ANNIE COHEN-SOLAL
175
between Rome and Florence, between Florence and Venice, between
Venice and Amsterdam. Then, in the middle of the nineteenth century,
Paris became the center of the art world, just as Florence had been dur–
ing the Renaissance. Paris lost its supremacy to New York one century
later. I felt compelled to understand the complexity of this cultural shift.
At the Embassy, I interviewed everyone I met in order to understand
the elements that had a part in this rapid change. After I left my diplo–
matic assignment, I worked in the archives of American art at the Smith–
sonian and in French museums, trying to dig out the voices of the
characters of my work. They turned out to be not only the painters, but
also the collectors, the patrons, the museum directors, the museum cura–
tors, the critics, and the teachers. This network of people made it possi–
ble, in different periods, for the United States to create an extraordinary
group of institutions, with extraordinary art, within a very short time.
What first struck me is that the fundamental events took place much
sooner than we usually learn from traditional American art history, and
in a much different way. First of all, [ should tell you that I am not an
art historian, but a cultural historian, and that I am approaching the
field of art not through the paintings, but through the actors behind the
paintings. In other words, I am considering not so much the text, but
the context.
It
soon appeared to me that at the very same time as the
French system changed, around the middle of the nineteenth century, so
did the American system. The French system was very much a monop–
oly; it stood for absolute excellence in the art world. This ran through
all the Parisian institutions: the Ecole des Beaux-Arts, the best school in
the world; the Musee du Louvre, the best museum in the world; and the
Salon, where living artists exhibited twice a year. So Paris had it all.
However, the French system evolved, partially because of demogra–
phy-the increase in the number of new painters-and partially because
of the arrival of new patrons. The impressionist painters were the first
symptoms of that change. First Courbet in
1855,
then Manet in
r863,
challenged the rigidity of the French model and of French official art.
Therefore, within a decade there arrived on the market a large number
of paintings belonging to the so-called "New Painting," but the primary
French patron, the French state, was not interested in this kind of art.
At the same time the American scene was also changing dramatically.
In this country, as you know, artists have been stigmatized by many: by
the Puritans who founded this country, for religious and political rea–
sons; by the pioneer culture; and by the businessmen. For a long time
the artist was not thought of as a productive person.
It
was around the
middle of the nineteenth century with people like Emerson and the
