Georges de Bellio, 1894 (oil on canvas) by Giovanni Boldini (1842-1931)
Among phenomena adjacent to art, art collecting is known as representing a consequence of the rapports art-artist-society, and as quite sensitive to the evolution of style and society's conduct toward the artist and his oeuvre. The art collector is subjective par excellence, acts on instinct, is generally responsive to fashion, follows his own intuition, hence the conclusion that whatever he collects represents only his won taste as regards art, with the exception of those visionaries and avant-gardists who become landmarks of an age's taste themselves. From many points of view, the art collector and the art critic have a lot in common, especially as since the end of the 18th century, the art collector is increasingly represented by an individual without any connection to the institutions of royalty of aristocracy, i.e. who collects out of a personal judgment on the financial or artistic value of the creation of contemporary artists. Thus a new characteristic of art collecting appears – interest in contemporary art. Today, when we refer to Delacroix, Ingres, the Barbizon School, Impressionists, etc., we think of moments in the history of art; to Georges de Bellio, Paul Durand-Ruel, Victor Chocquet, Georges Petit, Dr. Gachet, Samuel Bing (and the list may continue with other collectors, dealers, critics from the 19th century), they were moments of their own lives. Living at the same time as the artists makes the attitude of the art collector resemble the art critic's: one expresses himself by investing, the other by writing. Both convey their own judgments, which from the perspective of posterity may prove to be conservative or far-seeing. In both situations, we are facing manifestations of taste, individual at first sight, but which history may disclose as being the society's at that particular time. For – as phenomena specific to the last two centuries in the history of art – art collecting and art criticism are components of artistic life. Ever since the artist attained social status, aspects consecutive to the exercise of an artist's profession have constantly emerged: the importance of the paternity of the work of art and of the artist's signature, the importance of art schools, the importance of the circulation of an artist's works, the organization of exhibitions of contemporary artists, the importance of criticism, the importance of the art market which translates into market share, dealers, auctions, galleries, and art collectors. It is a very dynamic world, for on the one hand it deals with a live phenomenon, i.e. contemporary art, and on the other the continual modification of the portfolio of information about the artist and his oeuvre leads to profound – or temporary – changes in the parti pris of society at a given moment. The medic and collector Georges de Bellio (1828-1894) is a true exponent of his epoch, due to his avant-gardist approach of artistic life. More than a witness of his time, de Bellio is one of the actors, ignored by some commentators of Impressionism, mentioned by others as being rightfully part and parcel of the history of this artistic movement, little known in Romania, except to readers of specialized publications. The most important exegete of Impressionism, John Rewald, naturally includes him in the pages dedicated to Impressionists, next to Paul Durand-Ruel, Victor Chocquet, Caillebotte, Theodore Duret, Faure, Murer, Georges Petit and others, as an integral, sine qua non part of their evolution from the first exhibition in 1874 to the very last one.
Excerpted from Georges Bellio by Ruxandra IONESCU and Al. MARINESCU, The Prahova County Museum of Art, 2003
by Ruxandra Ionescu
