During the 1800s the academic world of the institutions and organisations remained ignorant about the possible ways in which the world art culture would be developing. 1806 the British institution for the promotion of finance in Great Britain was founded in the London city. The print media and the English Art Institutions were deeply conscious about the possible implications this Institution maybe holding forth for the future development of the visual culture. It was during this time they published the first book of this category titled “An enquiry into the Requisite Cultivation and the Present State of the Arts of Design in England”. It dragged into existence a number of issues which had implications for the economics, professional and aesthetic matters. Unfortunately the visual arts hard lost most of its intellectual power and the evocative charm so could not create any substantial impact on the continent or at least on the home audience in Britain. The book was mostly advocating and pleading for State and the private patronage of arts as happened during the times of the Italian Renaissance, but failed to evoke any substantial support in Britain. The author points out that the representation of visual culture in printing had never been given any priority in Britain.

Not to be deterred by the setbacks, Hoare started publishing the weekly journal, the Artist. Plan was to conduct a nationwide experiments in transforming the works of visual arts to print medium and thereby providing the adequate exposure that the artist were looking for over the years. What Hoare failed to anticipate had been the definitive problems and technical issues that arise during the translation of the art practises into print authorship with the stated purpose of bringing about a radical transformation in the British art field and leaving a lasting impact in the public consciousness. Soon the Art Journal created an avenue for the direct confrontation between the artist contributors and the public many of whom were not particularly inclined to develop a rarefied artistic sensibility, with the result that the it did not take long for his journal to become the centre of a controversy concerning the quality and worth of art.

Towards the end of 1820 the art world of the Romantic period witnessed the publication of the most important journal of the age titled Annals of the Fine Arts published by James Elmes. Among the articles published by the journal there were those by Keats, Hayden and Hazlitt. It was the most remarkable Art Journal of the age noted for its quality of output, the immensity of references carried and to the patronage of the artist, art theoreticians and the poets of the age. The publication of the Journal coincided with the Elgin marbles controversy when the Parliament voted unanimously to keep the marbles in Britain and every issue of the Journal carried extensive detailing of the controversy and even proposed to serve as a mediator in the raging art controversy of the century. But what often went unnoticed was the suspected originality of the Journal in spite of the claims always sustain by its proponents.   

In reality the journal had been the historical beneficiary of the developments in art criticism that had a history of more than a decade. The singular point of success of the journal consisted in the fact that it could ultimately succeed in making it sharply focused perusal of the visual arts taken by the print media of all varieties which was without precedent. What is the singular point of success of the Journal consisted in the fact of turning the focus of identity or academic community towards the significant impact of the visual culture. Following the fashion of the Journal a number of similar publications began to make their appearance in the later years including the Director published in 1807, Labella assembly published in 1808, the Examiner in the same year, Repository of the Arts published in 1809, the Champion in 1813, The New Monthly Magazine in 1814, The Quarterly Journal of Science and Arts in 1860 and ultimately the Edinburgh Review on the London Magazine in late 1820s along with a number of London newspapers which catered to the discussion of the topics related to the art aesthetics. The art historians never revealed any sensitivity towards the print media which had been instrumental in shaping the public knowledge of the visual arts and instrumental in sustaining the public debates about art, like every other development in the arts and literary history there are periods where the sensitivity to art is reaching the points of fulfilment and this had been one such.

Like most of the ideas germinated by the Romantic age the controversy regarding the art journals and their interventions in the public sphere leaves highly debatable space in the ages that followed, up to the 20th century where the raging debates became too intense and sensational than ever. One classic instance of the controversies concerning the art history is that of Michael Kammen’s Account of the controversies concerning the cultural history of American art: “at the first from within the art world itself because of the strict endeavours and resistance to innovation; then from public figures and religious groups who carry weights with official agencies; more recently, and powerfully, from the media” Michael Kammen makes a very sensitive observation of the art scenario as he notices that there is a tendency among the artist to provoke the public opinion and the possible ways in which the media and politicians react to these provocations. This observation sounds to be a remarkably contemporary and makes sharp contrast with the media centric retrospect as suggested by Richard Howells who argued that artists themselves have little or nothing to do with the public controversies from where they emanate. 

