The story of the rise of Keynesian economics is fascinating. From the late 19th century onwards, neoclassical economics theory dominated the mainstream discourse of macro and microeconomics. Under the assumption that humans are rationale and their decisions are rooted in efforts to maximize the utility of their purchasing power, neoclassical economics theory stressed the importance of microeconomics influence on macro level markets. Heavily reliant on mathematical models and statistics, neoclassical economics theory asserted that a free market and a focus on individualistic methodology offered reliable foundations by which to navigate and forecast maximum utility in a marketplace. Yet, neoclassical economists’ belief in the fixed behaviors of individuals desire to maximize profit in their daily life has felt increased scrutiny as the global economy has shown itself to be more
Continue reading to THE ARTICLE »
The creators of neoclassical economics differentiated from other schools of economics in their understanding of what determines the utility of a commodity in the market. At the height of the Industrial Revolution, the market place was understood in terms of classical economic theory. In his text The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith explained that the labour theory of value ruled that the value of a product was linked to the “the toil and trouble of acquiring it.” The value of an item was determined by the costs and effort invested in producing it. As the intensification of industrialization started settling down, a new breed of economists began to interpret what influenced value from a different perspective. Neoclassical economists started moving away from classical economists views of the market from the macro-level, and diverted more attention to the micro-level. For the creators of neoclassical economics, the most important determiner of utility of a product was not in any concrete value in and of itself, but value was mainly determined by consumer’s own perception.
Continue reading to THE ARTICLE »
One man, dressed in rags, sits stoically in his throne as a laurel wreath is gently placed atop his head by an otherworldly angel. Surrounding him is his audience; men and women varying in facial expressions, dress, and appearance. All these personalities are so dissimilar to one another, yet so familiar to us. There is Shakespeare! There is Virgil! There is Raphael Sanzio! The man in the centre turns out to be Homer, the ancient Greek epic poet. Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres’ depiction of historical and mythological figures in his painting, Apotheosis of Homer embodies the neoclassical movement that hit popular painting like a tidal wave from the mid-18th century to the early 19th century. Neoclassical art enjoyed popularity as a result of a backlash against the popular styles of the day which were viewed to represent the degeneracy of art. Ingres’ painting perfectly reflects the spirit of neoclassical painting: elements of the new meeting the glories of the past.
Continue reading to THE ARTICLE »
The movement of neoclassicism was elevated by rejecting the popular movements of its day. Throughout the art world (centered primarily in Europe), the popular movement of the early 18th century in artistry was the Rococo style – which itself had been born as an extension to the baroque movement. To subscribers of neoclassical paintings, the rococo style embodied everything that had become degenerate about the function and aesthetics of art itself. Much like the rococo style sought to remove itself from the baroque paintings that dealt with saints, religious iconography, and the divine by focusing on the affirmation and pleasures of this life, the neoclassical painters sought to remove itself from the aloof nature of rococo. In turn, the two main ingredients that created neoclassicism became nostalgia and the romantic sentiment of rejecting contemporary society’s evils.
Continue reading to THE ARTICLE »