The nature of childhood through history revealed in artworks?

Several authors have used artworks to interpret the nature of childhood in various historical periods. This contribution argues that artworks are of limited value in illuminating societies' attitudes towards children as well as the psychic realities and social experiences of children themselves. In particular, visual artworks suffer from ambivalent interpretation (both of subject matter and its expression) due to influences that are independent of its subject matter. Influences include: the vagaries of artistic developments, conventions, style, tastes, fashions, markets and patronage; physical factors such as the techniques, materials and technologies available, the division of labour, studio practices and the number of sittings available; the unpredictable nature of creativity; interpretations of viewers and 'adults'; and the capacity of artworks to change social reality. It is concluded that psychosocial inferences about history based on artworks alone involve a category mistake and that the use of art as evidence for the nature of childhood is largely a matter of risky inference.