Howells further goes on to state the way political, religious and media actors utilise the possibilities of what to make advances of their own agenda of power it's a scant regard for the artistic aesthetics and the perennial questions concerning the quality of art. Howells points out that ultimately no one pays any deep regard for the intrinsic value of art, making art criticism similar to political statements. So the separate spaces for art politics and economics began to decline and there was the need to salvage arts from these corrupting factors. In the chequered history of art it would be curious to trace the ways in which art has systematically made interventions into the argumentative pattern of society and carried it to the heights of the intellectual controversy ultimately materialising it to the public. The term art controversy made its appearance in the 1860s as circulated by the British and American magazines on out which began to make its sharp focus on the disputes in the world of art, primarily disputes involving painters, sculptors, critics and others. Originally the word controversy was used with reference to the religious quarrels and illegal disputes in the 1600s, sometimes taking it to the knowledgeable insiders to modern ecclesiastic or judicial fields. Looking at these ideas from the present perspective it is difficult to identify the exact nature of the art controversy on the specialities of related fields which came to roughly suggest a context to designate the broader disputes and struggles in the realm of public opinion, has articulated over by major media and the crucial political players. The advantageous point of these controversies is that arts began to be specialised and ultimately got its much deserved status or something concerning issues related to national, political, international, social and global paving the way for a time when art ultimately got a space of its own. And arts began to prepare itself to meet the 20th century reality.

In the anti-portal disputes that arise in the world of art it is not difficult to find distinctive public faces taking active role with their contribution of crucial backstories and substructures. The antagonism is that while over a long duration of time with a deeply grounded social definition and cultural practice left deep impressions in the art scenario. It has been found that the world of art has been in a sphere of controversy wherein the participants carry out structured arguments and offering stakes that have political social and economic ramifications. It emerges that the art world has its own pattern of rhetorical elaboration with inherent set of controversies and contradictions, tempting the prominent art historian to succinctly characterise art world as ‘ useful one but only at the start’, and “a network of people whose cooperative activity, organised via their joint knowledge of conventional means of doing things, produces the kind of art works that art world is noted for.” The controversies concerning the art had not been the same throughout the nineteenth century. In the beginning stages the involvement of political regimes and religious groups in controversies of the art world had been largely negligible compared to the contemporary times. The American Handbook of Cultural Literacy published during the 1880s presented rather a different idea on art controversies, "what violent art controversy to parks early in the present century- the one concerning Elgin Marbles- which could be record as to culturally and emotionally violent- even today, for public controversies over the arts can be said to match its scope and heat- because it raised great public questions about cultural imperialism, the spoiled nation of cultural traditions, national identities, and international relations. If the highly questionable and the controversial transfer of Athen’s ruins of Parthenon to England's political ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, paradoxically he was talking about right to cultural spoils by international warring nations that would be contested most famously by Lord Byron’s exceptional act of denouncing of Elgin marbles dealings in Child Harold (1812) often cited as the most famous and longest running debate over cultural property in the world. 

The world had to wait till the 1816 act of British parliament to resolve the controversy that lasted over a decade. The historical irony of this act was that it turned out to be in favour of the British artists and the British museum, a controversy which witnessed a pitched battle in between leading politicians, the print media and the art critics as well as historians, which included illustrious names like that of William Hazlitt, Byron and many other painters and art critics. The historical impact of the controversy had been such that its echoes were audible till the 1990s in the art camps either joining or denouncing the contentious issue of Britain appropriating the heritage and the fact that belonged to different cultural tradition. More than that this controversy raised serious issues concerning the colonial politics and the brutal inroads that were made into the aboriginal cultures and their civilisations, often exploiting and even wiping out the relics of the tangible heritage of the human race. The lesser-known fact about this long lasting international controversy is that it had not been merely about international cultural property but it raised crucial questions about heart specialist, the growing power and authority inside the British art world and the future implications it held out for the visual arts and culture in 19th and 20th centuries [1]. 

