Economics and a 19th Century American Painter: Thomas Cole's "grand" works explained.

 

by Tony Merino.

Mr. Merino works as a ceramic artist and freelance critic. He has published in journals in North America, Australia, and Europe. Mr. Merino is a cynic with a wry sense of humor. His writing is distinguished by an irreverence from which no doctrine is safe, and no taboo off limits. Mr. Merino holds an MFA from the U. of North Texas and BA from Augustana College Rock Island, Illinois.

 
One of the dirty little secrets of the academic art world is that just about every object d'art ever made was bought, sold, and commissioned. It is an uncomfortable truth because it contradicts a market phobia that is rampant in the Academic world. Many art instructors define their vocation as protecting young impressionable artists from the evils of the market, the most seductive threat to an artist's integrity. The market, as seen in the eyes of many art instructors, is best personified in the fictional character of Darth Vader. A single monolithic force, that is so powerful and seductive, once an artist gives in to it, he or she will be damned to a life of abject prostitution. This view of the market seems to believe that it is oppressive of any tastes or forms that do not narrowly confirm to its tastes. This proposition is flawed in one way, typical of any prejudice. It severely oversimplifies the market.

The market is not a single totalitarian unit, determining the taste of all men. It is an entity that is comprised of individuals, who have individual tastes. As such, there are certainly elements of the market that do stifle and dilute an artist's individuality. At the same time there are elements of the market that operate in accordance with individual integrity and exploration. Like any prejudice, this can not be applied universally. Luckily, it is easier to revise history to fit doctrine than to rewrite the prejudice to fit history. This is most clearly evident in the work of American artist Thomas Cole, and how it is presented to students and the general public.

Thomas Cole was a pre-civil war American Landscape painter. His oeuvre can be roughly divided into two broad categories: small intimate landscapes and large serial works. In this way he was a perfect fit to reinforce the romantic image of the artist. It was taught that Cole would work on these smaller paintings as a means to an end. It was like his day job that supported his true passions, the larger serial works. Instead of going into work as a waiter or customer service representative, Cole knocked off these works as the means to support his larger more personal works.

My next run in with Cole was in a graduate seminar on Romanticism. The instructor asked each student to select the artist she/he would like to work on. I got Cole. I had originally asked for J.M.W. Turner, but when half the class wanted to do Turner, I settled on Cole. If for no other reason than I love the underdog. The canon of great western image makers, includes very few pre-Armory American painters. Having been previously exposed to Cole's work, I took him.

So I began to research this artist, still under the assumption that his larger serial works were supported by his smaller works. I stumbled through the scholarship, something that I am not inclined to do on my own, and found out, to my great shock, that the serial works were commissioned. This was not in direct contradiction to how I remember Cole being taught, but I was left with the impression that his serial works did stay in his private collection his entire life. I also discovered that right when Cole had established himself as the foremost painter in America, the country went into the great depression of 1836. Oddly, this was a watershed date for Cole's career. He had done a few serial works prior to 1836, but it was during the subsequent years that he started to concentrate on doing serial works. This is a little more difficult of a fit, what the hell is Cole doing objects of passion in horrid economic times? Assuming that like all other citizens, Cole was financially hurt by the depression, he would have concentrated on those woks that were the most lucrative. Then I discovered that the larger works provided a large amount of money for him, Cole sold the first "voyage of life" series to Samuel Ward for five thousand dollars in 1838, during the height of the depression.

Then it hit me. Not only were Cole's larger serial works fiscally sound, it is likely they were necessary. I mean how are you going to pawn off enough small landscapes in the middle of a depression to support yourself. It is highly unlikely there was any market at all for Cole's intimate landscapes.There was no middle-class market, most people who were middle-class were now poor. Those who were still the middle class had far better things to do with their money then buy paintings. This is in no way to discount the immense passion and effort that Cole put into these works. To assume that because they were not the product of his passion simply because these works were lucrative is to buy into the myth that the two are contradictory.

Still trusting that the mistake of my undergraduate instructor was grounded in naivety more then anything else, I figured no one had looked into Cole's life and it was just an old wives' tail. Unfortunately old myths die hard. My last encounter with Cole was in Washington DC. He had a retrospective at the National Museum of American Art. It was a nice exhibition. As we passed through, the tour guide pointed out the large serial works, telling the crowd that they were his great passion, without a single mention that they were all commissioned or that they did span the great depression of 1836.