Masterpiece is a term that creates problems every time it is used loosely in the discussion of painting. It presents a hierarchical model; a limited group of paintings that collectors agree upon as standing head and shoulders above all other paintings; and therefore timeless and without question. For the new collector searching for assurance in a foreign field, there is great appeal in this concept. If one could only find the masterpieces then collecting would be easy, i.e. you would just purchase those paintings that have already been confirmed rather than trust your growing judgement as you develop your skills as a collector. Although this line of reasoning is understandable, we believe that this type of thinking will lead collectors down the wrong path more times than it helps them and we will examine why the idea of the "masterpiece" deserves more skepticism than it generally receives.
One reason for this skepticism is based upon history. Who is designated a masterpiece changes over different historical periods and/or various critical trends. In addition, works of art that were initially dismissed or overlooked during their time are later recognized as being important and included in the canon of art history; conversely, works of art that were highly regarded during their time eventually lose popularity and fall off of the radar screen. This is not an insignificant phenomenon in the study of art history. It is more like a general rule. Vermeer was a virtually unknown artist for almost two hundred years after his death before late nineteenth century critics rediscovered and promoted him. Thousands of artists who were once deemed to be crucial to their respective eras' tastes now lie dormant and forgotten, their reputations unable to endure the shifting of critical preferences. If the designation of masterpiece has so little stability throughout history, then what authority does it truly hold regarding what any single collector should look for in paintings today?
A second problem with the concept of the masterpiece lies in its inherent nature. The idea of the masterpiece conveys that artistic merit is a quality that resides in each artwork as if it were an attribute of the object itself. That is to say that artistic merit is an intrinsic quality (and thus unchanging) regardless of how viewers interact with the artwork. This represents the antithesis of what we know concerning how meaning comes to pass in our experience of artworks. An artwork's merit (in any sense beyond merely monetary), is not locked into the canvas awaiting discovery. Rather it is generated in the interaction between the artwork and a thoughtful viewer; influenced by both the context of viewing, and the collective cultural history of viewing that particular type of image, and finally influenced by the immediate circumstances and mood surrounding the viewing. Treating merit as fixed and externalized, i.e., something to discover rather than generate through serious engagement, undermines the development of sustained viewing habits necessary to foster true understanding.
We witness the practical effects of Masterpiece Thinking commonly when speaking with new collectors. There is at times an element of anxiety present when they visit galleries; a feeling that they need to receive approval to allow themselves to react to certain works; a desire to wait until some form of external validation confirms that a particular work has achieved sufficient stature before reacting to it. While understandable, this anxiety results in timid and conformist collecting behaviors, where purchases are driven more by perceived consensus than actual response. Collections formed through such behaviors typically lack cohesion and authentic conviction; they resemble lists of accepted names rather than reflections of the unique way an individual collector sees.
We propose an alternate framework; one that emphasizes fidelity (a painting's faithfulness to its own intentions) rather than masterpieces. Any painting, regardless of size or ambition, that successfully accomplishes what it set out to accomplish, with absolute conviction, without waste, merits respect. This type of evaluation differs greatly from Masterpiece Evaluation. Instead of determining if a painting belongs in some imagined pantheon, this type asks if the artist was successful in fulfilling their intentions with regards to the specifics of their work. Ultimately this framework tends to result in more authentic, more personally-grounded collecting behavior because it demands that collectors actively engage with the specific decisions that an artist made, rather than simply compare a work to some predetermined standard of excellence.
There exists an economic aspect worthy of acknowledgement. The term “Masterpiece” is often employed, sometimes cynically, in commercial settings to artificially inflate perceived value and encourage buyers to make purchasing decisions motivated by status rather than engagement. When collectors pursue Masterpiece Status, they are, whether intentionally or unintentionally, pursuing social validation in lieu of aesthetic experience. As a consequence, collectors engaged in such pursuits rarely develop long-lasting relationships with their collections; relationships that provide sustenance over a lifetime. Conversely, we have repeatedly observed that collectors who create their collections based upon personal conviction rather than external validation report significantly higher degrees of satisfaction with their collections years after forming them precisely because their collections represent their developing and matured sense of self rather than simply accumulating external validation.
It is not to imply that quality does not exist, nor does it suggest that all paintings possess equal levels of accomplishment. Many works are demonstrably more formally competent, technically proficient, and emotionally evocative than others. A well-developed eye, cultivated through extended periods of serious looking (the subject of another essay), develops greater ability to recognize these differences. The issue here is not one of dismissing judgment altogether; it is one of keeping that judgment active and personal, as opposed to delegating it to some previously-established, largely arbitrary hierarchy of name recognition. One's own developed eye (tested against years of serious looking) is a far more trustworthy guide to quality than contemporary consensus (which historically has proven unreliable).
Further still, abandoning Masterpiece Thinking allows collectors to explore a vastly larger and more intriguing array of works than they would have likely considered prior. Younger career artists producing in lesser known markets, or farther removed from major centers for commerce, are regularly passed over by collectors relying exclusively on established reputation; even when those young artists demonstrate clear intent and technical competence. Some of the most positive collecting experiences we have seen at West23 have resulted from collectors engaging sincerely with younger artists; trusting their own developing opinion as opposed to waiting for external validation (that often will come too late for meaningful acquisition) or waiting for external validation that never arrives.
Ultimately, we prefer to see a collector construct a wall of paintings they truly comprehend and have extensively examined their reactions towards versus paintings they purchased solely because someone else decided they were masterpieces at some point in time. The former will ultimately yield a cohesive body of work with significant relevance to the person living with those works. The latter will ultimately yield something more akin to a trophy case, potentially impressive to visitors quickly surveying names; yet ultimately empty for individuals spending extended amounts of time surrounded by those works daily. Painting deserves better than the mythology surrounding Masterpieces. Painting deserves more patient, honest attempts at sincere looking.
Finally we are reminded that several of the quietest confident collectors we have worked with reference experiencing a similar transformation in their own perceptions, and consequently in their own practices as collectors. Each experienced a moment when they ceased relying upon a gallerist or a catalogue essay to determine what constituted importance, and began trusting the cumulative documentation resulting from their continued observation instead. Such transformations occur slowly over time. They arise primarily from repeated exposure to works that have affected collectors despite lacking any reputation; followed by periodic disappointments with works possessing reputations that did not meet expectations when viewed directly in front of them. Regardless of how each occurred; both experiences convey the same message: reputation and genuine reaction are interrelated but never identical; furthermore collectors who invest their entire lives building walls based upon reputation as opposed to reaction will ultimately spend their lives observing art through someone else's lens as opposed to their own.
