My aim is to show the benefits of approaching the study of Art History through the Social Historical Method and point out the insufficient conclusions that one might draw through a purely formal study of an artwork.

In furthering one’s own understanding of a piece of history, he or she must not ignore the simple and essential questions of where, when, why, and how an event or product came about; and this fact stands true in the discipline of Art History. Of the different approaches to analyzing artwork, only one method can addresses every one of these basic questions; it is the Social-Historical Method. The process for the so-called social art-historian is, as one would expect, much like that of a sociologist who studies “human social behavior, especially the study of the origins, organization, institutions, and development of human society” ("Sociology", Dictionary.com [visited in September 2004]). By using these tactics in studying an artwork, the art historian has the greatest probability in obtaining the answers to the aforementioned questions. Even Formalist Heinrich Wolfflin (who stressed a visual focus in studying art) ultimately conceded the fact that stylistic traits are tied to history and culture; it is clear that historical influences are essential to constructing a coherent history of the visual arts. By accepting the role that society plays in the development of art, the Social Art Historians are able to give the most adequate explanations to questions pertaining to any artist’s career and his or her work.

The most radical sect of the Social historians who take societal influences into account when studying art, are the Marxist art historians. They adhere strongly to the principle that art is a product of the society, or even more specifically, the economic class, from which it is produced. Among the most prominent contributors to the Marxist Social Historical school is Frederick Antal; in his words:

I believe that contemporary art historians devote too much attention to the formal elements of art at the expense of its content. Only too often they overlook the fact that both form and content make up a style…Moreover, it is the content of art which clearly shows it’s connection with the different social groups for whom it was created, and this outlook in it’s turn is not something abstract; ultimately it is determined by very concrete social and political factors.

Using 14th century Florence as a study, one would notice that its culture, and therefore its art as well, was defined by class division. (Frederick Antal, Florentine Painting 161) The upper class of Florence was among the wealthiest and most distinct classes in the world, and they desired nothing more than the rule of rationalism. This was derived from the capitalist notion of individualism, for merchants sought money and power above all as they attempted to lift themselves into a higher social and economic class. The common thought process of the age was that through the seemingly logical belief in God, and the rational allocation of money, one could achieve the highest possible degree of success. Aside from money, this upper class was also closely tied to the church, because after accumulating wealth they now needed access to salvation from the church to atone for the sins of their earthly desires. The art of this age reflected the two paramount factors of society at the time, religion and economics; art historians who focus on formal, superficial elements of art would intentionally be overlooking these factors. Early religious paintings had purely emotional sentiment; while on the contrary the new contemporary art placed stress on naturalism and organization, as a result of influence from the aesthetic desire of the patrons, namely the wealthy elite. It is the information of the contemporary era that allows one to more deeply understand what an artwork is, and what it attempts to achieve. The final product, in other words -the paint on the canvas- does not represent the whole essence of an artwork. In studying Art History, the means are as significant as the ends.

Again, using Florence as an example, the artist that best illustrates the aesthetic desires of the upper class is Giotto. He was commissioned by these upper class citizens to paint chapels and altarpieces. While much of the age’s art was created by the middle and lower classes, Giotto on the other hand was a wealthy and shrewd businessman and was also held the prestigious title of Official Architect of the city. As a distinguished moneylender, Giotto was an established businessman outside the art market. He made loans and rented looms, and he did not hesitate to take intense measures in collecting his money. In 1314 it is documented that he had 6 lawyers employed strictly for the collection of debt, and he actually wrote a poem denouncing those in poverty (Frederick Antal, Florentine Painting 161). This rather extreme focus on his financial status was a major factor in his life, therefore it is also apparent in his work; and those studying art cannot fail to see this connection.

