these works are either representing nature, which has a long-standing history in the arts or they are painting mere abstractions from nature. the authors and curators of this collection fail to convince me that any of these latter artists were in direct contact with their contemporary environmental advocates, authors or their ideas. some pieces may show an empathy for the environment, but hardly have the scope nor vision to speculate and represent the extent of the contemporaneous issues.
angela miller, in her introduction to the catalog, does raised important issues and standards for the work to follow. miller marks the necessity to expand our visual perception to rival our environmental awareness and include ourselves in nature; thus taking more responsibility within a global ecosystem. she claims by looking each work of landscape painting, we can "chart the complexity of american environmental attitudes." i agree with her, but most likely in a different way. miller supposes these artists exhibit varying political opinions (complexity) of land use and humans' relationship to the land; i think they exhibit varying degrees of interest in environmental, ecological, and nature representation. i don't see the other side of the argument represented by any of these artists. there are none that sustain a voice toward approximating the extent of human's negative impact on the land in their own time, let alone ours. if our national character and pride of nature are truly interrelated, and it can be displayed through a selection of paintings throughout the past few centuries, then i would argue these selected works, viewed chronologically would prove that artists cared less about our relationship to the environment and human impact as we moved into modernism. this catalogued show did not even begin to assess late modernist or post-modern work that may begin to touch upon the issues rachel carson addresses in “silent spring.”
michael s. hogues "the cultural reputations of nature in american history, towards a geography of hope" argues that understanding our history and national charecter compels us to "interpret the connections between the altered states of the natural environment and its changing cultural reputations;" i see little evidence to say our current cultural reputation is defined by understanding these relationships, in fact, i think we understand them less and less. we no longer see our land as a source of promise not a powerful adversary to be subdued. our religious affiliations are eroding as a nation let alone their moral tendencies toward the land and natural systems.
i appreciate hogue's stance on early settler's political conquest over native americans to highlight it as a (re)settlement or (re)occupation of the land. it is unfortunate that the manifest destiny, manifest responsibility exhibition lacked representation from the native american artists.
hogue defines 3 types of wilderness "operating" simultaneously during the early american colonial period:
-the physical wilderness of the land
-the perceived spiritual wilderness of the native people
-the psychic wilderness of potential spiritual degradation within the colonial puritan mind.
as the settlers expanded, consumed and tamed the wild, the idea of wilderness as adversary succumbed to the dominance and control of agriculture and industrialism. the three types of wilderness were thus compromised, threatened and the wild remained predominantly as metaphor for the nations status, civic virtue, and "enlightened democracy." there were few artists that met these entrepreneurs head on; gifford's paintings and thoreau's writing displayed some sense of moral responsibility to the natural world, and shortly thereafter, some governmental protection laws were placed in effect, including yosemite, yellowstone, and gifford pinchot national forests; due more in part to throreau’s writings than gifford’s painting. these protected lands were evaluated and preserved not only for their natural condition, but also for human recreation and future resources; mutually exclusive agendas that would divide invested parties further into conservationist and preservationist camps.
hogues introduces aldo leapold, first and foremost as a wisconsin farmer-forester, and secondly as many consider to be the father of modern american environmentalism. leapold advocated for a "holistic land ethic" in an attempt to redefine the human-land relationship based on ecological consciousness. despite his efforts, this relationship hit a critical point and in the 1960s, rachel carson released "silent spring." carson defined new concerns for the natural world, questioned moral boundaries, and compelled many citizens to re-evaluate many agricultural and industrial practices, especially regarding pesticides and human health.
john brownlee's “manifest destiny/manifest responsibility. environmentalism and the art of the american landscape,” again reiterates some of the ideas put forth by hogues and argues american landscape paintings shifted from an anthropocentric to biocentric view; the cultural views and conception of nature is central to these works. brownlee further describes in more detail specific artists within these shifts, starting with the hudson river school: thomas cole, asher b. durand, frederic edwin church, john frederick kensett and alfred thompson bricher finishing with rachel carson, john marin and the southwest artists: george inness, and marsdon hartly.
brownlee suggests these works have potential in reframing our views of environment and environmentalism and suggests we asks when "in our visual history does bounty run over into destiny, and when does our destiny become our responsibility?"
he divides our visual history into the three supposed time periods starting with colonization; transitioning into a european-style agrarianism and industrialism via westward expansion, taming the wild, and eradicating the native stronghold; and into manifest responsibility through tourism, an influx of accompanying art and writing, and scientific observation.
brownlee also makes the point that the viewers perception of these works change over historic and geologic time; what we, or he in this case, perceive these works to signify may be different that what they did upon their creation; and without a clear indication by the artist, it may be guided by sentiments, and susceptible to misinterpretations and revisionist history. i don't actually think brownlee meant for the latter, yet i can't help but feel many of the works selected for this catalogue is victim to revisionism. looking through more of marin’s work affirms that he held little interest in the responsibility factor in this so-called equation. His work shows a fascination with contemporary life, modern society and architecture.
marin and other american impressionists' work were not abstracted to denote a distressed environment or ecological system, they were responses to the pace of modernity, the vision of a moving locomotive, and a distaste for neo-classicism borrowed from the french avant garde. The speed and lack of detail in impressionist work elevates its form and process over function, in which the act itself is the radical component and the work is a record. few impressionist works are for political advocacy, granted they may implement the viewer in the landscape differently and restrict a dominant relationship to the land, say via the viewer’s gaze, yet in a way, the process is seemingly more anthropocentric and less biocentric. the human impression of the land is elevated over a meticulous detailed account of mother nature’s design.
especially after reading brownlee, i am hoping that the still life drawings begin to engage more current issues and address our relationship with ecological structures as they stand in the 21st century. we seem to no longer encounter the sublime landscape; it has been conquered, documented and experienced through mediated forms and hardly experience the landscape through a personal connection, but rather associate with the land through images guiding that relationship and denote our experience. i am left questioning, how do any of these paintings imply a greater relationship between humans, animals, land, and the greater ecological structure over time?
cavemen seemed to have a greater appreciation and relationship to animals in their visual representations than the artists put forth by this collection; certainly the native americans did... where are the american indians in this retrospective??? from the examples offered, one artist, emil bisttram made work with reference to native american culture, and he just happened to be eastern european.
this exhibition catalogue seemed like a great opportunity to elevate a historically unpopular view, directly correlated to artists over the last century and a half, and give precedence and momentum to their ideas in our time. It seemed even more promising to research and champion artists calling for greater responsibility toward our current relationships to nature and fragile ecological systems.
