The origins of the art market and the history of collecting date back centuries to classical antiquity. It is well known that ancient Greece was characterized by a great flourishing of the arts, but this was essentially linked to state commissions of works for the city, the polis . But since what interests us most is collecting in its private rather than public form, we must immediately leap forward and refer to classical Rome , because it is there that the taste for collecting and antiques originated. In particular, what we observe is the development, in late antiquity (around 200 BC), within the context of relations between Rome and Greece , of a significant demand for Greek statues by the Roman ruling classes. Thus, spurred by collectors' demand, the industry of replicas of Greek statuary masterpieces from the previous two centuries began to develop (which would create, in the centuries to come, no small number of problems for archaeologists who would find themselves having to distinguish between the small number of original pieces and the enormous quantity of copies discovered). This trade in art objects, of which we find evidence in some documents of Latin literature, such as the letters of Cicero, led to the birth of some infamous collections of which we have news, such as that of Caesar, Pompey, Sulla, Brutus, Lucullus and others. At the same time, the first figure of expert, intermediary and exporter appears, as well as the first price lists, which had the function of regulating this type of transaction. During the Middle Ages, with the advent of Christianity, artistic production was entirely managed by the Church's commissions, and artist-craftsmen, completely dependent on this monopoly, were active exclusively in monastic workshops, convent workshops, and on the construction sites of large churches. In this situation, it is obvious that the art trade declined enormously (although collecting did not disappear entirely) and flourished again only towards the second half of the 14th century , to fully reassert itself during the Renaissance. We will now focus on examining this period in more depth [1] , because it heralds one of the moments of greatest fertility in artistic production and the collecting connected to it. Therefore, let us try to understand roughly what were the conditions that determined this phenomenon. In the late Middle Ages, artistic production was linked to two new types of demand : on the one hand, that of the emerging urban bourgeoisie , and on the other, that of the manorial aristocracy. Let's analyze them one at a time. The resurgence of cities and the development of the monetary economy, combined with the purchasing power of the bourgeoisie, which established itself as a private clientele for artistic products, brought the secular element back into art. The emergence of this new demand allowed artists to break free from the ecclesiastical monopoly, which kept them tied to construction sites, and to establish themselves in the cities as independent masters, working in workshops . Around 1300, this concentration of artists in the cities saw the birth of guilds , autonomous organizations (which had already existed for centuries within other professions), which essentially served to combat the threat of competition. These guilds, in turn, evidently tended to assume a monopolistic character. The requests, which at a certain point arrived in the hundreds and thousands, from the nascent bourgeoisie and which corresponded, on the one hand, to their taste and purchasing power, and on the other, to the production capacity of these artisanal industries, the workshops. They also brought about a change in style, which became less solemn, lighter and more refined, more dynamic and lively, even in the use of different materials. Thus, the demand itself would lead to a conception of the painting as a wall ornament, and of the statue as a decorative object. It is important to note that the production of these guilds did not yet reach a high artistic level, but remained at the level of craftsmanship, that is, of trade. However, the important thing was that the artisans in question achieved a high level of autonomy , in this transition from the construction site to the workshop as an artisanal enterprise, which nevertheless represents a first step towards the future state of freedom of the modern artist. What purpose does it serve us to historically reconstruct the artist's conquest of freedom, and his progressive liberation from various types of monopolies? It is essential to us, and essential to our reflection on the relationship between art, economy, society, and culture that underpins collecting, the market, and art as a system. Let us therefore focus our attention on a fact inextricably linked to the origins of the developing contemporary art collecting movement, and that is the beginning of the social transformation of artists . Until this point, in fact, there was no distinction between artist and craftsman, and this was primarily because painting was included among the "mechanical arts," in which manual skill prevailed, considered opposite and inferior to the "liberal arts," based on thought. This distinction, which originated in Greek culture, was reiterated by medieval culture: while the "liberal arts," which included poetry, music, and philosophy, were immaterial activities, pure exercise of the mind, and were therefore considered "free," "material" activities, requiring a certain physical manipulation of this or that material, and therefore "mechanical" or "servile," were considered unworthy of free men. This is why artists occupied a low social status until the 14th century. It was with the rise of courts and lordships that artists began to occupy a different social position from that of artisans. At a certain point, artists began to be considered inventors and engineers , creators, unlike artisans who were instead executors (responding exclusively to market conditions). This recognition underpinned the phenomenon whereby artists were incorporated into the courts and, within the great families of the aristocracy and clergy, into a relationship of belonging to the family itself, which granted them unprecedented privileges. It should be noted that this was not a sudden and immediate change, but rather a long and gradual process. Many of these artists within the courts were still, in effect, treated on a par with specialized craftsmen, whose compensation depended largely on the quality and value of the materials used. What is interesting, however, is that some of them, instead, achieved a very different position, which represented evidence of the great change underway, and therefore it is to them that we are referring. Artists like Simone Martini and Giotto lived and worked at courts, which, in addition to guaranteeing them freedom from material needs (providing them with food, lodging, and a fixed annual salary), and the privilege of participating in court life, allowed them to acquire a high status within the noble hierarchy, granted by their patron (for example, Simone Martini was knighted at the Neapolitan court of Robert of Anjou). These privileged artists enjoyed the protection of the king or lord, to whom they owed, in exchange, sworn loyalty and the obligation to request specific authorization if they wished to work for another family. The bond between artists and their patrons was very strong, so emancipation was not yet complete, as there was still no autonomy from the court, which in effect constituted another type of monopoly, alternative to that of the contemporary city guilds (even though the latter were far more oppressive than the court, because they were conservative, while the court favored originality and innovation). However, the great change linked to courtly patronage was the social affirmation of the artist from a member of the "mechanical arts" to a representative of the "liberal arts." The great change was that manual art was recognized as a virtue, rewarded for quality rather than quantity (unlike artisans, who were paid for the quantity of work performed; we have already said that the salaries paid by kings and lords to artists were annual, and therefore independent of the quantity of work performed). The age of courts and lordships was the age of the triumph of patronage, and the fifteenth century was full of the names of artists who were well-known and appreciated by the societies in which they lived. The model of bonds changed and was gradually superseded with the general increase in wealth, which saw the artist's continued social ascent. This corresponded to an ever-increasing freedom during the Renaissance, when the concept of true "genius" matured. The artist thus definitively emancipated himself both from the status of a specialized craftsman in the guilds tied to the more commercial market, and from the condition of subservience to his lord and patron. Sixteenth-century artists were no longer drawn to court life. Artists like Michelangelo and Titian were no longer subject to the constraints of courtly bureaucracy. The sixteenth century marked the birth of modern collecting, in which everything was interconnected: the full recognition of artists brought with it the attribution of high value to their works, compared by critics to those of antiquity. It is no coincidence that this same period also saw the birth of art historiography, in Giorgio Vasari's famous work of 1550, which narrates the lives of the most important artists from Cimabue to Michelangelo. Among the most important collectors of the Renaissance we find Cosimo 'de Medici, his son Piero the Elder, his grandson Lorenzo the Magnificent, Cardinal Pietro Barbo (later Pope Paul II), the very famous Pope Julius II, Cardinal Piccolomini and others. I hope that at this point it is clear how the economic and political transformations (from a certain point onwards above all the formation of a mercantile and entrepreneurial class, and the affirmation of cities as commercial centres) go hand in hand with the social transformation of the artist, the transformation of the style and conception of art , as well as the development of collecting . To complete the discussion, let's add just a few details about the sixteenth-century market, such as the practice of selling through agents and brokers and the establishment of commercial enterprises with fixed locations for private transactions, a precursor to modern galleries (especially in Venice and Flanders). During the same period, we see the first exhibitions organized by artists' guilds, and we see the growth of the practice of reselling works, which in the seventeenth century would take the form of auctions (in England and then in France). It can therefore be said that between the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the market took on all the characteristics of modernity. The Baroque age was the period of the triumph of patronage, and Rome, with the excessive power of the popes, was its capital. In the 18th century, the art market and collecting grew and consolidated further, becoming a phenomenon of enormous significance in the 19th century, with the rise of industrialization. This period saw a flourishing of antique galleries and auction houses throughout Europe and America, as well as the formation of public museums and frequent exhibitions, all of which contributed to the dissemination and popularization of art. The collector no longer coincides with the ancient figure of the aristocratic patron, but is replaced by the capitalist and businessperson of the modern bourgeoisie, who conceives the acquisition of works of art also as an investment and a possible source of speculation. [1] For this study we refer to A. HAUSER, Social History of Art , first volume, Einaudi, 1955 and W. SANTAGATA, Symbol and Commodity , Il Mulino, 1998