Painting in Florence was inseparable from contemporary trends in Rome, which is where much of Giotto’s roots are also to be found. The sculpture and painting of Rome was in many cases beginning to integrate many of the classic stylistic trends back into fashion. Of these new trends, the one most pronounced in Giotto’s painting is a lucid and compact composition, as to say, a more rationalist approach. In Confirmation of the Rule of the Franciscan Order Giotto has started moving deeper into the study of the human body. The drapery falls according to gravity and the position of the body underneath. Also, all aspects of the painting are done with equal priority. There is not a subject-and-background distinction; the entire painting is tended to meticulously. To make the stories he depicts as logical and credible as possible, Giotto keeps the composition simple and achieves a greater realism through excluding unnecessary detail. The direct influence of antiquity rational cannot be fully understood without looking at the context of his life. The return to the art of the Greek and Romans was plainly facilitated by his location. Italy was the ideal setting for Giotto to study his Classical predecessor’s styles, and moreover, the taste of the bourgeois patrons is what allowed him to pursue these interests and still be commissioned for his avant-garde work. The Social Historical analysis method is the tool that can facilitates one’s discovery of these historical details, which expose the means and motivations of an artist, Giotto in this case. Therefore understanding artistic traits, such as style and form, is more elaborate than simply placing works with similar qualities into the same category. The comparable aspects between two pieces of art are of less significance without considering why the two artists would be expressing a subject in a similar fashion.

In Giotto’s case, he was moving away from the Byzantine flatness and emotionalism, but his contemporary Pacino da Bonaguida was not affected by this upper-class aesthetic trend. Being of a lower social class, the return to Classic Art, which was appearing in the more extreme upper bourgeois, did not intrude into his work. As we see in his mediums alone, his class status influenced him greatly. As he was targeting a slightly less well-to-do sector of the community, he was involved in painting altar pieces, miniatures, and manuscripts, all of which reflected his clientele, primarily people of the lower-middle classes (Antal, Florentine Painting 169). Basically he conservatively depicts bible stories, in a manner suited to connect with lower class spectators. The figures show the hierarchic scale wherein the important characters are made larger, and the continuous narration is made extremely straightforward and is distinctly prominent in the scene; also, there is not even the slightest hint of perspective. As Pacino’s audience is generally less educated, his illustration of the scenes must assist the viewer in understanding what is occurring in the story, and the size variations help clarify who each figure represents (Antal, Florentine Painting 169). These antiquated compositions are entirely unlike Giotto’s; this is as a result of the respective class culture difference to which the artists, their contemporaries, and their patrons were all subject. A thorough study of the era, socially, religiously, politically, and economically is the only course that an Art Historian can take to realize these truths.

To continue studying societal effects on art, around a century later, the painting Tribute Money by Massacio (Fig. 2) was directly influenced by a resurging trend, the art of Antiquity (which one would expect, as it was completed at the onset of the Renaissance). The rare choice in subject, an unemotional scene of the ministry of Christ (Antal, Florentine Painting 307), is the epitome of upper-class rationalist art. This reoccurring theme of rationality, which continued to circulate in the social and economic upper-echelon of society, is essential to understanding the artists themselves as well as the art they produce. The man who commissioned the works, Felice Brancacci, was on the Board of Maritime Consuls, and therefore he aimed to promote the opportunities and profits that could be facilitated by sea-trade. Also, Antal suggests that the spiritual aspect of the scene is not given paramount importance,

..the one miraculous feature of the story, the discovery of the money in the fishes belly, is relegated to the background. The action is treated almost as a mere piece of secular reporting, as a rational sequence of cause and effect; it is simply the outcome of volitional actions, first of the tax collector, and then of Christ. (Antal, Florentine 308)

Massacio allowed the religious aspect of his paintings to take a secondary role in his art, and rational science became his priority. He used linear perspective, architectural ideas, and exact mathematic calculations. In the more common early art, of Pacino for instance, the portrayals of God stand out, they are not to be logically and equally placed about the composition. In Tribute Money, Christ is the same size as his peers, and His divine miracle is not even the focus of the composition (in form or content). As the two artists painted for different patrons who had different philosophical and economic standards, their content and depiction of that content changed. Pacino and Massacio were both painting scenes from the bible, but beyond that, the two works share little in common, and this is a result of the influences to which each artist was exposed. The middle and lower classes that would have sought the paintings of Pacino simply would not have been able to identify with Massacio’s work (Antal, Classicism 310) A key element in creating art, like potential audience, must be noted by art historians who aim to better understand the paintings themselves; this is not a notion that Formal analysis can achieve.

Because of his style, which pleases the upper class’s aesthetic desires, his commissions were mostly by art connoisseurs and his friends. (Antal, Classicism 310) Massacio’s wealthy contemporaries and scholars undoubtedly had an effect on his artistic process; also, his ability to market and sell his art was severely limited by the differences between his influencing class (the elite), and his target buying class (the average citizen).

