicated character of the theme.
For example he notes some réservations about the
projecting of later market conditions on the older his-
tory of art. Although he overlooks several more re-
cent commentaries on the theme of influence brought
to beat on the historiography of art by the art market
and its “ideology”, he does not in general avoid the
complexity of the theme. Instead of the older pejora-
tive title the “commercialisation” of art, he uses a term
that is now commonly used, one that is broader and
more neutral: the “commodification” of art. He accom-
panies it, however, with an excursion into various
Contemporary interprétations concerning the modal-
ities of price and value to make it more compréhen-
sible that the artwork usually becomes a commodity.
Ján Bakoš also notes that the negative opinions of
the relationship between art and the market overlaps
neither with the Modernists nor with the political left,
and that “left-wing” authors are not passive opponents
in the discourse. Although in his survey of the devel-
opment of the discourse during the final third of the
20th Century, he often quotes contributions that he
terms “left-wing” without further distinguishing indi-
vidual opinion-based positions (using terms such as
“Marxism”, “the left”, “socialists" and “neo-Marxistsft.
Bakoš is not, however, concerned with cramming
a discourse into a simple political scheme. He himself
also mentions authors who have polemicised with the
traditional failure to acknowledge the market in its
relationship to art without identifying with an under-
standing of the market as a determining phenomenon.3
3 Walter Graskamp thus characterised the relationship bet-
ween art and the market as a “paradoxical mésalliance”. He iden-
tified aristocrats, anti-Semites, Catholics, socialists and artis-
tic avant-gardes as vehicles of criticism against the commer-
cialisation of art. See GRASKAMP, W.: Kunst und Geld. Mün-
chen 1998.
148
historical discourse taking place — in political theory
as well — between conservatives, libérais and Marx-
ists. From the older modern discourse on the art mar-
ket, Bakoš pays particular attention to Karl Marx,
and in the later Marxism-Leninism he draws atten-
tion to its power-based and political idéologisation.
He chiefly emphasises the symbiosis of Marxism with
artistic Modernism during the 1920s and 1930s,
which was based on the rejection of Contemporary
capitalism as well as on models of future societies.
Bakoš agréés with authors according to whom this
symbiosis of artistic Modernism and Marxism had
a lasting and devaluing impact on reflections concern-
ing significance of the market for art. Bakos’s survey
therefore generally overlooks the older modern dis-
course, especially its starting points in the 19th Cen-
tury. At that time, the contradiction of the market
and art was a stereotype linked with traditional
idealism, and opposition to this stereotype was broadly
inclined towards the left rather than the right.
In Bakos’s opinion, the révision of Marxist view-
points is connected with a turn away from the Mod-
ernist perception of the relationship between art and
the market towards its Postmodernist interprétation.
The shift towards an acknowledgement of the role of
the market for art is seen to have occurred in the 1970s
thanks to Ernst Gombrich and several of his students
who provided art history with a basis for the present-
day understanding of the relationship between art and
the market.2 While the Marxist-leaning Modernists
led by criticism of a class-based bourgeois society to-
tally rejected the existing market context in favour of
a futurological or utopian model, in Gombrich’s opin-
ion the development of art should dépend on the al-
ternating thinking of its public in a similar way to
fashion, albeit in a loose analogy of art to fashion.
The most space in Bakos’s survey of the relation-
ship between art and the market is devoted to revi-
2 In his essay, “The Logic of Vanity Fair” (1974), Ernst Gom-
brich polemicised both with “Modernism", in other words the
ideology of art as “self-expression" and with “historicism" in the
sense of a historically necessary “spirit oftime”. Using as their
starting points a deeper understanding of the connections
between art and business, Gombrich’s leading students (Mi-
chael Baxandall on the Italian and German Renaissance and
Světlana Alpers on Rembrandt) contributed to revising the
traditional approach.
sions of Modernist ideology during the final third of
the 20th Century. This concerns above all the relativ-
ising of the demand for artistic originality. Height-
ened by a general modern individualism, this demand
is now mainly interpreted as part (either in terms of
business or, more loosely, “marketing”) of the strat-
égy of artists in the era of artistic Modernism.
At this point Bakoš notes numerous viewpoints
representing the complicated character of the theme.
For example he notes some réservations about the
projecting of later market conditions on the older his-
tory of art. Although he overlooks several more re-
cent commentaries on the theme of influence brought
to beat on the historiography of art by the art market
and its “ideology”, he does not in general avoid the
complexity of the theme. Instead of the older pejora-
tive title the “commercialisation” of art, he uses a term
that is now commonly used, one that is broader and
more neutral: the “commodification” of art. He accom-
panies it, however, with an excursion into various
Contemporary interprétations concerning the modal-
ities of price and value to make it more compréhen-
sible that the artwork usually becomes a commodity.
Ján Bakoš also notes that the negative opinions of
the relationship between art and the market overlaps
neither with the Modernists nor with the political left,
and that “left-wing” authors are not passive opponents
in the discourse. Although in his survey of the devel-
opment of the discourse during the final third of the
20th Century, he often quotes contributions that he
terms “left-wing” without further distinguishing indi-
vidual opinion-based positions (using terms such as
“Marxism”, “the left”, “socialists" and “neo-Marxistsft.
Bakoš is not, however, concerned with cramming
a discourse into a simple political scheme. He himself
also mentions authors who have polemicised with the
traditional failure to acknowledge the market in its
relationship to art without identifying with an under-
standing of the market as a determining phenomenon.3
3 Walter Graskamp thus characterised the relationship bet-
ween art and the market as a “paradoxical mésalliance”. He iden-
tified aristocrats, anti-Semites, Catholics, socialists and artis-
tic avant-gardes as vehicles of criticism against the commer-
cialisation of art. See GRASKAMP, W.: Kunst und Geld. Mün-
chen 1998.
148