The changes in the art world of Britain is currently due to the institutionalisation of arts and the increased interest the academies began take in the art world. What is the only institution that succeeded in making remarkable headway in this direction is the Royal Academy, with whose exception the after-world in Britain was set for a late entry compared to the advancement visible in many European nations. The only places in Britain where art could be seen was in Dublin and London when glorious art institutions settled the classical patterns were coming up in many parts of Europe, as Holger Stein observes, “between 1790 and the 1840s the arts emerged as a new policy fields, British artists, writers on art, and politicians for the first time engaged coherent debates about the role of the states in relation to the social and educational functions of the arts and their organisational structures.” The Royal Academy was formed in 1768 by leading sculptors and painters numbering around 40. The academy came to exert significant influence on the development of arts scene throughout the 1800s, they were mainly responsible for the prestigious public exhibitions and impressive lectures on aesthetic theory of Joshua Reynolds. But that did not mean the part of Royal Academy had been into this enterprise always as they had to face eloquent oppositions throughout its existence. The opposition mainly came from the art critics and artists who had a socialist leaning like William Hazlit who went on to criticise the corrupting domination of the academy by the patronage of a single individual or a group of people rather than the state patronage which would be more desirable for the evolution of facts. Hazlit pointed out to the intimidating factor of the British art institutions:” the rank and status of the painter through a lost grounds his pictures, which imposes completely on the herd of spectators, and makes it a kind of treason against art, for anyone to speak his mind freely or detect the imposture.” The Academy had to face fierce opposition and from the journalists of the day who criticised the spectators as well as the painters as breeding inferior taste. Later on William Hazlitt went on to ridicule their poster of the British art institutions in, “the rank and station of the painter through a duster around his pictures, which imposes completely itself completely on the spectators, making it the kind of treason against the art, for anyone to speak his mind freely, or retract the imposture” even some of the more informed painters like Henry Fuseli suspected that the rights of academies and similar institutions promoting arts could be considered as the art in times of adversity and distress. Britain's first ever art Academy was founded in 1768 and it helped to crystallise the crisis. Often the early 1800s were seen by many including Prince Hoare as an attempt to formulate the specific English team of aesthetic and thereby bringing Britain to the European art scenario [2].

Hoare wanted to raise some of the most fundamental questions concerning the theme and purpose of art and artist with the stated purpose of determining the expertise in arts contributing leading to the more sensitive theme of the slippery ground between expertise in arts and arts as expertise. This question also almost home so does the antiquity of hard but in the later ages it came to signify more philosophical and static concerns related to the world of art ultimately taking E.H.Gombrich to make the remark, "there is no art, there is only the artist" John Brewer points out that the ongoing struggle between the British painters , connoisseurs and collectors for the right to speak on behalf of the odds formed one of the deepest fault lines within the terms 18th century art world. The currents of artistic taste as well as art evaluation always sensed the fears domination by the established British Art Institutions. Most of the traditional art collectors were not very sensitive to the subtle aesthetics of art that was essential to carry out meaningful evaluation of art, though many of them continued to cultivate their own art gardens. In some way it was the print media in the form of the art journals which ultimately determines the quality, worth and value of the work of art, including the publication of Richard Knight’s influential work, “ An Inquiry into the Principles of Taste” published in 1805.

The revolutionary transformation in the world of the art scenario was ushered in 1807 when ultimately the long-awaited promise for painters, sculptors, architects and old artists the power of signing their own work of art was granted instead of seeking signature coming from the experts with a dubious credentials often claimed through their writings of the enormous knowledge they wielded in the field of art. So artists of all hues and traditions began the practice of signing their works in public thereby debarring the self-professed art critics and evaluators from the scene altogether. Soon the authors emerged as the custodians of their own creations and a known body of visual work began to stand by their name. The artists did not let lose this opportunity to pour rebukes on the authorship of critics and connoisseurs who we are incapable of producing a work of art themselves. They did not spare the antiquities, collectors and connoisseurs, who wear began to be considered asNorman invaders into the British art world, and this ultimately inaugurated the beginning of a new Era in the British art world.

