Here – in no particular order – are some questions we should consider during the course of the next sixteen weeks:
• In what ways does “work” or “labor” (“labour”?) Appear in work of literature and the other arts from about 1750 to about 1850? As a “subject” in itself, or as part of the “setting” or “circumstances” of the work. That is, is the work of art (in whatever medium) primarily and specifically about labor and the conditions of labor (including its human conditions), or is it only incidentally about labor, considered as part of another, more central or more “important” subject?
• When “labor” appears as a central aspect of a work of art, what sort(s) of labor are most prominent? Do these “leading forms” of labor stay more or less the same over this century or so, or do they change, and if so in what ways – and why?
• Why do there seem to be so few visual images of labor and laborers in later 18th and earlier 19th century British art?
• When labor and laborers are portrayed, what sorts of labor and laborers do we see? How should we characterize the nature of these portrayals? Why does the particular artist choose the subject(s) that he or she does, and what is the nature and substance of the way(s) in which that subject matter is represented visually?
• Is there a “politics” of labor during this period? Does one evolve? Remember that trade unions only gradually evolve over the 19th century, while the Labour Party is only formally recognized – and its candidates elected to Parliament and other offices – at the very last stages of the 19th century.
• Do workers (laborers) have any advocates in government, religion, or other spheres of influence during this period? If not, why not? If so, who were they and what did they do on behalf of workers.
• When either formal legislation or extra-legal action is enacted to benefit workers, which workers are its intended targets and beneficiaries? And which ones are excluded, either explicitly or simply in practice?
• Why does “labor” seem so seldom to be a central feature of the literature and other art works of c. 1750-1850? Is this a matter of aesthetics? “Taste”? Economics? Class consciousness? Or have people simply not been looking carefully for nearly two centuries?
• What is the relationship between “work” (“labor”) and religion during this period? What assumptions about “work” can be found in the prominent religion(s) in Britain during the period? Can we account for the origin of these assumptions? And do they change in any way over the century or so that we are considering?
• How does “art” function as an instrument of social control? That is, how is “art” used (and by whom) to engineer, reinforce, or modify human behavior, both on a narrowly individual, personal level and on a broadly collective public level?
• When is “art” (whatever the medium) propaganda? What is propaganda, for that matter? (I won’t ask the other obvious parallel question, “What is art”?).
• When is propaganda art? How do we determine which is which, or how much any one work is one or the other? Is there some sort of sliding scale, or continuum, involved in this question?
• What examples can we find of works of art that actually and materially “changed things” during our period? How many of these are works (or “artifacts”) whose primary subject is “work”?
• Consider the way that workers (laborers) are depicted in works of literature or visual art. What do their creators want us to “know” about these characters, and why? How do the artists go about eliciting the desired response(s) from us? Are there any “tricks” (of any sort) involved in the process?
• How are relationships between workers (laborers) and their employers depicted in works of art (including literature) during this period? Are there any apparent assumptions about the “natural” state of these relationships? What makes “good” relationships good? What makes “bad” ones bad? And what do the artists do – what clues and cues do they give us – to make sure we both recognize and understand which is which, and why?
• What about works that we would not consider – or which in fact are not usually considered – “works of art” or, perhaps more pointedly, “works of fine art”? That is, how do all of these considerations figure in extra-literary materials like the popular press; moral, instructional, or scientific writing; and other forms of discursive writing like public discourse (in Parliament, in the “papers,” and in the streets); as well as in visual materials like caricature prints; advertising; public sculpture and statuary; and architecture? How is “work” (“labor”) figured and represented in such productions – and why – and for whom?
• Where does music figure into all this – if at all?
• And what about theatre?