Art and Sociology Terri Seeba-Cariello
Kenneth Clark says: “I think it is true to say that all image art of any value has been made by or on behalf of a small minority, not necessarily a governing class in a political sense, but a governing class in an intellectual and spiritual sense”. Here he is referring to what he terms as the elite. Their dictates then reveal to the majority what is deemed a hidden need. These needs are dictated by the patrons of the artist. At this particular time (1200-1600), the vast majority of the art was based on religion. The patrons wanted art that depicted biblical scenes and at times had themselves included in the painting. There is no real mystery that this time was a burgeoning time of the church and that the church had real power over people’s lives. The scenes that they were presented with were their pictorial visions of what they should be, how they should act and the moral teachings of Christ, the saints and to see the moral sanctity of the patrons themselves.
In the 14th to 16th centuries the art consciously exploited emotionalism. The artists worked for a small, financially able group of patrons and were open and receptive to their ideas. (Possibly as they had no choice of the themes, as they were dictated, but had the use of their own imagination.) However, the art was of their own invention, and could have been based on an image in their memories of a previously viewed and remembered work. Artists tend to imitate leaders in their field, and then create their own version of what they find significant in the work viewed. .
As we have learned in class, many artists based their works on the works of Giotto of the previous century. They added their own twist, their own imagined pieces to the image and then made it their own.
Ernst Grosse says that the “social function of art is that of unification… and also serves to enrich and elevate the mind and the emotion”.
How are art and society related?
The depiction of the scene, i.e. the art, the artist and the viewer interact. According to Albrecht (1): “An artist is born into a society that possesses a particular culture.” As he is socialized, this affects his personality which in turn affects his attitudes toward art. He is introduced to the culture with formal training, he is then apprenticed and in the end he produces his own individual works. The artist chooses a medium, which in the 13th through the 15 centuries was changing in small increments, and applying techniques provided by the master they apprenticed under. His art must express not only his own convictions but also appeal to the public and any patron that may employ him. Here the iconography is dictated by the patron’s M.O., his purpose in implementing the artistic work, be it for his own salvation, or the salvation of others. The content of imagery, when looking at the artist, the creator, we can then imply that the personality and the psychology of the individual artist are intrinsic to their works and style. It is considered a spontaneous expression of individual genius. The label of the “genius” then lends to the objectification of the artist: i.e. a Rembrandt, a DaVinci, a Van Gogh.
Karl Marx (1) held that “the system of production of art at a given time determines both the content and the style of the arts of a society.” He concentrated his theories on class conflict and puts forward the theory that class position affects preferences of art. However, I think that this theory should be stated that the control of the upper class, the bourgeois class, the religious hierarchy dictate what the population sees. If the lower classes cannot read, their experience of “religion” is depicted in art so that they can visualize the proper being, the moral and spiritual make up of those whose example they should follow.
The sociological significance of icons.
Without the iconography of a society, the network of beliefs and customs would not take shape as art. Powerful symbols can alter an entire philosophic system. Should a point of dogma not have a satisfactory symbol then it tends to be forgotten.
Clark says that “the failure to discover a satisfactory symbol for the Holy Spirit (in art) has seriously impaired our concept of the Trinity.”
The Holy Spirit as a dove in the Baptism of Christ, by
Piero della Francesca,
Annunciation by Rubens, 1628 15th century with the Holy Spirit
pictured as a dove.
‘
Holy Trinity,
fresco by Luca Rossetti da Orta, 1738-9
(St. Gaudenzio Church at
Ivrea) again the Holy Spirit
is depicted as a dove.
·
· Holy Trinity by Fridolin Leiber Contemporary version of the Holy
· (1853–1912) Spirit.
As you can see, the Trinity is depicted in many ways, however, the dove is the most frequently portrayed symbol. In the piece by Leiber, however, the trinity is proposed as 3 separate entities that are connected as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, a concept in visual art and a common one that has survived. The artists rendering will depend on the patrons beliefs and dictates as well as the artists imagination and possible previously used/viewed material. What did the artist bring to the table?
Why do we have a problem with this depiction of an icon that is as mysterious as this one?
Our concept comes from the Bible’s description of the Holy Spirit as a dove descending or as the wind and fire. (3a) “he saw the Spirit of God (the Holy Spirit) descending like a dove and lighting on him” and (3b) “Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.” As art tries to depict this vague description, something is lost in the translation and we can disconnect from the intent of the subject. However, this portrayal is the mystery of the Spirit.
Western depiction of the Pentecost, painted by
Jean Restout, 1732
The iconography we are speaking about is not just part of dogmatic religious portrayals, but today we have many icons that are world wide and readily recognizable.
The reasoning of these icons is dictated by and financed by those who make the most money off of them. Cynical? True, but true never-the-less. The church in earlier times made money from the illiterate commoners, who tithed in order to save their souls, the rich paid for paintings that would do the same for them and their families. They paid great sums of money to have religious paintings, church grottos, wings and entire buildings named after them so that they would live in eternity with Gods grace.
References:
1. The Sociology of Art and Literature, Milton c. Albrecht, James H. Barnett and Mason Griff , pgs 621-650, 639-642,
2. Constructing Sociology of the Arts, Vera L. Zolberg. pgs 3-28
3. The Holy Bible, (a) Acts: 2:1-5, (b) Matthew 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22.
Sorry, for some reason, the pictures did not make it in the blog.
