‘Mr and Mrs andrews’ by Gainsborough¹ was painted in 1748 with oil paints on canvas and shows two luxuriously dressed white aristocrats, the man stood leaning in a relaxed manner on a rococo bench and the woman sat elegantly yet stiffly. This painting is because it's a clear example of how art was once only accessible to the rich, the only people able to afford the materials and artists to commission such a painting were royalty or wealthy landowners and so controlled almost all of the art created and sold.
The couple are both fair skinned ‘pale and lithe’ (Fox 2014) another indication of class, as Dr abraham Fox (2014) comments, this reflects the ‘upper class privilege of not having to work for a living’ The main indication of the wealth of the young couple is the large stretch of land behind them, this is not simply an appreciation of art it is a trademark of wealth and success, this painting is not commissioned to be seen in a gallery, but to be admired at in their home by a select circle of the upper class, the way the figures are positioned in front of the grounds they own highlight this fact.
Not only does the painting signify clear class relations, it also involves gendered ones. We are not really looking at two landowners, but at one. The difference in posture even gives us a clear view that Ar Andrews is comfortable here, with his dog and his gun in his hand he is in charge, he owns everything in this painting including his wife who is sat much more stiffly and statutory. As gillian rose (1993) observes ‘Mrs andrews is painted as almost part of that still and exquisite landscape’
A more modern example of similar themes being used is photographer Annie Leibovitz’s portraits of the queen taken in 2007 for Vanity Fair. Beforehand Leibovitz researched ‘settings and clothing and how previous portraits had been lit and posed.’ this is clearly shown in the techniques and motifs used with many, almost subconscious, visual devices portraying a feeling of might and authority. A traditional composition is used similar to Mr and Mrs andrews with a grand sweeping landscape being the figure, but with the the queen positioned almost central to shot. The queen is a central figure, framed by dark trees drawing the line of sight to her, the dark and moody sky parallels that in Mr and Mrs andrews and adds to the sense of might and power. The focus is on her and her presence rather than her ownership of land, however the landscape is still an important part of the portrait. Throughout the series of photographs the queen is not posed in plain clothes against a white wall, but surrounded by decor and dramatic interiors and exteriors, wearing sumptuous clothing in a and a hint of deep royal blue, a clear portrayal of her wealth and importance. The angle used in the portrait positions the viewer below the queen and gives them direct eye contact creating an imposing and powerful aura. The photograph says to us that we are under her command and we are her subjects.
A noticeable difference between the two portraits is that compared to the ownership shown over Mrs Andrews this portrait depicts a very strong female figure. There is no use of stereotypical female colours or clothing within this specific photograph and the Queen is not posed passively and delicately like Mrs andrews is but instead presented boldly. It is also of importance to note that the artist too is a female in a still mainly male dominated artistic market.
What I wanted to focus on last through the example of specific artwork is the way in which the upper class still have control and influence over art in the 20th century, using Damien Hirst’s The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living’³ as an example. The 85.5 x 213.4 x 70.9 in tank shows a real 13 foot tiger shark, weighing 2 tons and suspended and filled with formaldehyde to stop it from rotting. The piece was commissioned by Charles Saatchi for £50,000. (telegraph 2006) Saachi was involved in the 1991 young british artist movement between him and goldsmiths, which was often criticised with elitism and focus on money. Hirst was one of the most prominent artists at the time to come out of this london movement and his earlier pieces became extremely popular in the modern art trade.
The piece is fairly inaccessible to the general public, they are told because they do not understand it they simply do not understand art, but does any of Hirst's work genuinely have expressive and accessible meaning? It is arguable that there is thought and consideration behind Hirst's work, sadly however Hirst’s work has become a prime example of a modern art world run by money, it's as Jonathan Jones (2011) describes art as the ‘ultimate luxury’ art is money and if you want people to know your wealth, you must buy art.’
Hirst commented (independent 2000) “I think becoming a brand name is a really important part of life.” and he achieved this is a way, many people criticise his work as being eclipsed by money and generating its intrigue through its price tag rather than its content, as Andrew Rice (2012) comments ‘his work found particular favor with art investors who prized it as much for its appreciating value as its aesthetics’. This is as much because of Charles Saatchi's involvement with the work as it is with Hirst's approach to his art. They enjoyed a strong partnership for around a decade and each were good for each others reputation in the commercial art world but Hirst actually split from saatchi claiming ‘he only recognises art with his wallet’. (Gibbons 2003) Some argue Hirst takes a similar approach, the London’s Sunday Times estimates his fortune at around $350 million, making him the richest artist in the world.
Hirst has more recently spent £25m to build a gallery on newport street where he will curate exhibitions assembled from his own art collection. Even though hirst's gallery will be free to enter. Critics argue that because Hirst owns the work on show his ‘apparent generosity is likely to be balanced by the increased value of the art shown there’. However the important point is made that ‘to assume that Hirst’s greatest driver is money is to overlook his passion for art, and his compulsion to collect it.’(Mayer 2015) Hirst’s split from saachi shows he's not comfortable with a solely money driven view of art.
Berger, J (1973) ways of seeing, London, Penguin
damienhirst.com. 2015. Damien Hirst to open free London gallery for his collection in 2015 (updated 12 January 2015) Available at:
Gonzalez, M. Socialist Review, 2007, but is it art (updated december 2007) available at:
henaff, M. (1998) Claude Lévi-Strauss and the making of structural anthropology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, p.196.
Klien, N (1999) No logo London, HarperCollins
O'Doherty, B (1986) Inside the White Cube: The Ideology of the Gallery Space
Reynolds, N. The Telegraph. 2006. Hirst's pickled shark is rotting and needs to be replaced. (Updated 28 Jun 2006) Available at:
Rice, A. Bloomberg Press. 2012. Damien Hirst: Jumping the Shark (updated November 21, 2012,) available at:
Rose, G (1993) Feminism and Geography: The Limits of Geographical Knowledge Google Books
Smith, R. New York Times. 2007. Just When You Thought It Was Safe (updated OCT. 16, 2007) available at:
