1. Poetics
The first set of questions has to do with poetics, that is, with the relation between artworks and the circumstances of their production: What are the major principles of construction and composition of the work in question? What stylistic repertoires were at hand, what formal choices were common, what functions might those which were chosen fulfill? What kinds of (commercial, ideological, aesthetic) objectives were involved in the production? Who authored the work and under what economic, political and artistic conditions? And who can be supposed to be the public primarily targeted by it? The success of The Silesian Weavers can at least partially be explained by the timing of its creation and exhibition. HĂźbner completed the canvas in July 1844, immediately after the famous uprising of the weavers in the small Silesian towns of Peterswaldau and Langenbielau on June 3 and 4.7 But he had begun work on it earlier, in the course of a major fundraising campaign in support of the weavers in the Rhenish press in the spring of the same year. The large-format painting, which bears traces of romantic painting but can also be seen as an early example of nineteenth-century realism, attracted public attention in Cologne, Berlin, and other places where it was exhibited from July onwardsâunder the immediate impression of the June events, which were much discussed, although or precisely because there were few established facts about them. HĂźbner did not thematize the uprising itself, but his painting could be understood as illustrating its causes, and also as clearly taking sides in favor of the weavers. (The unsympathetically drawn factory owner was easily identified as the particularly exploitative textile merchant Ernst Friedrich Zwanziger, whose house and warehouse became the target of the first attack by the Peterswaldau weavers.)
HĂźbner was not a socialist, however, and his main target audience was the bourgeoisie in the Rhineland. Historian Christina von Hodenberg explicitly discusses his painting not as part of the socialist line of interpretation of the events but as part of its âbourgeois myth.â8 The immediate intention of The Silesian Weavers was a charitable one: As part of the above-mentioned campaign, it sought to motivate wealthy donors to aid the impoverished weavers, in which it apparently succeeded.9 Albeit clearly critical of the textile merchantâs cold-heartedness and his supposed greed, the main impression the painting sought to elicit was pity.
Questions of authorship, address, contexts of production, and their bearing on the worksâ form are important for the cinema of precarity, as well. In the conclusion of his Ghettos, Tramps, and Welfare Queens, Stephen Pimpare introduces the concept of the âpropertied gazeâ in order to explain the problematic biases in cinematic representations of the poor in twentieth-century Hollywood cinema. Pimpare proposes the term âpropertied gazeâ in analogy to Laura Mulveyâs famous feminist concept of the âmale gazeâ: âI want to argue that American movies have also had a propertied gazeâthe viewer is never assumed to be poor or homeless, and films are never meant for them, even when they are ostensibly about them.â10 As a reason for this bias, Pimpare states that poor people are much less likely to author cinematic works than they are to write books, for example, because of the high financial costs and organizational prerequisites involved in film production. Only in exceptional cases, therefore, are films about poverty informed by first-hand experiences.
Whether his diagnosis ought to be limited to twentieth-century Hollywood productionsâat some moments in his books, Pimpare introduces European films such as Major Barbara (Gabriel Pascal, 1941) and Entre les murs (The Class, Laurent Cantet, 2008) as more progressive alternativesâis an open question.11 What is certain, however, is that in the more recent cinema of precarity, the division between the depicted (the precarized) and those depicting them (directors, screen-writers, actors, cinematographers, etc.) is less clear-cut. There are two reasons for this: First, the means of film production have become more widely available. Access to cameras and editing devices is not limited to studios anymore. This allows for filmic self-represen...