It had been a process of remediation when the painters, sculptors and architects got themselves transferred into print authors through the process of remediation, “English artist, while he approaches the presence of his countrymen in the garb and character to which he is unaccustomed and he dares not to express his thoughts in the freedom of other arts, without some previous explanation of his designs as he may gain the confidence of the reader”. So every British artist worth the name began to create his own authentic sources to validate, and give credibility to what he produced. The problematic face of this transition was that many others lacked the required scholarship to validate and substantiate his work of art, and that was sometimes not acceptable to the European art world who were more familiar with a standardised professionalised system of evaluating the work of Art, often referred to an expertise capable of rivalling the aesthetic learnedness of antiquarian art collectors and connoisseurs.

The Artist journal makes a succinct observation of this emerging scenario, “the English artist, while he approaches the presence of his countrymen in a garb and character to which he is unaccustomed, expand his thoughts in the freedom of attendance, without some such previous explanation of his designs as making him the confidence of the reader.” Call it became inevitable for the British art producers to link their art to the authentic sources in academic discourse on art becomes possible validating it's credentials, under that implied that the artist has to emerge as a professional man who posses an expertise capable of rivalling the aesthetic learnedness of the antiquarian collectors and the connoisseurs. So it turned out that the new-age artist need not be connected to the 18th century aesthetics but he must have a deep rooting in Bacon’s New Organum as well as to the kind of knowledge grounded in methods of scientific topics which will guide him against the unprofessional agencies whose influence was most perceptible in British art for a century: “to seek professional information on the subject of the Liberal arts and connect this knowledge to modern improvements in science.” This rhetoric was clearly meant to send a clear idea concerning the noticeable shift of emphasis from the earlier discourses conducted by the royal academy and its expected movement towards the language of professionalism, scientific validity, as well as public impact. The contributors to Horace fiercely held on to the immensity of expressions like professional, scientific, and public is almost ten times more than the previous ones. As a result of this ultimately British art critics began to tilt towards the language of professionalism, scientific comparison as well as rivalry including the unstated ambition to win the approval and acceptance while the general public who by this time had become frequent visitors art exhibitions, galleries and lectures on art [3].

It will not be wrong to say that art journals like The Artist reinvented the language to be used to define force, the status and power of arts to the connoiseurs and art evaluators. The 1807 edition of the journal the language acquired all the aggressive power. The seriousness with which the artist approached the subject was evident in its the choice of the artists including painters sculptors and architects as well as poets and writers into its payrolls. They included names like Peter James North course, John Poppy, John the architect John Sony, just called Jon Flaxman and many others. These powerful proponents like James and other generals took no time in proclaiming the power, authority and legitimacy of the British art which had ultimately come of age. Later on James North wrote a paper on genius which sought to refute the claims of the relationships existing between painting, poetry and other foreigners. The author was dismayed at the facts that English painting had traditionally made a heavy reliance on sculpture and architecture especially the Gothic architecture and he went on to suggest that there is the urgency to strip painting of its associate influences and transfer it to the space of fine arts. It became inevitable that the metaphors, stagecraft and the models of execution which poetry, theatre and architecture relies upon cast its impact on painting as well making painting often mostly subservient to other forms of artistic expression: “the painter demonstrates that his capacity does not enable him to judge or choose for himself, budget, instead of applying to nature directly, he receives his ideas through the medium of another's minds, whom, like a weak bigot, he has made, his equal, his protector and saint…..To paint, therefore, the passions from exhibitions of them on the stage, or from any intended descriptions of nature by the poets, is to remove yourself one degree farther from truth.”