Another study, Classicism and Romanticism by Frederick Antal, also was an in depth account of the society’s influence on paintings and the artists behind them. Gericault for instance, painted in the time after the French Revolution, and his subject matter was a direct result of that fact. Through the manner in which they have been depicted, one recognizes that Gericault identified himself with the Napoleonic Soldiers and held liberal revolutionary beliefs. His middle-class allegiance provides answers pertaining to his choice in subject. The middle-class at this time was uneasy because only a few years earlier they had had their property seized by the bourgeois. So while the working class had expanded, there still was no security for their newfound economic status. The citizens in this financial position had been characterized by liveliness, motivation, and as having increasingly liberal philosophies. Gericault himself was a perfect embodiment of this trend. He had a reputation for an extravagant temperament and it was evident in his subject matter. Motion and color are what he was most attracted to, hence his paintings of the soldier life, the circus, and horse races (Antal, Classicism 28). His political beliefs played a significant role in how he presented the mentioned themes. Because of the contemporary priority of participation in the government, Gericault “democratized” his work. Instead of Napoleon being the center of a composition, an average nameless soldier was often the focus and the hero of Gericault’s paintings (Antal, Classicism 32) The appearance and subject matter of his work cannot be explained by citing contemporary trends in art, for he was unique in both. The discovery of why Gericault would depict his specific subjects, and the manner in which he did so, is why the relative nature of Social Art History study is so effective. Again, the era affects the artist, as people are products of their age, historical analysis will be the method to which one must ultimately resort to gain a clear understanding of an artist.

Gericault’s democratic politics further affected his art. He was the first prominent artist to use lithography. Through this, he was able to replicate his work and allow it to be widely distributed. This was a contributing factor in the spreading of the legend of Napoleon. His personal financial situation also shaped his artwork; if he wasn’t economically secure enough to produce the types of works he chose to, he would have had to abide by patron’s demands. (Antal, Classicism 33). Knowing an artist’s political environment is the only route one can take to understand this aspect of how an artist is motivated and how the art market effects his or her work. One specific political event, from which a work of Gericault’s was derived (Fig. 3), was the wreck of a government ship called the Medusa. In this tragedy, less than 15 of 150 passengers survived, and the government took harsh criticism in regard to who had been appointed as captain of the vessel. To depict the scene as best as possible, Antal stresses that Gericault did research that was unprecedented in the typically idealistic art of he time. He interviewed the few survivors, “He studied corpses and the sick in hospitals, he even had a model made by the same craftsmen who built the raft, and he went to the coast to observe its movement, [and he studied the] atmospheric effects and the formation of clouds over the sea. It is really true to say that never before had an ‘historical’ picture been built up to the basis of such extended naturalistic research” (Antal, Classicism). This painting was acclaimed at an exhibition, but received no praise from the government due to its ‘opposition’ subject matter. When the government did attempt to commission Gericault for a religious painting, he passed it on to Delacroix. This shows Gericault’s tenacity for his political beliefs; he was unwilling to compromise his art even for his country’s government, because his ideology came first. Through a formal analysis of the Raft of the Medusa one could very well come to the realization that Gericault had a precise, scientific, and academically sound style, but the Formalists’ shortcomings would be evident when trying to explain why Gericault chose this subject matter, what he did in order to achieve the accuracy, and how his personality played such a large role in the final product of his artwork. A meticulous study of the artist’s historical, economic, and political era leads one to come to the ultimate conclusion that Gericault was a painter was not hesitant to put forth his brand of political propaganda, and who had achieved an unprecedented move towards a consistent naturalism (Antal, Classicism 42-44).

Through the Social and Marxist approach to studying art, one can understand more deeply the affect that time and place has on art. Social art methodology can effectively be applied to any genre, or era, within the entire history of art. As Marx suggested, a person is conditioned by the society in which he or she develops, and this idea equally pertains to artists and their products. By accepting the role that society plays in the development of art, Social Art Historians are able to give the most adequate explanations to questions pertaining to the artist and his or her work and era. In the words of Frederick Antal, “We have come to look at art, just as history, in a less esoteric light, associated more closely…with the problems of real, everyday life,” he continues, “the art-historian’s task is primarily not to approve or disapprove of a given work of art from his own point of view, but to understand and explain it in the light of its own historical premises…a work of art [is] a document of its time” (B. Lang 258-262).