What Economists can learn from Impressionists

So this may seem like a crazy idea – after all, what do economists have to do with an art movement originating in France in the 19th century? Not a lot and perhaps, that is the problem. Indeed, most economists might be indignant with this suggestion. What, pray tell, can scientists such as themselves learn from an art movement?

For the uninitiated, Impressionism was a 19th century art movement that originated in France. It was a reaction against the formalism that characterised the academic art of that time. Although, the Impressionists were still Realists, which was the accepted art movement of the time, their innovative methods led them to develop a different meaning of reality than the one the Realists sought.

The Impressionists were more interested in the effects of light and they sought to understand its effects on form. They understood colours and how they reflect from object to object and how the very nature of colour changes with time. Their quest to capture light led them to work ‘en plein air’, outdoors and in the very heart of the scene they sought to capture.

As the movement evolved, the artists realized that their depictions changed by the minute as the light in which they viewed them changed. Impressionism became an attempt to create a spontaneous, undetailed depiction of the world through careful representation of the effects of natural and reflected light on objects. And so their concern for representing the individual object faded, while concern for representing that fleeting instant, the subjective impression grew.

This realization - that objectivity is not achievable in art, was groundbreaking. It provided a natural disclaimer for all Impressionist art – this was not an objective isolated reality being depicted, it was the human impression of that reality and therefore could be imperfect. Reality became what the individual saw; it was subjective and dynamic.

Economists tend to think of themselves as above society or as part of some über-society filled Homo Economicus – the rational man. In this perfect reality, economic models function perfectly and all the assumptions on which they are based are true. But what if we don’t actually live in such a world? What if the Impressionists are right? What if reality actually is subjective?

Isn’t it time economists had the same realization about their work – that no matter how hard they try, they can never depict a completely objective reality? If you think about it, every single economic theory is deeply embedded in the very culture of the economist. Each measure, each hypothesis is trying to see reality from different coloured lenses and yet economists choose to pretend these colours don’t exist.

Colour and light should matter just as much for Paul Krugman as they mattered for Berthe Morisot. Of course, for economists, colour and light, are metaphors for the context of situation they are trying to assess. Everything is contextual and all economic theories should come with a disclaimer that clearly identifies the author’s perspective. I just think economics would be a more enlightening subject if it was less caught up in trying to validate itself as a science and more observant and aware of the ever-changing social paradigm in which it exists.

Merely recognizing the colour and light that falls through their lenses is not enough, however. Economists need to understand how the changing light affects the reality they are trying to understand. Just as in art, the economic landscape of a region looks very different in the darkness and in the light and economists need a more nuanced understanding.

Impressionism was an attempt to capture a snapshot of the dynamic surroundings we live in a way that reflected this dynamism instead of trying to freeze the viewer in that instant. Monet painted the bridge in his garden at Giverny over and over again during different times of day and in different seasons in order to really understand the different realities possible.

Perhaps it’s time economists worked ‘en plein air’ and immersed themselves in long periods of study in the very heart of the object of their study, in order to see it from different angles and understand how it changes. Economic history, therefore, becomes far more important than it is given credit for. Understanding the causal links between a change in our impression of the reality and an event in our environment will be crucial to creating a good depiction.

Camille Pissaro, one of the pioneers of the Impressionist technique and the most consistent contributor to the movement, once said to his young students, "We are all the subjects of impressions, and some of use seek to convey the impressions to others. In the art of communicating impressions lies the power of generalizing without losing that logical connection of parts to the whole which satisfies the mind." If only, some economists had attended that class.