Often the works of Gianlorenzo Bermini is sharply criticised by John Flaxman as mainly responsible for debilitating the impact of British sculptor, find Italian model for producing unusual mixtures of genre and their airy projections. This daring artistic experimentation helps to break down the boundaries between painting and sculpture and pruning the two artistic expressions to a common platform. Yeah John Sony was the director of Royal Academy was expected to counter the other theories of John Ruskin later on. He came to oppose the attempts of many others with architectural ambitions who were posing a threat to his own positioning as the academy architect who wanted to put his signature on the emerging theory and practice of architecture. He had a condescending attitude towards many of the professionals who wanted to position themselves as the future architects of Britain and John seem to believe that these are stone masons appearing in the garb of architects. His words spoke of anger and frustration as no one seems to be taking him seriously. His complaint was that those self professed champions of architecture were often ignorant about the power of architecture has on art and poetry, which demanded refined sensibilities. They often tended to ignore the creative content of architecture and began to consider it as an extension of mere craft. John Soane’s attack on architects was not a singular experience as attacks and counter-attacks almost became the norm of the day [4]. John Hoppner who arrived as a critic in the Artist unleashed an unforgiving and a brutal attack on Payne Knight for his stated preferences soul is aesthetics. John Hoppner’s case was only one such instance as in the days that followed many other artists began to transmigrate into the roles of literary and art critics, though their judgement continued to be highly questionable, at least in some cases. 

This brought into existence the highly debatable idea of the mechanical art and craft which was creeping into the public sphere as most of its practitioners efficiently began to don the dual role as theorist and practitioner, in one way usurping an ideal that was invented by the Enlightenment philosophers. Yet the historical fact is that The Artist ultimately became immensely successful in providing credibility and existential status to the artist as the man capable of authoritatively writing as to what should be and this had its ultimate moment of conservation in the major controversies of the century like that of the Elgin marbles. So this gradually led to the fundamental question as to what would be the autonomy of the artist, as the question concerns the numerous struggles for the creation of an interior space for the artist, collaboration with the agents who work in the field of art and creating a monopoly for the hottest in the fields that has come up as a result of their effort and interventions. So gradually these developments resulted in the consecration of the artist in a superior elite position compared to the mechanics, artisans and builders. It was not merely a question of gaining autonomy from a much inferior commercial world but almost ascribing it a quasi-classical status. The artist who till that time were not much different from the artisans and stone masons found themselves competing for a space that was on a par with poets, intellectuals and academicians.

Soon there began to witness the development of a trend that was primarily commercial in nature, as the artist began to gain reputation as a man who is capable of creating and judging as well as marketing his creation, the next logical step was the evolution of the artist into the ultimate arbitrator of the positioning and destiny of his work of art in the emerging European market of art. The commercial viability of the heart became the major topic of discussion in the academies and the artists wanted to salvage their works from the mindless greed of the art dealers who infested the marketplace, as the traditional art markets had begun to show the signs of decay and degeneration. Boydell’s Shakespeare Gallery had been one of the most prominent names among the art dealers of the time who primarily related to the works of art. So the transition from the Republic of letters to the Republic of Art had been at once intellectual, aesthetic as well as commercial.

The transition of the artist to a wider discursive field of letters was characterised by the attribution of literary dimension and autonomy to the art and artist which ultimately brought about the much needed balancing between arts and sciences as well as all related fields of enquiry and activity including the scientific providing it legitimacy, legibility as well as the discursive logic on the pattern of the Greek classics from where the Romantic arts had to draw much inspiration. John Opie’s had been the Professor of painting at the Royal Institution who failed as a public lecture incidentally even as the academy artist they are trying to establish themselves as writers as well and most of them made a tremendous success in dabbling with both fields. Almost every project commissioned by the Royal institution was meant to justify and demonstrates the relationship existing between arts and sciences. The conception of trying to broaden and remedy the idea of the artist had its beginnings in the early 19th century in the earnest efforts expended by Prince Hoare in the Artist. He was fully conscious of the fact that a journal specialising in painting sculpture and architecture would be catering only to a small band of specialists in the relevant fields. But the artist had been catering to a readership who belong to different disciplines. The community of art producers were much in demand by the states and the general public in the 19th century who realised the gravity of the impact they were capable of creating in the contemporary society, what are the same time a wider public participation was desperately needed to persuade the interest of the artist, as the term artist itself had come to suggest a multiplicity of possibilities and prospects, the term had come to acquire an inclusive and almost a pan European and almost a cosmic dimension. This ideal begun to progress as the artist began to extend its scope to include those from the theatre and the novel, as can be seen from the invitations extended to James Cumberland and Thomas Holcraft to deliver lectures on London's drama scene in the academy. The lecture went on to defend ‘art’ of the novel positing the novelist Elizabeth Inchbald. His acquaintance with the goings on in the circle as well as the noblest of the 1790s enabled him to publish Nature of Art in 1796 in which he goes on to urge her to submit an essay on the author of novel writing, the art of Romantic composition, the art of conversation as well as their relationships with painting and sculpture.

