How to Approach Art - Economic Perspective

If you know me you know that I am not great at math. Anything with numbers, budgets, calculating is just not going to go well in my mind. So when it came to an economic methodology in art history I was not quite interested at all. It was not until I talked with my more business minded friends that I saw how wonderful this method can be. If you like the numbers and following the money than this methodology will be a great one for you to use. While I was learning this, it was called Marxist methodology. Karl Marx was a 19th century economic theorist, philosopher and revolutionary activist. Marxism calls to mind the socialism that he began to theorize and the creation of systems of government based on his ideas. Marx also addressed history, culture, economics and politics within his work and socialism touched his revolutionary ideas about all of these.

While Catholicism actively condemns socialism and several of the ideas that Marx founded, there is still something to be gained by seeing the economic perspective behind the art world. The goal of this methodology is that art is just another form of economic production. The steps to applying it are to look at the historical, cultural, economic and political questions that are connected to the art piece. It is less about what the art is about but more on questions of patronage, where it was seen first, what was used to make the art piece, what symbols of wealth, economics, and politics are within the painting, and more. To be successful in this methodology, one should investigate how the art makes a meaning, more so how in an art piece is a set of imaginary representations masking real material conditions. In this perspective, art is seen as a fossil of economic life at the time. There is an investigation of ideologies along with how these ideologies shape practices of museums, galleries, academics, and organizations.

There are a few terms that would be helpful to have in our back pocket while approaching art using this economic perspective. A patron is someone who paid for a piece of art to be made. More often than not, art was commissioned and paid for by a patron rather than being made due to an artist's desire to create an art piece. This was a way of artist's to have a certitude in their income and know that the time they spend on an art piece will bear economic fruit. Another term that I used above was the word ideology. In our society today, we often throw this word around and I do not think we all realize what it means. An ideology is a coherent and systematic body of ideas that is part of a whole structure. Ideologies shape the practice of museums, galleries, academics, organizations, and more because it is a reflection of what is seen as and believed to be important. In this perspective, art is a form that ideology takes due to how it reflects what people with a great deal of money thought to be important. Cultural hegemony is the influence or authority gained via cultural practices rather by law or force. This term is used in the economic process because the focus is on who is in control, usually by the use of money, power, popularity, and influence. We see this in celebrities and influencers who have a large say in what is important in society and what things should be invested in. The last of the terms that connects to this perspective is materialist, which is the art's mode of production. The study of labor and the organization of that labor to create art is an interesting way to approach it. The materials used to create the art could be incredibly expensive or salvaged. The art piece could be made by a singular artist or a group in a collective. The relations that are used in the creation of art are complex but are investigated deeply through the economic perspective.

Questions for this method are incredibly tied into what into the piece being created and also the history of the artwork as a form of ideology. There is little to no focus on the art piece as a standalone thing of value. The artwork is seen as a piece in the economic trading system, a symbol of what is seen as important or influential.

Here are some questions to ask:

-Who is the patron? Why did they commission this specific piece?

-Did the artist have an existing relationship with the patron or was this a new relationship?

-Was this art piece meant to be in a home? An office? A museum? An art show? How does this affect how it is seen and who it is seen by? How could this influence the culture?

-If the artist was not commissioned for this piece, why did they create it?

-What materials were used to create this piece? Was it expensive or cheap? Why did they use those materials?

-Where is this art piece today? What other art surrounds it and is near it? What message would they be trying to send by this placement?

The Monk by the Sea, Caspar David Friedrich, 1808-1810. Alte Nationalgalerie, Berlin, Germany.

In my most recent post on The Monk by the Sea, I touch on economic perspective slightly but thought this would be a great opportunity to expand upon it. The first thing that I think is helpful to touch on is the background of how this painting came to be. Friedrich's first major painting was not created until he was 34 years old. It took him quite some time to be able to breakthrough the level of mediocrity and small commissions, just barely scrapping by. His first well known work was a Christian one called The Cross in the Mountains. Since the beginning, the reception was mixed due to his composition and use of landscape. Although there was a mixed reception, several of his friends and artists that he knew stood up for him and he continued to create. This led him to eventually create The Monk by the Sea and The Abbey in the Oakwood.

The reception of The Monk by the Sea was not immediately a positive one. Even before he put displayed it at an exhibition, a wife of a friend said it was too lonely and that the sea and air never seemed to end. Others had similar disliking to it, saying that the foreground was too overwhelming and that viewers could not connect with the monk in the picture. There is nothing to soften the stark land and the never ending sky and sea. Friedrich is commonly placed within the German Romanticism era and style of painting. People found it hard to see the romance within in. The nature was not warm or welcoming or drew you in. The starkness makes the viewer step back and wonder. The receptivity of this piece may not have been great, but the influence of it has been strong. There are many who have linked this composition went on to inspire Symbolist and Expressionist painters such as Franz Marc and Mark Rothko. This is a story that is often told in the world of art history. There have been many art pieces and artists that at the time were not noticed, regarded, or seen as important. It was not until later that they became influential and important to society and the history of art. The story of an art piece after its creation is as important as how, when, why, and by whom it was created.

At the same time of this painting, Friedrich was also working on a piece called The Abbey in the Oakwood. These two paintings were displayed together in 1810, after their completion, at the Berlin Academy exhibition. These exhibitions were for current members and other artists who were vying for attention, recognition, connections to other artists, and presence among potential patrons. The Prussian Crown Prince actually bought these two paintings after the exhibition, which led to Friedrich being elected a member of the Berlin Academy. This was very important because it put a stamp of approval upon his work and would lead to more commissions, which means a steadier source of income. There were also several schools that were connected to the Academy so more artists could be trained and current ones could teach, learn, and work on their craft.

Originally the monk painting was hung above the abbey, but now they hang side by side in the museum where they now reside. I think this is wonderful that at least some of his artwork has stayed together. Very often collections and paintings get scattered around. It is only during special exhibitions or when collections are donated or bought by museums that the work of the artist comes together again. The keeping together of these two paintings from their creation to now is something to be noted. This is a reflection that these two are important and should be shown together. Art can speak back and forth with one another. The two Friedrich paintings being together shows the similarity of work that Friedrich did in a similar time, with connected themes of religious places and people, and also vastness, being alone, and the presence of God in places that do not seem very obvious.

Let us pray -

Lord, you guide and influence us even when we do not realize it. Help us to see your influence in the unlikely places, including the economy, society, politics, and work. Let us experience your guiding hand in all that we are involved in. Your beauty and the art you inspire does not exist in a vacuum or by itself. It is in your uniquely created world that influences how we get to partake in your creative work. The process and reasons of creation is an opportunity to see, know and love you Lord. Bring us to desire your presence in our work and exploration of sacred art.

Amen.