Advertisement

Journal of Cultural Economics

, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 309–337 | Cite as

Relationships between artistic movements and careers of modern artists: evidence from hedonic regressions with auction data

  • Douglas J. HodgsonEmail author
  • Christiane Hellmanzik
Original Article
  • 38 Downloads

Abstract

The now-substantial literature on the career age-valuation profiles of artists has paid limited attention to the effects on the profiles of association with artistic movements. There are nonetheless many reasons why association with a more or less well-defined movement can be important for the career dynamic of an artist. The relation between careers and movement association has been studied by Accominotti (Poetics 37:267–294, 2009), who works with data on numbers of reproductions in art history books. The hedonic analysis of auction data in this area is limited, with results of regressions of pooled groups of artists being reported, for example, by Hellmanzik (Journal of Cultural Economics 33:201–232, 2009) and Hodgson (Journal of Cultural Economics 35:287–308, 2011). We undertake a hedonic regression analysis using a large data set on recent auction prices for nearly 300 important modern painters. We focus on the possible contribution to career creativity profiles of movement association in the context of pooled regressions where movement-specific effects are included in addition to pooled age effects, for such major movements as Cubism, Surrealism, and Pop Art. We also consider the effects of association with different categories of movements, whether artist-defined or critic- or historian-defined. In order to gauge the degree of intra-movement heterogeneity in creativity profiles, we also estimate a specification in which individual-artist profiles are added.

Keywords

Art markets Creativity analysis Art auctions 

JEL Classification

Z11 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Fonds québécois de la recherche sur la société et la culture (FQRSC) for financial support of this research, the Centre Interuniversitaire de recherche en analyse des organisations (CIRANO) for research facilities, and support from Trinity College Dublin for data collection. For helpful comments we thank the Editor and referees, Neil Alper, Viviana di Giovinazzo and seminar participants at RMIT University, the 2015 North American Cultural Economics Workshop, the 2016 International Conference on Cultural Economics and the 2017 European Cultural Economics Workshop. Special thanks to John Gabraith for much assistance.

Funding

This research was funded by the FRQSC Team Research Grant #179521.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Accominotti, F. (2009). Creativity from interaction: Artistic movements and the creativity careers of modern painters. Poetics, 37, 267–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander, V. D., & Bowler, A. E. (2014). Art at the crossroads: the arts in society and the sociology of art. Poetics, 43, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexandrian, S. (1970). Surrealist Art. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
  4. Anfam, D. (1990). Abstract expressionism. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
  5. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  6. d’Orsay, Musée. (2006). Cézanne et Pissarro 1865–1885. Paris: RMN.Google Scholar
  7. Galenson, D. W. (2000). The careers of modern artists. Journal of Cultural Economics, 24, 87–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Galenson, D. W., & Weinberg, B. A. (2000). Age and quality of work: The case of modern American painters. Journal of Political Economy, 108, 761–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Galenson, D. W., & Weinberg, B. A. (2001). Creating modern art: the changing careers of painters in France from impressionism to cubism. American Economic Review, 91, 1063–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gardner, H. (2011). Creating minds. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  11. Galbraith, J.W., & Hodgson, D. (2015). Innovation, experience and artists' age-valuation profiles: evidence from eighteenth-century rococo and neo-classical painters. Journal of Cultural Economics, 39, 259–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ginsburgh, V., & Weyers, S. (2006). Creativity and life cycles of artists. Journal of Cultural Economics, 30, 91–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hagman, G. (2010). The Artist’s Mind. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hauser, A. (1982). The sociology of art. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  15. Hellmanzik, C. (2009). Artistic styles: revisiting the analysis of modern artists' careers. Journal of Cultural Economics, 33, 201–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hellmanzik, C. (2010). Location matters: estimating cluster premiums for prominent modern artists. European Economic Review, 54, 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hodgson, D.J. (2011). Age-price profiles for Canadian painters at auction. Journal of Cultural Economics, 35, 287–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Homan, S. (2011). Collaboration: creativity, industry and politics. Musicology Australia: Journal of the Musicologial Society of Australia, 33(2), 153–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kelly, E., & O’Hagan, J. (2007). Geographic clustering of economic activity: the case of prominent western visual artists. Journal of Cultural Economics, 31, 109–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lucie-Smith, Edward. (1972). Symbolist art. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
  21. Lucie-Smith, Edward. (1985). Movements in Art Since 1945. New York: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
  22. McLean, P. D. (2007) The Art of the Network. Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Moffett, C. S. (1986). The new painting—impressionism: 1874–1886. Geneva: R. Burton.Google Scholar
  24. Muller, J.-E. (1967). Fauvism. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  25. Osterwold, T. (2012). Pop art. Cologne: Taschen.Google Scholar
  26. Oxford Dictionary of Art: New Edition. (1997) New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
  27. Perl, J. (2005). New art city: Manhattan at mid-century. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  28. Pinder, W. (1961). Das Problem der Generation in der Kunstgeschichte Europas. Berlin: Bruckmann.Google Scholar
  29. Poggioli, R. (1968). Theory of the avant garde. Belknap: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  30. Read, H. (1974). A concise history of modern painting. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
  31. Reclam’s Kunstlerlexikon. (2002) Stuttgart: Reclam.Google Scholar
  32. Rewald, J. (1973). The history of impressionism. New York: MOMA.Google Scholar
  33. Schwartz, P. W. (1971). Cubism. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  34. Scitovskzy, T. (1944). Some consequences of the habit of judging quality by price. Review of Economic Studies, 12, 100–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shiff, R. (1984). Cézanne and the end of impressionism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stangos, N. (Ed.). (1994). Concepts of modern art. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
  37. White, H. (1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroscedasticity. Econometrica, 48, 817–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wolff, J. (1975). Hermeneutic philosophy and the sociology of art. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUQAMMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Technische Universität DortmundDortmundGermany

Personalised recommendations