There were obvious incongruities as the writers began to couple noble with a theatre and sculpture, painting and architecture which may not be much visible from the contemporary perspective as the British novel as well as drama begun to evolve from their subliterary to full fledged status. When many of the academy writers were aggressively campaigning for the separation of arts and sciences, Hoare had more elaborate and inclusive concept of the liberal arts and its ability to reach the wider public audiences by effectively intermediating arts, especially the theatrical performances by combining and articulating the relationship between the verbal and visual arts, and there was hardly any need to separate and narrow down the specialities, by division, classification and purification. So soon the artist divided projects that almost half of the academicians believed in the severe separation of arts and science whereas the others reminded for the combination of Liberal arts, arts and sciences. So the primary project of Hoary as envisioned in the Artist failed ultimately. Many people including Henry Fuseli began to express their displeasure at the ongoing state of affairs. The artist-painter George Dance found little sense in the leitmotifs of the Academy. Every writer began to take aggressive positions, and many of them where not expressly or related to the practising culture of British artists, though they claimed to have intimate awareness with the artistic practises and they were incapable of making larger judgements on the European art scenario. Nicholas Poussin one of the influential philosophical painter of the French school was subjected to high analysis by Northcote, thereby exposing his state of ignorance concerning the intricacies of art.

George Dance one of the architect turned painter observed that the artist made no sense at all regarding the grit of detail over the instructive course of historical narrative, in short, the artist themselves and from a professional standpoint, the artist encouraged reckless claims that cuts and unwittingly reveal that practising British artists, claiming to speak on the basis of their practice, could be expressly and fit to make large judgements on the Europeans arts. The lecture turning out to be an anti-intellectual discourse revealed the inability to carry forward the claims regarding authoritarian of artistic practice. Ultimately the artist began to yield to certain compromising situations ultimately undermining its own relevance in the historical development. Any of the practising artist with the Academy was uncertain when it comes to the question of expressing their thoughts on Art in the written format. Comments Northcote: “… I had undertaken to write up on his art before he understood it, those who knew most of their art were least disposed to talk much of it, the form of professionals in the field revealed the risk that failure in the problem of making agreeable means of test might discredit the practice of writing publicly together.” Often the artist found it extremely difficult to transform the art practices into authority in print and even much flouted experiment by Joseph Farington failed to take off. In a similar vein the efforts to translate theatrical and novelist writers into discussion of topics concerning art met with the same fate.

But the historical irony is that the artist in spite of its disastrous failure among the contemporaries, achieved epochal success in creating a long-standing impact in inaugurating and giving shape to the hard controversies in Great Britain. The print media in the 18th century is largely deemed in terms of the market reality, it's as many visible forms such as the book store sales, The periodicals newspapers along with the books, offering a textbook lesson to the students of book trade studies in print history. Along with this perceptible tangible presence there came into existence a parallel world of printed literature, those concerning the rapidly shifting category of arts and sciences in Europe, like the publication of “Philosophical Transactions” in 1665, a book which is succeeded in establishing facts to make scientific experiment reporting and sharing across Europe and organisation that had its affiliation with the Royal Society of London. Similarly the book “Discourses on Art”, published in 1792 by Joshua Reynolds is similar characteristic instance of the historical feat achieved by the Royal Academy, thereby creating avenues for the development of modern Institutions as well as market places existing on parallel planes of reality [5].

