The global economy is at a crossroads. It struggles to cope adequately with climate change, biodiversity loss, and persistent social inequities. And although there certainly are transformations, predominant economic thinking prevents acceleration of change.
So, how can you change a predominant mindset?
What is an effective recipe for creating change, if you don’t agree with the prevalent way of thinking? Will small nudges create the evolution that is necessary? Do you overthrow the ruling class? Or is there another option? As always, Art can inspire us. In this case, it is especially the history of how the definition of ‘good art’ changed 150 years ago. A change that was neither a revolution nor evolution. It was a redefinition of beauty. A long lasting one.
The origin of an art movement
In the 19th Century, the French Académie des Beaux-Arts defined what ‘good art’ was for the Western world. They organized regularly ‘the Salon’ in Paris, the official art exhibitions that could make or break you as an artist. At that time if you wanted to establish a name and sell your art, the Salon was the place to be. But it was not a neutral place, as it favored an old-fashioned, ‘academic’ style, the one that was predominantly idealistic rather than realistic, aiming to create highly polished works.
In this very context however, a wave of change began to emerge, and many artists started to define beauty quite differently. They no longer painted and sculpted the idealistic scenes and settings (gods, queens, or hero’s) they were supposed to, but they felt the urge to lay their eyes (and brushes) somewhere else, on different subjects and topics, on ordinary people and ordinary scenes. They started to use a much sketchier style capturing light quickly and its constantly changing quality in rough brush strokes or clay modeling, to create an illusion of movement and passage of time.
This new idea of good art was rejected again and again by the Salon as unfinished and inappropriate artwork. As it is often the case, when the established society doesn’t seem to be ready to understand the force of a new beginning, a group of rebellious (and frustrated) artists stepped away from it and decided to set up an exhibition by themselves to create a new space where their art could have been understood and appreciated. A new home for their art. It was 1874. And the new home was the studio of the photographer Félix Nadar, at 35 Boulevard des Capucines in Paris. Artists like Cezanne, Degas, Monet, Morisot, Pissarro, Renoir and Sisley, filled the rooms with their incredible art. It was the first exhibition of its kind, a one that redefined beauty forever.
From insult to honor
One of the paintings that was exhibited was Claude Monet’s ‘Impression, Soleil levant’, the impression of the rising sun. It would become the painting that gave the group its name, as the art critic Louis Leroy used it for his scathing review of the exhibition, as he thought Monet’s painting to be “at most, a sketch, and could hardly be termed a finished work”. In other words, to Leroy it was just an impression, and not a real painting.
However, coined as an insult, the term ‘impressionism’ soon became a badge of honor. It was inevitable, because those painters better understood the sign of their time. There were a couple new inventions (photography and the paint tubes, to name two key ones) as well as societal changes (the rise of train travel and outdoor recreation, to name two others) that changed what people expected from art. So, notwithstanding the mixed reviews in the beginning, the ‘Impressionists’ were born and redefined beauty with their bold new approach to art. Many of the original group still being the favorites of for art lovers around the world, always attracting huge numbers of visitors when their paintings or sculptures are exhibited. (*)
From art to economy
So, what can we learn from this if we want to change the economy of the 21st century? Is there a lesson that can be translated to current times? Of course, there is.
Drawing a parallel with 19th century art, our modern economy more and more could be characterized as an ‘academic’ economy: it does not really look at the whole it is part of, but instead favors a one-side view on the world, focusing on finance and not on nature and people. Therefore, many economic decisions are taken based on incomplete information, although the information nevertheless looks highly finished, just like academic art. It looks nice, but it doesn’t bring the full quality of nature and people to life. That’s why the current economy does not have an effective answer to the triple global crisis of climate change, nature loss and social inequality. A triple crisis that is rooted in an outdated, one-dimensional definition of economic success.
Changing this definition, however, is as challenging as changing the definition of beauty in the 1870s. Whereas in those days the definition of beauty was not updated to contemporary thinking by the ‘old-school’ Académie des Beaux-Arts, nowadays the definition of economic success is enshrined by similar old-school (if not pre-modern) economic institutions, both in the public and the private sector Institutions like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and Eurostat; as well as private sector institutions like the Global Accounting Alliance (GAA), the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC), the International Sustainability Standards Board (IFRS), and others. Of course, there are attempts to broaden the definition of economic success, also within these institutions. But change is slow. Too slow, when progress is assessed to combat the triple global crisis.
A home to redefine value
What the economy needs is an equivalent of the emergence of impressionism in the 19th century. Like then, the time for change is here. This time not with new inventions, like photography and paint tubes, but with growing evidence that climate change, nature loss and social inequity will be the drivers that make the economic system flip. It’s not the question if that will happen, but when and how. So, what lessons can we draw from the Impressionists?
First, we need courageous leaders. ‘Contemporary Monets and Morisots’, who will show us how the continuous flux of impacts and dependencies of human actions – like the continuous changes in light – can be captured in a convincing way. To provide us with a consistent window on the real world, as a guide towards wellbeing for all. There are good examples, like the (again) Paris-based luxury company Kering, who is one of the leaders in including all values in their decision-making processes on a global scale. Or the Central Bank of the Netherlands, that inspired fundamental change in financial regulation with a report on biodiversity and finance. Good examples that have shown the way and now need to be followed-up by other courageous leaders in business, finance, and government.
And second, it needs an equivalent to the studio of Nadar. It needs a place that publicly acknowledges that the time for change has come, and that success can no longer be grounded sustainably on financial capital only. It needs a ‘home’ to celebrate a modern definition as well as best practices of economic success that includes all relevant values.
As seen in the history of art, this second need really is a key one, as it will create the place where change can find place. Therefore, the new economy will only become a reality if there is a 21st century Félix Nadar, to offer his (or her!) ‘studio’ to provide an ‘exhibition space’ for the economic (re)valuation that the world needs.
This home will not just emerge overnight. And it will not immediately be embraced by everyone. Like in the 1870s it asks for vision, perseverance, and above all collaboration for change. This is what it will take, and what the Capitals Coalition and I will focus on the coming years. Because we need change. A change that also needs a home. A home to redefine value.
