Page 90 - AC-2-4

Arts & Communication Agnew family and 19 -century art market
th

purchased landscapes and genre paintings by modern supply of goods in this primary source of the art market
British painters at London auctions in the 1830s, with further attracted middle-class consumers.
prices ranging from £30 to £60. By 1850, Agnew’s business In the late-19 -century, William Agnew was among
1
th
included a substantial collection of works by artists such as the earliest dealers to recognize that the preferences of
John Constable (1776 – 1837), J.M.W. Turner (1775 – 1851), some collectors were shifting toward 18 -century and old
th
James Baker Pyne (1800 – 1870), and Augustus Wall master artworks. Old masterworks experienced noticeable
Callcott (1779 – 1844).
fluctuations in the 19 -century market, showing trends
th
In addition to purchasing, Agnew’s company also of rise, fall, and resurgence. With the Settled Land Act
directly acted as patrons. Thomas Agnew sponsored of 1882, which restricted the rights of the nobility to
contemporary artists, including Arthur Boyd Houghton, land holdings, numerous early paintings by British
Charles Leslie, and John Linnell, and acquired their works nobility began appearing on the market. Simultaneously,
directly from the artists’ studios. After Agnew retired, exhibitions displaying exceptional old masterworks
Lionel and William established business relationships, emerged, reigniting interest in a market that had previously
and Agnew’s London stock books recorded the purchase been disrupted by numerous forgeries. During this period,
of 34 pieces by Lionel (Figure 2), earning a total of William Agnew acquired works from the nobility and
£1,900. During this period, outstanding modern artists established a high-quality inventory of Dutch, Flemish,
11
such as David Wilkie (1785 – 1841) and William Collins and Italian paintings. 9
(1788 – 1847) were greatly admired by patrons and the
public of the early Victorian era. Their works typically With their grasp of shifting sales trends in the art market
depicted rural landscapes of remote regions like Scotland and mastery of high-quality sourcing to meet customer
or extolled the virtues of rural labor. Sometimes, their work demands, Agnew and Co. continued accumulating new
was so highly demanded that there was a supply shortage. clients and have endured to this day. Although the degree
Directly investing in modern artists and establishing good of reliance on Agnew’s Gallery has varied among clients,
relationships with them allowed for priority purchasing the firm certainly became an indispensable art dealer for
th
rights, reduced acquisition costs, and opportunities to British merchants in the 19 -century. For instance, textile
share artistic opinions with the artist. Ensuring an ample manufacturer Samuel Ashton purchased watercolor artworks
worth tens of thousands of pounds from Thomas Agnew
Table 1. Purchase records. 2 between 1848 and 1856. From 1852 to 1865, the Agnew
family sold over 6,000 watercolor paintings. Regarding
Time Place Works/price the sale of old masterworks, Lord Iveagh (Edward Cecil
3
1827.7.7 London George Vincent, “A View of Thames Street” / £68.50 Guinness) purchased 212 pieces from Agnew’s Gallery
th
th
1831.5.19 London Augustus Wall Callcott’s landscape painting / £38.17 on Bond Street, including works by 18 - and 19 -century
th
1831.5.28 London Augustus Wall Callcott’s landscape painting / £32.12 British artists and 17 -century French and Flemish old
masters, such as Poussin and Van Dyck. 4
1834.2 London William Collins, “Going to Market” / £35.30
1834.2 London Salvator Rosa, “A Grand Landscape” / £15.40 During the Victorian era, the procurement strategies
and trading activities of Agnew’s Gallery, guided by

Figure 1. “The Hay Wain,” John Constable, 1821, oil on canvas, Figure 2. “The Sand Pits, Hampstead Heath,” John Linnell, 1834, Oil on
130.2 × 185.4 cm, National Gallery, London. Copyright © National Gallery, panel, 24.1 × 38.1 cm. Copyright © Art Institute of Chicago. Reprinted
London. Reprinted with permission of the National Gallery, London with permission of the Art Institute of Chicago

Volume 2 Issue 4 (2024) 4 doi: 10.36922/ac.2872