an unfortunate circumstance for some, given the popular association of the studio, in the minds of the
genteel, with “improper” nude models. Connections between artists and dealers were often crucial, as the
latter frequently facilitated shopfront display in commercial galleries such as (in London) the
Shakespeare gallery run by John Boydell (1720–1804), or the Poets’ Gallery of Thomas Macklin
(c.1752–1800), which, during their relatively brief lives, employed Royal Academy artists to produce
work on literary themes (Brewer, 1997, 247–248). Some dealers responded very actively to demand.
From Paris, Gersaint travelled regularly to the Netherlands, between 1733 and 1740, to buy northern
genre works for clients (Conisbee,1981, 29). Beyond retail outlets, other opportunities for artists arose
from attending established social occasions such as those connected with the “season” at Bath, a popular
spa resort for the genteel that provided respite from the winter season spent in London, and could be
particularly lucrative for portrait painters. By the end of the century, the art market grew livelier in the
provinces, as selfmade clients there aspired to wealthier lifestyles and provincial academies of art
became more common. Wright of Derby found patrons in Derby, Liverpool and other places outside the
capital; even though he continued to measure his success by reviews of the work he exhibited in London.
The eighteenthcentury art market had to adapt to national, regional and global “publics.” British, French
and German art reached global markets, if eastern European and Scandinavian art often restricted itself
more to court demand. As art commerce grew, the types of artifact on offer diversified. Global markets
developed through increased trade, exploration and colonization outside Europe (Craske, 1997, 19).
Johan Zoffany and William Hodges (1744–1797) traveled outside Europe to make and sell art that
appealed to those interested in the growth of empire or the expansion of scientific knowledge. Chinese
paintings (especially on glass or mirrors), wall hangings, prints, enamels, porcelain (from the court
sponsored factory at Jingdezhen), lacquerwork, textiles (silks, brocades and damasks from the court
sponsored factory at Suzhou) and “curiosities” (small models of Chinese features made of jade, ivory,
motherofpearl, sandalwood, tortoiseshell, horn and soapstone) were exported to Europe from Canton,
where the British East India Company had set up a factory in 1715. Diplomatic relations between China
and Britain remained strained, however, and it was difficult for Britain to sell goods to China or to
negotiate more favorable trading conditions (Williams, 2015, 277). Chinese cohong merchants
regulated trade in Canton (Jourdain and Jenyns, 1950, 11–62; Murck, 2005, 310). As the taste for
chinoiserie (luxury goods in the Chinese taste) spread, many European clients sent their own designs to
manufacturers in China; and many European manufacturers imitated or adapted Chinese designs to
western tastes (Jourdain and Jenyns, 1950, 23, 51–52; Ray, 2007, 212).
The scale of this fashion for chinoiserie has raised interesting questions regarding cultural translation and
hierarchy. There was initially resistance to the lack in Chinese art of western traditions of representing
light, color gradations, depth and human figures – Chinese representations of the latter being described in
a 1755 issue of The World as “either hideous or ludicrous” – and their general handling of chiaroscuro as
“...every incoherent combination of forms of nature” (cited in Jourdain and Jenyns, 1950, 15). However,
the new taste for Chineseinspired buildings and gardens did much to reverse this kind of judgment,
Chinese designs meeting fashionable demand for the “curious” and “novel.” Chinese culture stimulated a
range of responses, from wonder and fantasy to repudiation; for example, in response to the reputation of
the “barbaric” custom of footbinding, as well as sheer ignorance about some of its ethnic symbolism, in
motifs and artifacts such as twisted rocks and scholars’ stones (Porter, 2010, 98–114).
Hybrid Sinorococo styles facilitated stylistic assimilation and it has been suggested that they may have
prompted a rethinking or recalibration of traditional western aesthetic values, such as Reynolds’ emphasis
on a classicizing ideal beauty or the rectilinear forms of Palladian architecture (Porter, 2013, 78–83).
Frederick the Great was among several monarchs to build a Chinese Pavilion on a royal estate, his own
(at Sans Souci) encapsulating the waving lines and Chinese figures typical of the new taste. This served a