The Social History of Art
The examination of the history of a work has become, perhaps, as important as the artwork itself. The aim of the art historian is to answer various questions surrounding the historical framework of a work of art, such as who, when, where and how it was created. There is no doubt that stylistic traits are directly tied to assorted aspects of history and culture; artists themselves are direct products of their time, and their art becomes a manifestation of everyday experiences.
The social history of art explains the history of artworks and artistic practice by means of the social, political and economic contexts within which works were conceived, produced, perceived and used. The social art historian is primarily concerned with an artist’s response to the values and ideas of society, which in turn are determined by historical conditions. The social history of art is by-and-large the study of a society and its determinants. Within the sphere of the social history of art, the means are as significant as the end.
Marxism provided a useful methodological paradigm for the apprehension of the place and role of art in society and culture. The Marxist art historian sought to convey ways in which the economic social ‘base’ and its artistic and cultural ‘super-structure’ could be related in a causal manner. Marxist art historical tendencies heightened during a time when art and politics could not escape each other. During the nineteenth century, the state, public and critics all agreed that art had a political sense, one in which artists themselves were well aware. Marxist art history attempts to show how certain images contain information about the political and economic climate, as well as the portrayal of ideologies. Marxist theory, particularly the doctrinaire first generation of Marxist scholars and art historians, adhered strongly to the fact of art as the product of society, particularly within the economic class from which it was produced. The Marxist art historian, as a faction of social art history, seeks to resolve the same questions; whereby the answers are all politically motivated. The rendering of workers’ oppression in art propagandizes the working class against the state, becoming a ‘call to action’ against the repressive class. Through a social historical perspective, and through Marxism as well, the art historian gains deep insight into the affect time and place has on artistic production and creation. The work of art is effectively a document of its time, responding to and reflecting its socio-historical context.
One must be careful as not to reduce art simply as an expression of immediate political and practical needs of the working class; many other confounding factors are not taken into consideration from a Marxist viewpoint, as they do not serve their primary interest. The omission of variable details becomes a problematic aspect for the study of artworks A key problem with Marxist art history in this century has been to find a way to conceptualize the factors that have made capitalism so resilient. Marxists ought to seek explanations for these phenomena and correlate them within alternate structural ideals.
Whether or not Marxist art history has a future within art historical discourse is irrelevant. Leftist tendencies and Marxist ideals will always have a stronghold in the study of history, as present in academic pursuit today as they were fifty years ago. Art history should aspire to be more attentive to its role within a larger picture of knowledge; it must be sensitive to the contradictions of culture, acknowledging aesthetics in the realm of ideology and cognition, social power plays and the utopian possibility6. There are innumerable applications for the study of art history, and as long as the art historian remains self-reflective, objective and thorough, his labors will never be fruitless.
