It struck me as quite understandable that a country struggling to build its identity, having gone through significant wars, and focusing on economic strengthening from the time it was discovered as a continent until the late 19th century, would not have had much time to deeply examine the social impact of art. 

Joseph Duveen was a highly influential art dealer who operated in the London, Paris, and New York triangle at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, shaping the American elite's access to European art. The key to Duveen's success lay in his accurate understanding of both Europe's rich artistic heritage and America's rising economic power; he analyzed the needs of both sides, saw how these needs could complement each other, and implemented an approach that we might define today as "value creation."

At that time, industrialization and commerce were rapidly growing in America, and great fortunes were being amassed in the oil, steel, and finance sectors. Duveen, by guiding this newly wealthy class, whose relationship with art was not yet deep, towards European art, persuaded them not only to build collections but also to become part of a cultural transformation. Of course, he did this not by directly stating it, but through a silent agreement, without explicitly mentioning a fact that both sides were already aware of. The American wealthy understood that the way to approach the cultural codes of the European aristocracy was through art; Duveen became the most important intermediary in this process.

One tangible result of this approach is the establishment of the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., with the contributions of Andrew Mellon, and another is the continuation of Henry Clay Frick's collection as the Frick Collection today.

By the mid-20th century, America's approach to art had become more systematic. Following World War II, America, consolidating its economic and political power, recognized that art could be an important part of this power and adopted it as a state policy. Accordingly, the center of gravity of the art market shifted from London and Paris to New York, international artists were drawn to America, museums proliferated, and institutions were encouraged to invest in art.

In this process, art ceased to be merely an aesthetic field; it became one of the tools a country uses to express itself, expand its sphere of influence, and establish cultural dominance. We see that various state institutions also played a role in this approach.

I am not an art historian. However, my observations over the years have clearly shown me this: Art is not only a force to be observed, but also a force to direct. Therefore, in order to understand and explain this driving force of art, I consider it my responsibility to share every bit of information I acquire with the people and institutions I can reach.