[pico44]

Originally Posted by Avian001

But vertex has a good point. Many of these paintings were collected by Americans who - in an older culture, might find them important cultural icons - may have amassed them based purely upon their monetary (or speculative) value.

If this is the case (and I am happy to allow otherwise), then the question becomes whether or not these art masterpieces really do become icons of American culture as you suggest. Or whether they are simply the record of American capitalism.

If it's the former, then I agree that these works have had an artistic influence upon "American" values. However, if it's the latter, then I suspect that these paintings are but simple indications of how one could become rich in the American art market.

BTW, your assertion that "Velasquez is the greatest painter in the history of art." also needs some justification. I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I'm really just curious why you make such a statement

Sorry for the delay. I actually wrote a nice response to your post but it was somehow erased, so here goes again.

I don't think any of these paintings were collected for their monetary value. And I don't think you give American collectors enough credit. Sure, the art trade is big big business, and the dealers can be a bit suzzy; but I have full confidence that nearly every European piece on my list was bought for the right reasons. The right reasons being for quality, beauty, rarity, and the idea that it would eventually grace the wall of an institution open to the public. For example, I know for a fact that the Velasquez, Van Eyck, Breugel, Duccio, da Vinci, Seurat and Campin were all bought by benefactors to the institutions in which they eventually came to rest. And I know for a fact that most of them never hung for a single day in an American private residence. From Europe directly to the museum wall. And then, in those few instances when the paintings were collected to hang in a private residence, such as the bellini; no one could ever doubt Henry Clay Fricks geniune passion for art, and his dedication to turning his fifth avenue mansion into a museum for the public after his death. What an amazing gift to the world, for many of the paintings hanging in his museum hadn't ever been on view to the public before.

And suppose they were collected purely for monetary value and speculation that their worth would increase. Does that really make it less of treasure? Does that really taint the experience of looking at it? If it does then I feel sorry for you. Why does it have to be so black and white?

And yes, i think Velasquez is the greatest painter in history. No other painter created works so arresting so often. Perhaps I'll delve deeper into your question at another time. I have to go.