If there is any good or name that is responsible for the burgeoning art world of Britain, the credit should go to the Royal Academy, the British institution for promoting the fine arts in United Kingdom which Thomas Bernard's founded in 1805. Many cultural historians like Linda Kohli and Peter Fullerton attributes the entry of credit for the growth of Art to the Royal Academy, providing it's the rare sheen as the central agency to unfolding of the role of arts in British national life, though there are people like Holger Hook who tended to think in a different way concerning the role of the Academy. A powerful rethinking of history of print by Adrian helped to establish forth the credibility for books which brought scholars, established critics and the catalytic thinkers to a common platform willing to accept the value and importance of books in shaping the human history. But everyone was not convinced, like the differing perceptions of Hoare: “although his title that's embrace every branch of refined learning, the artist shall be found to constitute many of governments which converged to form many acquirements rather than the writing of their respective authors. In his graphic art, if he is less able to polish his sentences than the Greek painters and sculptors or believed to have been, who composed treatises on their art, he contemplates it's a pleasing hope, under the auspices of Modern institutions, the prospect of his country extending to him those resources of instruction, which she affords to students of many an art and science; and he feels confidence, that ask her name inspires him with ambition, acknowledged power will furnish him with the means, of rivalling the proudest models of Grecian art.”

In spite of the official academic support that came from the Royal Academy to the artist, the identity and the historical positioning of the artist was so far from stable and they were notes of discontent as it acknowledged members of the Republic of letters, despite their earnest enterprise in transforming the artistic ideas into letters. The new class of Art and Science Institutions of London were seriously engaging themselves in providing credibility and status to the artist turned writers. These new converts into the world of letters were still in a grey category as the efficiency of the artist is not often translated into the world of letters which demands an entirely different approach and understanding. The art historians of latter-day certainly agree to the historical role served by the Royal Academy in defining and demarcating the position of Academies in England, even then the identity of the new breed of artist writers remained somewhat vague and imprecise. The credentials of the artist as painter or sculptor was soon transformed into his specific identity as the art writer, which at the same time has left artist who did not often reach the expected standards of the academies identity issues, compelling these organisations to make mediations in the new breed of writing has produced by the artist writers. 

Hoare’s diatribe against the newly appearing art taste makers in England were not often acceptable to the elite standards as maintained the Royal Academy. These new authors of taste were not authors or artists but the wealthy patrons and the people who efficiently manipulated the way the people should be feeling about art. The real losers in this ongoing and ever expanding art empire had been other than the artist himself, what is the traditionally accepted methods of the academy like peer reviewing and peer organisation was conspicuously missing in the case of the representation of the artist, on the other hand the determining power ultimately belonged to the directors of the academy most of whom we are collectors, patrons and connoisseurs. Consequently the academy never spoke of the Professor of Art, despite the command and the respect they garnered in the world of art and the stature they had in the society, all the artist were only regarded as students at the British Institution.

The influential British art journal, Annals of the Fine Arts brought to light the age old controversy as to the role played by the print media in controversies. For so many decades there existed bitter antagonism between artists and the connoisseurs. The historical judgement that Britain may either keep the Elgin Marbles in the British Museum by paying £35,000 was passed on John seven 1816. This controversial judgement had notching of a cultural theft and making payment for that compelled some of the European art historians derisively castigating it as “a complete revolution in taste.” Interestingly the journal refused to see the ethical issues involved in this controversial judgement which had begun to shift its focus to aesthetic and ideological lessons of the whole episode. The animals took a special interest on almost all things including Grecian as well as the renewed genre of poetic ekphrasis, ‘literary the presentations of visual representations," which was published highlighting Keats’s Ode on a Grecian Urn and other poems. The impact created by the publication needs to be researched properly to make a comprehensive analysis of the bewildering nature of the relationship existed between art and the print media, the controversy surrounding areas in the Elgin Marbles should be specifically the focussed upon rather than dealing with the historical narration and the legal aspects of the issue.

1. Burnerr, James. Of the origins and progress of language. 6 vols. Edinburgh: A. Kincaid & W. Creech; T. Cadell, 1773.

2. Butler, Judith. Bodies that matter. New York: Routledge, 1993.

3. Derrida, Jacques. “Signature event context.” Limited Inc., Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1988.

4. Desmarais, Jane. “The paradox of passive resistance in Herman Melville’s ‘Bartleby.’” Journal of the Short Story in English, no. 36, 2001, pp. 25–39.

5. Kay, Carol. Political constructions: Defoe, Richardson, and Sterne in relation to Hobbes, Hume, and Burke. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1988.